what's the smallest scale nuclear weapons can be effectively

>>31585626
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

Basically fat man from fallout.

not sure we can get much smaller. Critical mass and alll that...

A fission bomb gets its energy blast from reaching the critical mass of whatever radioactive shit is used in it.
The critical mass can be lowered using techniques like regular explosives getting the thing under high pressure, but it cannot be made THAT small anyhow.

>>31585674

what this anon said >>31585674

size is limited to critical mass for fission.

4th gen nuclear weapons could be be much smaller and range from very small yields to very high yields.

>>31585626
Nuclear mines exist. Once we can fuse a deuterium pellet with disposable optics, small scale laser activated fusion weapons can be made, but they'll be more like nuclear tannerite, because for any boom smaller than a MOAB or MOP, the laser will probably be too expensive to be disposable.

Smallest "conventional" (current tech) nuclear weapon practical is probably the Davy Crockett, we might be able to miniaturize the mechanics smaller, but that's probably the low end for yield.

>>31585626
it would be a slippery slope to launching full blown ICBM's

>>31585626
Limiting factors are mass required to reach critical (a 4" sphere of plutonium or about 3x that mass if uranium if you use a neutron reflector), shielding so you don't cook your troops, and a delivery device that gets it far enough from you to safely use.

>>31585626

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUgRi7cN1OA

>>31585626
>why haven't fission-based mines been developed
Because prevention of enemy maneuvers through Bumfuck County is not really worth all the risks of BURYING THERMONUCLEAR DEVICES ALL ACROSS THE BUMFUCK COUNTY WHERE NOBODY OVERSEES THEM AND ANY FAGGOT IS FREE TO DIG THEM UP AND GET HIS VERY OWN NUKE TO PLAY WITH.

>even used for anti-air
If air target was successfully spotted and a conventional LR AA missile gets a good lock on it, it's quite unlikely that it will get away. If it fail to do so, even a nuclear warhead will do little to help considering the speeds involved.

> anti-naval
Russians do have nuclear AShMs.

>could destroy a craft by the explosion's proximity alone
ALL the AA missiles work like that. An actual direct hit on a supersonic maneuvering target is borderline impossible, so in AA a "direct hit" is catching the target in the range of guaranteed fragments damage.

>>31585674

That wiki article bring up a good point that is going overlooked here. By making super small-yield nuclear weapons that are nearly man-portable, you have not only a security situation regarding the handling and accounting of such weapons, but you're practically guaranteeing their use on the battlefield and making nuclear deterrent impossible.

Handheld nuke launcher.

Goddamn the ruskies better have some in case the US invades.

>>31585626
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAVN_n0PljQ