SLAM: The craziest missile of all time
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- The Supersonic Low Altitude Missile or SLAM (not to be mistaken for the later AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile) was a nuclear-powered weapon with practically limitless range that could lob 16 hydrogen bombs at targets before using itself to engage one more. It was truly a weapon best left on the drawing board.
C-5 Galaxy launching ICBMs: • America really launche...
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
📱Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollingswrites
Facebook: / alexhollingswrites
There was also a U.S. program to develop nuclear-powered jet engines for use in aircraft. A massive test rig (about three stories tall) they used is on display at the EBR-1 Atomic Museum near Arco, Idaho. It's a long way from anywhere but you'll see stuff you never imagined existed.
Hehe, I bet it was done too
@@Dave-vy8wgNo cancelled due to extreme high cost and budget cuts.
Kenedi kilmi bum ameri gut covek jes ameri ju kilmi kenedi 😢❤
@@theselector2310 lmao sure just like the f117
@@Dave-vy8wg People didn't really like the idea of our nuclear powered aircraft crashing on the ground and creating an EPA super fund site. That was probably the major reason it was canceled. If you didn't build one then you could implore others not to build one either.
The legacy of project Pluto is that the guidance system for the SLAM was developed into that of another cruise missile people might be familiar with, the Tomahawk.
Yep! Just came to post that - TERCOM came out of the SLAM project.
Nice!
@@thedungeondelver well, that and the Pershing II guidance system.
The missile knows where it is at all times because it knows where it isn't.
Tacit Rainbow.
This is a comically destructive missile, quite literally a world ender to an absurd degree
M.A.D. was histories greatest dick measuring contest. America wanted to nuke the moon, Russia built an atom bomb so big it leveled a forest and 2000x the power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US made nuclear artillery, and Russia built military units designed to blitz through nuclear wasteland and take territory that had been bombed. A fitting name since M.A.D. was pants shittingly insane.
hilarous
This WAS a game ender- not a game changer!!
I first heard of Project Pluto from a story that Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine ran back in the 80's. They gave it the nickname "The Flying Crowbar". Simple, deadly and as durable as "a bucket of rocks". Even the engineers at the time were saying "do we REALLY want to build this f*****r??"
As a manager i would fire him regardless of his importance to the program, you must be all in on a project, how else can i be sure you given all you had to give for the project. Yes there could be a set back firing a good engineer, but good or not you cannot have negative energy near a program like that. So you can never be sure he withheld ideas that could lead to success. Call is sabotage by withholding ideas.
I loved reading A&SM through the 80's and 90's. I spent many a Sunday afternoon reading it cover to cover. It lost some of its magic in the mid 00's. Maybe that was just me getting older.
@@John-100 Dr. Strange love, I presume.
The USA also had hypersonic missles in the 60s. It was called the Sprint it was a Mach 10 nuclear warhead ABM.
Yea I laughed so hard on all of the media fear about the new "HYPERSONIC" MISSILES!!!! Though Russia is better in quality control than China, it is NOT that good. Quality control/equipment maintenance has been incredibly bad as proven over the years in Russia Land.
@@Dimythios Totally apples and oranges. It's the capabilities with the hypersonics that's the issue today. Previous designs like Sprint had very short ranges, no loiter or offensive capabilities. Plus ABM is a lot less useful than tactical hypersonic munitions.
@@otm646 ... The US Air Force was working on the Douglas GAM-87 Skybolt (AGM-48 under the 1962 Tri-service system) was an air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) developed during the late 1950s. The basic concept was to allow US strategic bombers to launch their weapons from well outside the range of Soviet defenses, as much as 1,000 miles (1,600 km) from their targets. To do this in an air-launched form, a lightweight thermonuclear warhead was needed. Initially, the W47 from the Polaris missile was selected, but it was later replaced by the W59 from the Minuteman missile. The idea being that B-52’s carrying 4 of these Mach 12 hypersonic missiles, would loiter outside of Soviet territory during a time of crisis ready to be used or recalled ... McNamara canceled it figuring subs armed with Polaris SLBMS was a better option!??
