“But I’m severely allergic to nuclear blasts”
For good reason, no anti-histamine is gonna help with a nuke.
Maybe SPF – 3 billion, aka a Lead-lined fallout bunker.
I see Lisa has managed to get from the wing to the hatch opening. Does her belly-button double as a suction cup?
That is … oddly erotic. BONK!
When it comes to a nuke? SQUEAK SQUEAK!!!!
Follow that missile? That missile likely goes way, way faster than the airplane can go.
To pick an arbitrary one at random, the (US) “AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile” has a max speed of 855 km/h (530 mph, 0.698 Mach). So commercial airliner speed.
Yeah, I’ve read up a little about missile tech and where it might go in the future, and basically the problem is higher speeds are out due to Earth’s atmosphere, and going higher is out because we already have ballistic missiles that do that and they’re pretty easy to spot coming, and they also have to slow down after entering the atmosphere again nearing the target, which makes them easy targets. So the only remaining alternative is low and (relatively) slow.
Absolutely. Even commercial aircraft cruise at high altitude, where the air is thinner.
The USP of cruise missiles is that they hug the terrain, making them invisible to radar (due to background clutter). But low = dense air = slow speed.
If I may:
Low and slow would be effective against unexpecting targets. A high profile international meet such as this would have air or space-based radar surveiling the area- on top of other technologies that may or may not be varied levels of classified at the moment. Unless the missile has radar-scattering tech and can mask its heat signature (which I assume will become feasible in the near future) it wouldn’t be able to get through.
The orbital strike would be the better alternative, though due to a well-crafted narrative (thank you for this webcomic Steven) it seems out of the question at present.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *