What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by Werner » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:53 pm

Heavy? X-Rays?

The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short-lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloys used in steel armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours. If a tank exposed to a 1 kt neutron bomb at 690 m (the effective range for immediate crew incapacitation) is immediately occupied by a new crew, they will receive a lethal dose of radiation within 24 hours.

One significant drawback of the weapon is that not all targeted troops will die or be incapacitated immediately. After a brief bout of nausea, many of those hit with about 5-50 Sv of radiation will experience a temporary recovery (the latent or "walking ghost phase") lasting days to weeks.

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by Seasick » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:44 pm

BTW, what ever became of the "Neutron Bomb"? The last I heard (years and years ago), was a generalization that "it kills without destroying", theoretically an improvement over wasteful demolition � l� Hiroshima, for example.

The heavy X-rays and Microwaves emitted by the bomb are bad enough to render the "undestroyed" area uninhabitable for the same length of time as a regular nuke or only twice the price. There is no clear advantage in having it.

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by Werner » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:28 pm

Enhanced Radiation Weapon. The USA's last weapon was dismantled in 2003, although China and France possess them, and France is the only country known to have tested them.

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by RNfanDan » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:11 pm

BTW, what ever became of the "Neutron Bomb"? The last I heard (years and years ago), was a generalization that "it kills without destroying", theoretically an improvement over wasteful demolition � l� Hiroshima, for example.

Haven't seen the term used in a long time, tho....

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by Seasick » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:02 pm

Mini nukes are a security threat no matter how well protected. That was the opinion of the Reagan administration. They scrapped all the mini nukes in the arsenal and didn't replace them. Without a loon like Rumsfeld or McNamera at DoD I doubt that any more will be built.

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by JWintjes » Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:47 am

chuck wrote: So Jorit, which do you think would be the means by which the world would be ended? A nuclear escalation started by careless use of mico-nukes, or an agreement between the two of us that sunders all known laws of nature? :big_grin:

Welcome back.
Uh, probably both - wait, it has already started...... :faint:

:big_grin:

Jorit

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by chuck » Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:18 am

JWintjes wrote:Back from the woods and one of the first things I have to do is agree with Chuck - scary indeed... :big_grin:

Jorit

So Jorit, which do you think would be the means by which the world would be ended? A nuclear escalation started by careless use of mico-nukes, or an agreement between the two of us that sunders all known laws of nature? :big_grin:

Welcome back.

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by JWintjes » Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:26 pm

Back from the woods and one of the first things I have to do is agree with Chuck - scary indeed... :big_grin:

I find the operational implications of such weapons highly problematical. They not only lower the threshold for the employment of higher-yield weapons, one also wonders whether they are tactical or strategic, so to speak, assets. If the former, which level in the chain of command can authorize their employment? If the latter, is then the attack on such a weapon comparable to an attack on any other strategic asset - would hitting a SPG loaded with suitable shells be the same as taking out a boomer? In short, apart from the really interesting engineering question I seriously doubt the reasoning behind micronukes.

Jorit

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by richter111 » Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:05 pm

Welcome aboard!

We have several Ukrainian, Russian and a Belarus or two I believe on board! Everyone is welcome..

(Except for Marty, but thats a whole different story! :crazy: )

Ric

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by akojanov » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:28 pm

chuck wrote:There are some information that Russians will equip some of their ICBMs with micro (in yield, not size) nukes with yield of equivalent to 50 tons of TNT. The idea was to allow the weapon to make a pinpoint strike with enough power to ensure target destruction, but still be weak enough so it can be said to be almost quasi-conventional and thus not provoke responses commensurate with a full nuclear strike. This raise the issue of what is the smallest practical yield for a nuclear weapon? The fact the nuclear weapons all require some sort of critical mass to initiate fission at early stage means there must be some minimum engineering limit to the power of a nuclear weapons. what is it? I use to think it was close to 1 kiloton, not 50 tons.
Hello!

I'm from Russia, Moscow :wave_1: . On military forums in Russia discussing this question. The common words: we (and you, of course!) have ways to produce the 7,62 mm nuclear bullet with 1k TNT eq, but price and another reasons (env. temp., storage precautions, fire speed, etc) make this project not real. If You interesting this - try search any information about Californium.

WBR, Alex Kojanov

PS. Sorry my English...

PPS. Russians come :smallsmile: , is not?

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by Seasick » Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:07 am

Small nukes like this are a waste. Figuaring out a new form of high explosive and building it would undoubtly cost only a fraction.

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by Werner » Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:09 pm

That would be a very uncertain and way of doing it, probably leading to random results. The easiest way is to use subcritical assemblies and moderate the explosion by varying the quality of neutron reflectors or the amount of fissile fuel.

If the whole warhead, fully equipped, weighs 70 pounds, the amount of fissile material must be under 10 pounds.

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by chuck » Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:17 pm

I wonder if the extremely low yield weapons achieved their small yield by intentionally mistiming their detonation sequence, and thus intentionally achieving a fizzled explosion in a manner similar to the unintended North Korean test dud from 2006. The NK test registered only 250 tons according to some sources.

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by chuck » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:18 pm

0.18 Kilotons is still 180 tons, not 18 tons.

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by Werner » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:10 pm

chuck wrote:
Werner wrote:...Davy Crockett gun's 51 pound W-54, which was rated at 0.18Kt, or 18 tons ...
0.18Kt is 180 tons.
I quoted the article at Globalsecurity. Wikipedia lists the W-54 as having different marks with yields from 10 tons to 250 tons (as fit to the Falcon AAM).
Image

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by chuck » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:00 pm

Werner wrote:...Davy Crockett gun's 51 pound W-54, which was rated at 0.18Kt, or 18 tons ...
0.18Kt is 180 tons.

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by Walt » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:57 am

We carried MK 45 Torpedos with Astor loads (Low Yield Tach Nuke warhead) in late 60s and early 70s.. I understand that these were removed in late 70s and were given conventional warheads. Back then there were several different (Tactical Nuke Weapons) in the US inventory. I believe the SALT II agreements eliminated many of them.

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by Dave Wooley » Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:52 am

What ever size of yield the by product of such a device will be radiation and fall out . The question should be by how much and how far. So in theory there is no such thing as a weak nuclear weapon
Dave Wooley

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by Werner » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:03 am

It is my understanding that subkiloton warheads have existed for some time. There were exotic devices on the table at the end of the Reagan Administration which could be used as land mines or torpedo warheads, with the bulk of the explosive force "directional" away from the projector (how this is accomplished is beyond my understanding).

In 1992, Secretary Cohen testified about subkiloton nuclear explosions used for underground testing of communications equipment, but there is no indication of how this was accomplished.

The man-portable Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) is supposed to be in the subkiloton range, as was the Davy Crockett gun's 51 pound W-54, which was rated at 0.18Kt, or 18 tons (discounting radiation effect).
Image

Re: What is the weakest possible full nuclear weapon?

by chuck » Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:46 am

In any case, the availability to 50 ton yield nuclear weapons is scary. By creating types of nuclear weapon that are attractive to use in situations where previously no nuclear weapon usage would have been contemplated, it increases the slipperiness of any war involving nuclear armed powers, and increases the likelihood that hostility situation will get out of hand and trigger usages of much larger nuclear weapons.

Top