@@gags730 … Exactly, this is why the US is taking so long to develop hypersonic weapons, they’re trying to develop them for actually being of use in tactical combat use rather then only strategic use? But as you pointed out - the cost - one hypersonic weapon for $100 million vs the US bought 144 Tomahawk block IV for $200 million that can and have been used in military actions!
yeah i saw the video of it yt, like bruh it glow red just from friction with air 🤣🤣🤣 it reach mach 10 in 15 second from what i read. but I think the missile was designed for short range intercept against MRV. i bet my money on sr72 hypersonic bomber drone version, at mach 6 it can drop a tungsten rod glide penetrator and will destroy anything it hits. hypersonic missile? how about hypersonic attack bomber that can be re armed on air thank to x64 gremlin research.
MAD was what we got. I remember growing up about a mile from a SAC and a mile from a Boeing assembly plant. By the time I was 8 I had found out that my house was in the crater if we fought the Russians. At that point this formerly innocent child realized that he was not going to make it through a nuclear conflict. No matter what the newspaper said, personally I was going to lose that war.
One way they suggested testing the SLAM was to, seriously, tether it out in the desert and fly it in circles, like a giant wire-controlled model plane.
😂😂😂
Like a kid with a pet bee
One hell of a bee. lol
@amandahugankiss4110 After watching the video, I'm shocked they ever thought that was possible. It constantly poops radiation and has the highest decibel level and jetwash over pressure of anything, ever. And these mfs said, "Can we tie it to a string?"
@@TheProdigalCat that will kill everything you hold dear
I remember the Hound Dog missiles hanging under the wings of my father’s B-52.
You launch it from near shore, over the ocean. You don't start the reactor until it's a few miles out to sea. Then you enter soviet airspace from over the poles, or the Pacific. Still crazy, but not crazy because you irradiate your territory. It's a weapon only usable in the global nuclear war, so the incidental radiation it emits probably wouldn't be noticed when you consider the fallout that thousands of tens of nuclear weapons will cause.
He mentioned that the reactor was UNSHIELDED. So, even without producing 513 megaWatts, it would still emit a LOT of deadly radiation. Also to keep weight down, it's likely that the large number of heavy 'moderating rods' used in reactors to control the rate of fission would be kept to an absolute minimum in an airborne reactor. If true, then even at its lowest power state, it would still be running hot enough to require continual cooling via. passing large volumes of air, radiating the air as well.
@@gregparrott You don't have to launch all the systems you use on the ground. You could use a big water cooled lead plug that gets left on the launcher. And a reactor moving at mach 3 just doesn't give you a lot of exposure even if you are unfortunate enough to have to fly right over you.
It's certainly not a weapon you can use outside of a full-blown global nuclear war, but given the war will have blown up and set fire to every town with a population over say 500,000 in the entire northern hemisphere...
@@gregparrott Mind that this is thermonuclear war, I imagine there were going to be a lot of Nuclear reactors suddenly becoming "unshielded" and probably quite widely dispersed in the atmosphere very soon. The actual material/radiation output compared to that is practically miniscule for any given area. The em is less of an issue as long as its a ways up and a steel roof away. Have to think of the week/month after
@@k53847 Oh the reactor itself doesn't have that much time over you, but the fuel is in direct contact with the air it uses to propel itself, and bits of the fuel will also leave with it. This is bad and will irradiate huge areas under it, or also the ocean. It would almost not matter if the reactor uses plutonium as fuel, because plutonium is one of the most toxic chemicals known to humanity, so toxic that the most effective, by cost to effect ratio, way to use plutonium as a weapon would be to just poison water with it. The SLAM missile is a seriously bad idea, always has been, always will be, no amount of mental gymnastics along the lines of "you can use it, you only have to wait until the moon has started waxing and rotate your right pinky toe anticlockwise while standing in a fairy ring" changes that. That kind of inflexibility in its usability also makes it a bad weapon.
