Micro-Nukes

The Davy Crockett's yield was .018 kt in a 50 lbs warhead.

>>33595605
thats low, I think thats regular bomb territory

Maybe it could be use for the psychological effect, melting your enemies on a small radius

I would like to have a private island in the middle of nowhere and nuke it for fun

>>33595515

nukes will not fit in a bullet anon, anti matter on the other hand...

bullets however will be dangerous as fuck if the magnetic field in them fails

>>33595515
>I don't understand critical mass
The post.

>>33595621
>.018 kt
>low
Not really, that's actually a big badaboom, with high heat, blast, radiations and all.

>>33595856
Then perhaps you could explain it, and what the minimum practical size for nuclear weapons.

>>33596059
>om nom nom, feed me
The post

>>33595635
hahahah

those game are just getting too big, anti matter rounds should be able to do it

>>33596003
>badabing

18 thousand kilos of TNT

like half of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIQr62lZbsM

still pretty overkill for a "small" target

File: grable.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>33595515
>is there any practical utility to the idea?
Not really, its a heck of a lot of money for admittedly, a big bang. Case of a lot of eggs in one basket, if it breaks, gets lost or becomes a dud, then you're shit out of luck when that money could have been better spent on say, having shits loads of artillery and AA which is relatively hard to go wrong with.

Strategic land or sea nuclear mines in certain areas have some valid uses in static defence, but they tend to be much larger

File: The-Robin-Olds-finger.jpg (2MB, 2400x1998px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2400x1998px

>>33595621
>18 tons TNT equivalent in 50lbs of bomb
>regular bomb territory
no

>>33595635
a anti-matter container of the size of a bullet also would bankrupt any army, due to the cost of both bullet and containment.

>>33596067
>haha look at all these people who are dumber than me haha I'm the fucking best
Why are you here

I believe current warheads are as small as they can be reasonably made, reducing weight and size means you can fit more of them in a MIRV, and at the extreme end of the scale is the davy crockett/SADM which are however not thermonuclear

>>33596246
What's so irregular about two GBU-43/B or half a FOAB worth of yield? I don't think that anon meant regular as in "regular 250 kg GP bomb".

>>33595515
why do they put weed in bombs

>>33595515

Nukes on a suitcase, like the ones used on WTC

>>33596479
One fired by a fucking rocket launcher.

>>33596399
>Why are you here

To laugh at dumb fucksticks like you. Go look up critical mass. We're not your personal dictionary.

W48 was a 155mm nuclear artillery shell. Yield was around 70 tons if i remember correctly.

>>33596604
We're talking specifically about yield, not means of delivery. There are nuclear artillery shells and mortar rounds, there's nothing special about using a rocket launcher either, except for it being ineffective. A more interesting idea would have been using some large calibre MRLS system like BM-30 Smerch to launch a volley of small nukes to create an effect similar to that of MIRV on ICBM.

>>33596619
You contribute nothing to society

>>33596619
I don't think you actually know what critical mass is. It has nothing to do with mass.

File: magnox.jpg (208KB, 750x450px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 750x450px

>>33596399

>fissile atoms "split" if hit by a neutron which releases energy as well as one or more neutrons which can hit other fissile atoms and split them
>fissile uranium and plutonium occasionally spontaneously fission
>therefore if you pile enough Pu-239 in one place then there will be enough neutrons twanging about to sustain constant fission "criticality"
>or a runaway fission that keeps increasing wheat on a chessboard style "supercriticality"
>critical mass is the lowest mass where criticality can sustain
>tampers(which reflect neutrons) and moderators(which slow them down) can be used to reduce critical mass

I realise you are in middle school and probably haven't done a nuclear unit in Chem/Physics yet but why would try talking about nuclear weapons somewhere as angry and bitter as 4chan if you don't know the most basic retard level concepts in fission?

File: T-12-USORDMUS.jpg (221KB, 480x1104px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 480x1104px

>>33596753

BUT IT HAS THE WORD MASS IN ITS NAME REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>33596738

I like the way you think

>>33596067
>I'm going to act like I know something and then refuse to explain myself.

You do realise this means you probably never had any idea what you were talking about, right? You should follow your own advice and educate yourself.

>>33596374

Not to mention the kinetic energy would probably level half the planet

>>33596819
>0.0036 kilograms of antimatter contains 0.154656 megatons of destructive force.
http://www.edwardmuller.com/index.php?Page=calculator
Not even close, more like a small MIRV warhead.

>>33596740
Your booty blastedness gives me great pleasure.

>>33596753
>I don't think you actually know what critical mass is. It has nothing to do with mass.

Maximum lal

>>33596787
>>I'm going to act like I know something and then refuse to explain myself.
>You do realise this means you probably never had any idea what you were talking about, right? You should follow your own advice and educate yourself.

>I have no argument but I'm still anus angry.

>>33596899
Not him, but do you understand critical mass? It's not a mass, more of a concept, for a given mass of fissile material you can have multiple critical masses depending on the configuration

>>33596769
Anything above critical is supercritical. So your average commercial reactor will be supercritical while running.

The point were it goes nuke on you is called prompt criticality, and prompt supercritical is then a thing as well since you probably want some margins in your bomb.

>>33596819
Anti-matter doesn't have any special properties in regards to kinetic energy, E=mvv/2 applies as always.

>>33596951
>Not him, but do you understand critical mass? It's not a mass, more of a concept, for a given mass of fissile material you can have multiple critical masses depending on the configuration

Which part of my 3 posts makes you think I don't understand critical mass?

what if you just force-fed someone like a dozen of those glow in the dark star stickers

>>33595621

>18 tons of TNT
>regular bomb

>>33596999
Yeah, what are you? Some sort of pussy?

>>33596998
this

File: Hardtack_II_Socorro_test.jpg (20KB, 440x470px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 440x470px

>>33596059
Around the size of the W54, basically

You might be able to induce supercriticality with some theoretical implosion method like metallic hydrogen explosives or some kind of EM pinch, but at that point you might as well just make a pure-fusion warhead.

It's partially about the minimum amount of fissile material necessary for conventional fission, but the main problem is getting it to go critical. Today we used things like explosive lenses and, in Tellar-Ulam designs, other nukes to crush the reactant atoms together. Those tend to be bulky and heavy, thus limiting the absolute size of a nuke to 10-20 kilograms

>>33596819
>>33596878
>>33596957
ok, and if we accelerate that anti-matter bullet to 1/3 of the speed of light?
just kidding, please dont do the math

>>33595515
>what is the smaller 2 stage H bomb that can be made?
About 300 pounds, AFAIK.
>>33595605
Not an H-bomb

File: Nuke50.jpg (80KB, 500x634px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x634px

>>33595515

>>33596573
You crazy guy...heres a you.

>>33596738
Thats not really what MIRV does but I get your point.

Only worry with Nuclear MLRS is that the first detonation can fry the firing controls of the others.

>>33595515
What is critical mass for 500.

>>33596479
>FOAB
We only talk about real weapons here.