Not necessarily. A ballistic missile would likely be detected by the
early warning system of
Russia assuming it still works whereas the cruise missile exhaust is
nowhere near hot enough or
large enough to register. Unless their air defense picks it up
1st...wasn't there a stealthy cruise
missile in the pipeline but it got shelved in the 90's...we might have
a few laying around though.

Defending against cruise missiles isn't easy, but it's far easier than
defending against SLBMs. Plus, the warning time to the enemy is longer.
cruis
ust?arly 90's
r a
You mean like the Orion spaceship? ISTR that this wouldn't work inside
the atmosphere, BICBW. Besides, that radioactive engine better kick
quite a bit away from the launch platform, or the crew of said platform.
might be a tad bit disinclined to push the button (remember the Davy reactor
Crocket

No, what makes nuclear rockets great is that they have a far higher
specific impulse from
their thrust their chemical rockets do. Some designs upwards of twice
as efficient. You would expel
some sort of superheated hydrogen as thrust thats run through the
reactor. Problem is do you use a closed or open
loop design. Closed means the radioactivity is contained in the engine
but its far more complex to design
whereas open just spews out the nasty stuff. They did quite of bit of
testing of them back in the 60's out in the desert but
they were all stand tests, none flew.

\

Juergen Nieveler
--i
Answers: $1, Short: $5, Correct: $25, dumb looks are still free.