If thousands of nuclear weapons are used, then mankind is over
9:28 Can we all just stop and pay respects to the bravery and sacrifice
of the close in air support and monitoring preformed by these pigeons.
Amen
Did you notice that the flew before impact? Unless that missile was subsonic, pidgeons must have sensed that there was an impending impact without the senses known to us
@@JeanAlesiagain3 Ah yes, such exotic senses as... "sight."
Puh HA! Too funny. 😅
Ah yes, the flying crowbar
That is a nice expression. Well done.
@@superwout I actually stole it from a Wikipedia article about this missile lmao
Amazing work as always. One of my favorite channels on RUclips.
The history of nuclear weapons in 16 minutes. wow.
I learned so much from this video. Pluto = slam missile
And now I know what these quotes / expressions:
"going to the slammer," "thrown into the slammer," or "He did hard time in the slammer" all finally means.
Thank God, the third world war would be the last. Madmen's dreams. Greetings from Dr. Strangelove.
History of nuclear weapons in one sentence.
Build them, use two, fear them.
I think the Nike missile system was crazier because they planned to use nuclear missiles to shoot down incoming nukes so even if they shot them all down there would be fallout over the major cities they were protecting. The arcade game Missile Command was how it was supposed to operate like and the worst part is they actually deployed it.
Probably better than letting a city get hit by an enemy nuke.
Very high altitude nuclear explosions only produce tiny amounts of fallout and radioactive material is dispersed over a much greater area which acts to dilute it. The fact that high altitude nuclear explosions were conducted on multiple occasions as part of the 216 atmospheric/space/underwater nuclear tests conducted by the US before the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, but Pluto wasn't tested because it was considered to be too dangerous even then tells you that it was a much crazier weapon.
Air burst nukes are pretty clean the problem is the irradiated debris and particles, air burst doesn’t cause the massive dust cloud thus far less radiation. However a big problem would be the emp effect
There was briefly available for sale a plastic model kit. You can still find posters of some of the blueprints. I often think of putting such up for cube art where I work.
Right next to the Project Orion design proposals.
I like how you put in perspective the past leaders saw 2 world wars
Maybe i missed it in the video, but if all those extra rockets attached to the SLAM missile are just boosters to bring it up to speed. And with the actual missile being mostly hollow, as ramjets tend to be, where on earth did it store all these other "mini" nukes?
Watch more carefully there is a shot of the general blue print nose is sensors & guidance mid is 2 rows of 8 1 megaton h-bombs and aft is the propulsion plant, it is initially launched by several booster rockets.
It was a VERY LARGE missile, about the size of a locomotive.
That blueprint shot can be seen at 6:40. God that's an evil sumbitch.
Fun fact
The original nuclear bomb and the Fatman Nagasaki weapon weighed over 10,000 lbs and used about 14 lbs of plutonium, which was surrounded by explosive lenses and was the size of an aircraft piston engine. Less than 20 years later nuclear scientists figured out how to build a plutonium implosion weapon small enough for an artillery piece that while not light could be picked up by one burly soldier. By the 1970's Russia / USSR had developed plutonium implosion bombs that were housed in backpacks like the kind hikers use. A scientist from Los Alamos said they could build a bomb small enough to use as a hand grenade, but they'd need someone suicidal enough to throw it
Saw you on Twitter and I subscribed instantly. Great channel! THANK YOU!
It’s never a war crime the first time
NB-36 was also a test platform for a nuclear propulsion engine. Although, the method was different.
Subsonic, but a very similar concept. Use heat from the reactor to expand the air.
The NB36 just added a power turbine to drive a compressor. It's a jet engine without any fuel burning.
I would love to see the NB-36 project re-explored. Back then, they chose the massive Peace Maker due to it's size and lifting capacity since reactors and reactor shielding were so heavy in those days.
However, in the modern day, we have reactors that are much smaller and more efficient. And we've become more effective with our shielding. The issue is still pollution, but I do wonder how low we could get the negative effects compared to now.
@@Nurhaal the trick is to make some kind of casing that won't break and splatter the inside of the reactor all over the countryside in the event of a crash.
Or, conversely, a reactor design that wouldn't be dangerous if it did get scattered all over. I think a pebble-bed type would work.
@Scott Kenny it's gotta be harder than that I would think. We've had designs for reactors that are impossible to melt down due to using physics based mechanical design so that reactors will shut down even with no aux power, no pumps and no coolant flow. But things got immensely more complex when we are talking about a crash where the physical apparatus can fail and thus ruin such safety features.
Were you suggesting a pebble bed because such a design would easily scatter and thus keep any thermal run away from occurring after a crash?
@@Nurhaal yes, I believe the pebble bed is the best design available _assuming that the reactor vessel will break._
Given the level of destruction that a crashing aircraft goes through, I don't believe it's possible to make a reactor vessel that won't break apart.
I also want a passively safe reactor, though I'm not sure how well that will work in an aircraft, considering how much residual heat there is in the system.
As a side note, kerosene/diesel/jet fuel makes a wonderful radiation shield. US submarines have a huge fuel tank for the emergency diesel that's the entire width and height of the hull that is placed specifically for shielding (it fills with water from the bottom so there's always *something* in the tank)
Was looking at the video and thought sucks being those troops walking toward the mushroom cloud with no NBC gear. Wonder how many developed issues due to that. A lot of stupidity happened during the cold war. All i can say to those servicemen is thankyou for your service.
William Powell,John Wayne,Susan Hayward and others developed terminal cancer from filming in Utah ... "The Conqueror"
I do not care if 5 million humans were preserved by not invading Japan,still not worth our planet for all species.
Was a mistake.....Chernobyl--Fukushima-3Mile Island all sending Radio Dust all over that still kicking up today..
The Liquidators risked and suffered for nothing,Russia learned nothing..
How about standing at ground zero during a live nuclear-tipped air to air missile test ruclips.net/video/1VZ7FQHTaR4/видео.htmlsi=bL8EwqqqY-pSvlqW
Thanks man, that was a great one
The nuclear bombs of the 1940's pale in destructive energy to the hydrogen bombs in use today. The whole reason we worked on them is because it was decided that Atomic weapons (fisson only) were actually not feasible as a deterrent in any real sense since you'd require too many of them to do any real damage to an enemy.
Not really. The effectiveness of a bomb tends to drop off as its power increases. So it is much more efficient to use multiple smaller warheads than a big one unless you're targeting a major city. So your need lots of warheads no matter what maximum yield you can field.
@@BoraHorzaGobuchul yeah that's why the US started fielding MIRVs instead of hydrogen bombs. Much more efficient to hit Moscow with a handful of small warheads then 1 big one.
Bombs got really big in the 1950s but the US phased out most of its "city buster" warheads by the 1970s in favour of smaller, lighter, lower yield designs that could have multiple warheads per missile or be carried by fighter aircraft rather than just heavy bombers. When the B41 bomb was taken out of service (500 had been built), it reduced the combined yield of the deployed US deterrent by 12,500 megatons!
@@trolleriffic That's one thing I've used as an example in the past of how the US has technological superiority to the Soviets/Russians. The Soviets had more/larger nukes not because they were somehow more advanced and could build bigger nukes than us, but rather because the US developed longer range, more accurate weapons that didnt require as large a payload to take out the same target. As we're seeing now in Ukraine compared to the US in Desert Storm and the 2004 Iraq invasion the Russians have to level city blocks to take out a target whereas weapons like the Tomahawk can hit a specific room in a building a thousand miles away. I dont remember the exact numbers but in the 70s and 80s I remember hearing estimates that the Soviets would need something like a 50% larger total payload to take out the same targets, and that was back when we overestimated Soviet/Russian capabilities and the US weapons have only gotten more accurate since whereas the Russians are still using a lot of the same tech.
