Russia was testing a nuclear powered rocket.

[doc03]

Do we have such a weapon?

[California_Republic]

1. Do we want such a weapon?

[doc03]

5. So far it sounds more dangerous to Russia

than anyone else.

[California_Republic]

7. "SSC-X-9 Skyfall"

[Dem2]

2. Rachel said last night that the US abandoned the idea back in the 1950's

As far too dangerous. Russia seems to have learned the lesson the hard way.

Below poster says 60's, they may be correct.

[dumbcat]

3. Would I tell you if we did?

If I knew?

[Eugene]

6. Trump tweeted that the U.S. has such a missile. Of course, that isn't true.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

The United States is learning much from the failed missile explosion in Russia. We have similar, though more advanced, technology. The Russian “Skyfall” explosion has people worried about the air around the facility, and far beyond. Not good!
5:26 PM · Aug 12, 2019

Link to tweet

Why the U.S. Abandoned Nuclear-Powered Missiles More Than 50 Years Ago

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a28690053/russia-nuclear-powered-missile-skyfall/

[Eliot Rosewater]

8. He is a blithering buffoon, has no clue what we have and dont have

[dumbcat]

17. To be accurate, he said we have similar technology

not a missile. And it was a while ago.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

4. Project Pluto

We started development of one back in the 1960s. It didn't go anywhere beyond engine testing.

[CentralMass]

9. Right, what could possibly go wrong

?

[Blue_true]

12. Voyager I and II have nuclear propulsion.

Although I am unsure whether it was used while they were in our solar system (if I remember, they also had solar panels). The nuclear power source was to take them through interstellar space, until it ran out.

[roamer65]

14. They were nuclear powered, but not nuclear propelled.

Each one has a RTG. Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator.

I believe they are still functioning. NASA has shutoff unneeded equipment on them in order to preserve power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHW-RTG

[Blue_true]

16. Thanks. nt

[uponit7771]

10. No, don't need it either ... doesn't give a strategic advantage beyond it's danger to everything

[Blue_true]

11. We have done it with space craft, decades ago.

Voyager I and II have nuclear power sources that now have them in interstellar space.

[Recursion]

13. We built a nuclear powered bomber but never ran it on the reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H

Seems like a kind of silly idea, in retrospect

[ProudLib72]

15. We need a weapon that can split the Earth in two

That'll show 'em!