Kinda reminds me of the atomic hand grenade: The idea was dumped because nobody could possibly throw it far enough and survive.
I worked the Navy SLAM project in the 90's Standoff Land Attack Missile which was Basically a Harpoon with a TV Seeker head
The tac nuke cannon movie at 4:45 couldn’t be more quintessential.
So far I haven't seen anyone else wondering if this could have been launched from space using an orbital launch platform or some other type of spacecraft. By the time it entered the atmosphere it would already be going at a pretty good clip. If it was built now, I'm sure it would have a much better navigation and targeting system onboard.
I say just launch it from South Korea destroy North Korea flying thru china also and just blow up Russia in the process so your destroying 3 horrible counties in one hit
Considering its entire propulsion system literally relies on air to function, I kinda doubt it would work well in the vacuum of space lol!
If you are going to lift something like that to orbit. you might as well change your mind and lift something else. I think is was called THOR or maye THORS HAMMER. Essentially a Tungsten Steel telephone pole. All the damage of a nuke. Non of the radiation. Well, most of the nuke damage anyway.
@@EstorilEm You saw the word "space", stopped reading and immediately started -typing that message- shoving your foot into your mouth as possible, didn't'cha? lol!
But seriously, if you had indeed watched the entire video (paying attention, as well) *and* read the entire comment, you'd understand that what they said was very logical and reasonable -- at least insofar as to what _you_ thought makes it a nonstarter. Because no shit that it's an air breathing engine, but having it (or multiple) stored on an orbital platform, waiting for commands to deploy one (or multiple) which would likely have a small booster to get it on its way... it would now have the initial kickstart velocity, as well as gravity, to drive it into that much needed atmosphere, at the equally much needed extreme speeds required for the SCRAM Jet to function. (Something that would undoubtedly be done at high altitude anyhow, given there's less atmospheric drag but still sufficient oxygen.)
Exactly. Space would be the ideal launch point. Also the North or South pole.
After puberty, 13 or 14 years old. Grade 8 or 9 we used "the bomb will drop before I will" as excuse for vice. First smoke, first drink and hopefully that's all. We lived 15kn from Niagara Falls, we saw the documentary on Nukes and priorities. We were 20 seconds before being in shadow only, 20 sec blinded by the light. Seeing each other in xray for a nanosecond. It was a mantra from the 60's. We were cool in our burgeoning.
Why is this being described as insane? From a physics standpoint there's nothing to say it would work. If you're sending a nuclear warhead around the globe then sending in via a nuclear powered missile doesn't sound outrageous.
The issue is that the nuclear material has to be super hot. As in it spews out hunks of the fuel as it travels. The most destructive way to use a SLAM missle is to fly it back and forth over the target, littering it with nuclear fallout until you finally turn it into its target.
Meaning that your collateral damage to your own country and allies is MASSIVE. Not to mention that the particles could float hundreds of miles from the missiles path.
@@jonathanlunger2775 For certain there are down sides to the missile. The point of view from a late 50s to early 60s US standpoint is weapons with the reliability and range to reach the soviets were limited and the fear of a Soviet first strike was real. We would take one look at this today and say not a chance but from the perspective of the time it would be an option to at least consider.
The fact that is was nuclear powered, steerable like a cruise missile and could loiter long enough to circumnavigate the globe 4.5 times while dropping 17 nukes isn't insane? That makes you insane. Your statement is kinda insane...like really, really crazy.
@@wadopotato33 Well nuclear war is a little insane so building a nuclear powered nuclear delivery platform seams rational to me. If we start lobbing nuclear warheads at each other the radioactive exhaust from this missile would not be the top of my concerns.
@@RobertLutece909 I'm not advocating we build one. I'm just saying the late '50s and early '60s were a different time. We were still testing weapons above ground.
Who needs a big stick when you could Wield a tree trunk?
It would need receivers to detect radars in operation that was unaffected by the Gamma Rays.
With that range that's a lot of opportunities to find it especially if you can detect the radioactive crumbs it leaves. Trails turn into patterns that can be predicted?
Predicted? Not when it can turn all over the place for a very long time before impact:/ Leaving ABMs useless:/
I mean, given the range you could just have the missile fly in random circles around any target while irradiating the entire area, besides that a nuclear ramjet would most likely be hypersonic, so intercepting it wouldn't be very practical to begin with
You are making too many assumptions - Have you heard of a random number generator ?
You are forgetting intense neutron radiation FRIES ELECTRONICS
All sensors on tracking missiles would be fried
Did a pretty good job on this one Alex, I've done a lot of research on this and your are error free on this! A lot of articles I read in videos I watch have a lot of wrong information.
I haven't noticed if you've ever done anything about nuclear powered airplanes
If I remember correctly there's still some engines in Utah on display.
U.S.studied it, but never built it. Russia actually built at least 1 and launched it to spew radiation all over. I think the Russian weapon was crazier because they were insane enough to actually build and use one.
95% of global cancer hike is from irresponsible Use,testing, accidents up until now.
Actually they tried recently. It blew up on the testbed.
The fact that Coors beer made the ceramic internal parts is a great Easter egg 😂😂
Dude for a RUclips video. This is so information, and so well done. Hats off to you sir 👍🏼
The US had a 4 year window to deal with Russia when it had nukes and Russia didn’t. Here we are 80 years later still locked in a conflict that could have been ended in a matter of weeks. The kicker is, it had just seen how quickly Japan surrendered.
Doomsday weapons are always interesting, if terrifying... Could you cover other such systems Poisiden, Dead Hand, a potential cobalt bomb (which is way more 'doomsday' than other system: irradiating the entire planet for decades... Yikes.)
Some of that footage is used for a Remy Zero song " Impossibility". My Uncle worked for Coors geochemistry.
Hypersponic is proabably the most overblown tech since the cavitating torpedo. Please do not compare them with Atomic Weapons.
Very informative, thanks for sharing 💪🏾💪🏾💪🏾
All ICBMS are hypersonic they have speeds of up to mach 25 at reentry. The thing that makes the new hypersonics so dangerous is maneuverability while at hypersonic speed to evade air defense systems.
What really will blow your mind is what they are doing now and how destructive the systems that they have now. The rail gun is a crazy gun that doesn't use any explosives at all and can cause some big time damage just with canetic energy. I think that one of the new tri hule ships has one of the guns on it now. The last time I heard they were trying to get the rail gun to fire over the horizon accurately and they were close to doing it a few years ago. But it doesn't have the same kind of power that this missile had.
Bro I remember watching a thing on the rail gun where they hit a target dead center from dozens of miles away. They don’t have explosives but they’re super expensive and hard to maintain. Apparently they break after a couple shots. But I’m sure they aren’t keeping us in the know about it’s actual capabilities.
You think that’s crazy bro have ya seen the navy’s new patton list?!?!?
Compared to nuclear weapons, rail guns are pea shooters. They're impressive in their own right but totally different league to the really destructive stuff. The recently cancelled US Navy railgun project had a 32 megajoules muzzle energy - compare that to the smallest US nuclear weapon ever deployed, the W54 which produced 42,000 megajoules in its lowest yield setting and 4,200,000 megajoules in its highest.
"Come on and SLAM! Welcome to the jam!" 🎶
How creative man is when it comes to destruction
The military leaders at the start of the nuclear arms race, like General Curtis LeMay came from a World War where even atomic bombs were not as deadly as the fire bomb raids over populated areas like Tokyo. If a raid that killed 10,000 was "good", wouldn't a raid that killed 30,000 or 100,000 people in a "militarily significant area" be better? And there was always something militarily significant to be bombed. And why take so many planes, air crew, maintenance and logistics assets to drop thousands of fire bombs (incendiary bomblets) when one big nuke would work as well. Just have to make sure your nuke is bigger than their nuke, and some of your nukes survive their first strike (because you would "never" strike first, right?) to be able to nuke them 'til they glowed. So bigger is better, more is never enough, and fastest of all is way too slow.
And with an attitude like that the world is doomed to nuclear armageddon....... MUTUAL assured destruction remember, not one side winning, both sides DEAD. Comprehend what it really means when the fight your talking about, are quite literally THOUSANDS of nuclear bombs being dropped, its game over for most life mate, there are no winners......... There is no bombing anything until it glows, you do that you kill yourself, its mutual death......Its incredibly ignorant to ignore the fact its mutual assured destruction and it doesnt even take that many, hundreds not thousands, and in a full blown war, its thousands that will get launched......We are all truly FUCKED if that happens.........We will ALL be glowing...
@@Piddlefoots ... This is why MAD worked. The memory of the victories in WWII faded and were replaced by growing awareness of the incredible toll. The military commanders like LeMay, who was Goldwater's VP choice in 1964 began to retire and be replaced by the majors, captains, and lieutenants who were on the WWII front lines. Coupled with the disaster of the Vietnam War every night on the evening news, the true impact of nuclear war hit home.
While the military-minded people who always assumed there would be no reaction continued to talk of tactical nukes, atomic artillery, and dirty bombs the leaders in the US and USSR realized there would be no winners, and nuclear arms reduction talks began.
For great movies about the Cold War see
"Dr Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb" (1964),
"Fail-Safe" (1964), and "WarGames" (1983)
For a more intense view, read the book "Fail-Safe"
Thank you for being both informative and entertaining.
What an excellent acronym for a weapon 😊
We should’ve listened to general Patton! Never should’ve allowed the soviets to progress to nuclear tech. The US had a narrow window/opportunity to conquer the world and have a global empire.
Imagine a bigass missile with the Coors logo on the side dropping hydrogen bombs all over.
When even the MIC thinks you've gone too far:
What an insane weapon.
I disagree. It was a beautiful application of scientific know-how. If we had no panicked, we would've have by now NUCLEAR-POWERED SPACE SHIPS.
@@amauryll I agree with the possible use of nuclear technology for the betterment of humanity but as a weapon of mass destruction it's quite M.A.D..... har har. I made a funny. Death and destruction of whole continents is cool in theory but in practice it's quite sad. Inversely modern societies have an exaggerating fear nuclear fission plants. aThe whole duck, cover, and kiss you but good bye mantra was drilled in the American subconscious a bit too well a half century ago.
I cannot believe we've made it through all of the years without this weapon..
Thanks again🇺🇸
for those of you who don't know Pluto is the roman equivalnet of Hades , aka the god of the underworld. Fitting name for one hell of a beast.
I watched this on the toilet and fell asleep. Now I gotta figure out the last thing I remember
15:22 beautifully said
Fascinating piece! Well done to the creators!
Please, with deepest respect to the excellent research put into this video and the equally good footage, try to avoid terms like "craziest" missile, and "insane" design. The depth of investigation that went into this video deserves more than the near-illirerate hyperbole that's normally used by much younger, less informed people. It's a serious subject, albeit fascinating, and your coverage is way too good to downgrade it at the outset. Cheers!!
It is about the craziest missile and most insane design. I would call that accurate and not at all hyperbolic. I think your idea is insane.
The B-1s just had their bomb bay modified to carry hypersonic missiles.
Skip to minute 5 ! Thats when he finally talks about the rocket! You can thank me later!😉
Fascinating topic. Great vid
SICK! OMG!!! I had the best sick-o laugh of all time!!! Thanks Alex! @SandboxxApp
How BIG such a contraption would need to be?!
Dennys breakfast slam is insane
I thought that the Sprint was pretty darned cool. But this was pure insanity.
I agree!
But if the rocket drops rockets/bombs along its way wouldn’t that be counted as a clusterbomb?
Excellent stuff bro
Sounds really good not as a weapon but for space flights.
Not when you account for eventual accidents.
FYI the first Nuclear powered submarine by the US what is the USS Nautilis commissioned in 1954
Great article. You never fail to impress me. Thank you.
US from Hypersonic missile to just super or transsonic missiles in current day
Flies around, turns everything in its path to kindling, and then sets the kindling on fire (while irradiating that path.)
Does one *need* warheads with such a creature?
Right? In 2019 when I first heard what Russia was doing, I was thinking “that's brilliant! It doesn't even need a warhead!”
Having it a carry bunch of thermonuclear bombs to throw at the enemy gives it that extra helping of "Fuck You!".
Good info, could do without the editorial bias.
The fact they named the damn thing pluto, also known as hades says enough really. The Lord of the underworld, because all that will be left after it does its work is the dead.
Real scary stuff! Almost unimaginable! But I bet we still have it somewhere just sitting just in case! That in and of itself is frightening!
The original Planet of the Apes. At the end before the Simians (The apes) could take over the left over humans chose to detonate their DOOMSDAY VINDICATOR SAMSOM OPTION.
Plot twist; it's flying around right now contaminating the earth
The whole project was cancelled and the hardware was scrapped. You don't build something like that and keep it around - the only tech which came out of it was the high temperature ceramics and the guidance system which was developed into TERCOM as used by Tomahawk cruise missiles.
I swear this man sounds exactly like Danny Bonaduce from the Partridge family.
9:28 'PIDGEONS' LMAO
Man kind has a beautiful world and free will and instead of taking that gift and together learning to to become the best versions of ourselves we build weapons and think up as many ways to kill each other as we can! Pretty unbelievable when you think about it 🤔
Liked the video, like your work. But this one would have hugely benefited if you'd run the old archival footage through a modern image stabilizing filter.
I can’t believe people tried to create this.
I love the term Cold War Kool-Aid
Opening explosion looked just like Beruit.
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up as a support
God, what a terrifying concept! Thank god it never made it into service.
The US had a viable launching spot for the SLAM that would have limited nearly all the radiation to the USSR. The northern tip of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands
It feels like my country has a wish list of doomsday for a supervillain invented and shelved because they were dangerous to even test.
Just because you CAN do something that doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. The US in the Open Testing days were like big kids playing with firecrackers. Even SLAM looked insane though, so after unknown millions of $ the plan was put down.
My secret weapon is my cat....
If i tell her to attack,she will.. TRUE FACT
They forgot to mention that it would plan Slam by Onyx while in flight
Bodies, bags, widows and flags.
Jesus this thing is scary.
Love this stuff, just saw a ramjet artillery shell. Forgotten tech imagined in 1920's. Testing for scale models for actual rocket or missile, Russia overlooked, this modern representation is more accurate, faster and 150km range. Maybe miles per hour, it is American.
You have to consider that 500 Mega watts is close to a million horsepower !
What were these engineers smoking when they came up with this insane thing
This technology could still be perfected.
The forward march of nuclear power will most likely not be stopped.
For states with smaller economies to the US, possession of nuclear-powered hypersonic missiles similar to the SLAM missile is more cost-effective than having a nuclear triad.
Pluto was far more difficult to build than a regular ballistic missile.
This is Dr Strangelove levels of madness!
The Russian pre-emptive attack might have actually caused less damage to the planet as a whole than a couple of these missiles!
What happened to the nuclear cruise missile "Pluto" ?? Was it to fly around lobbing nuclear bombs? Thanks