Smallest possible nuclear weapon

[buka001]

What is the smallest possible nuclear weapon that can be practically built. Considering critical mass, and the related technology (i.e. neutron gun etc).

What kind of yield would one expect from this.

Want to try and confront troother claims about mini nukes etc.

 

[gumboot]

I believe the smallest nuclear weapon ever produced is the Mk-54 SADM with a 23kg warhead and a 1 Kiloton yield. It was designed as a backpack.

-Gumboot

 

[Spins]

The smallest nuclear weapon developed by the US was the Davy Crockett (a variant of the one posted above by Gumboot) artillery warhead. It had a yield of 10 to 20 tons or 0.01 to 0.02 kiloton, as a comparison the OKC bomb had a yield of about 0.002 kiloton. The Davy Crockett was very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead.

 

[westprog]

What is the smallest possible nuclear weapon that can be practically built. Considering critical mass, and the related technology (i.e. neutron gun etc).

What kind of yield would one expect from this.

Want to try and confront troother claims about mini nukes etc.

I assume that this means a device that can cause nuclear fission/fusion. A device that could distribute radioactive material could be almost as small as wished.

 

[gumboot]

I stand corrected. Thanks Spins.

-Gumboot

 

[buka001]

The smallest nuclear weapon developed by the US was the Davy Crockett (a variant of the one posted above by Gumboot) artillery warhead. It had a yield of 10 to 20 tons or 0.01 to 0.02 kiloton, as a comparison the OKC bomb had a yield of about 0.002 kiloton. The Davy Crockett was very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead.

Thank you for the help.

Does anyone know what the minimum practcal size is? And what are the specific reasons that limit it to this size. Any nice references out there?

 

[bonavada]

Does anyone know what the minimum practcal size is? And what are the specific reasons that limit it to this size. Any nice references out there?

interesting question. i found this quote HERE

The Soviets supposedly produced "suitcase nukes" and there is a US DOE estimate that only 4kg of Plutonium is necessary to make a fission weapon. Some believe that only 1kg is needed.

some good links on that site about the subject.

BV

 

[Spins]

Thank you for the help.

Does anyone know what the minimum practcal size is? And what are the specific reasons that limit it to this size. Any nice references out there?

The word "practical" is used with regards to the military. They wouldn't go much smaller than this because you'd be able to get the job done with conventional ordnance and thus without any of the drawbacks associated with nuclear weapons such as fallout. For example a single fully loaded B52 strike would be able to deliver ~15 tons of high explosive.

You could probably build a nuclear device with a yield as low as 1 ton [1]. The bare minimum amount of un-reflected fissile material required to achieve critical mass is 10 kg of Pu-239 with a density of 19.86 gm/cc [1][2].

To be honest the claim that mini nukes were used on 9/11 is absurd regardless of the yield, nothing indicates their use.

1. http://www.isis-online.org/publications/terrorism/threat.pdf
2. http://www.nci.org/k-m/makeab.htm

 

[Cuddles]

It was designed as a backpack.

That's a bit careless really. It must take a really special sort of person to start designing a backpack and end up with a nuclear weapon.

 

[Hellbound]

That's a bit careless really. It must take a really special sort of person to start designing a backpack and end up with a nuclear weapon.

Feature creep.

 

[Belz...]

The smallest nuclear weapon developed by the US was the Davy Crockett (a variant of the one posted above by Gumboot) artillery warhead. It had a yield of 10 to 20 tons or 0.01 to 0.02 kiloton, as a comparison the OKC bomb had a yield of about 0.002 kiloton. The Davy Crockett was very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead.

Wow. Thanks for the info.

20 tons in a backpack. Gotta love those atoms.

 

[buka001]

I have realised I cannot debate against people who make statements like this -

like that guy said before, it doesn't matter if there was EMP or not.
it doesn't matter if it was nuclear demo or death rays from above or even the hand of god squashing it flat.
all that matters first is that NIST and the 911 commission and purdue obviously lied.
a case has been filed against NIST by real scientists.
and only a shill would pretend to be so blind.

A case against NIST?? First I have heard of this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A case against NIST?? First I have heard of this.

There have been a couple of RFC's and a lawsuit - I thought I remembered a third RFC but I couldn't find it, may be in one of these threads.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91147&highlight=lawsuit
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79311&highlight=lawsuit
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79311&highlight=lawsuit

One of the RFC's is brought jointly by Steven Jones, who, I'm very sorry to say, has to be considered a real scientist on the basis of his history of work on catalysed nuclear fusion.

Dave

 

[~enigma~]

There have been a couple of RFC's and a lawsuit - I thought I remembered a third RFC but I couldn't find it, may be in one of these threads.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91147&highlight=lawsuit
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79311&highlight=lawsuit
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79311&highlight=lawsuit

One of the RFC's is brought jointly by Steven Jones, who, I'm very sorry to say, has to be considered a real scientist on the basis of his history of work on catalysed nuclear fusion.

Dave

Who put himself in the guano category willingly well before 9/11 by claiming there is archaeological evidence that jesus walked North America.

 

[Hamradioguy]

Some years ago I had a friend who worked with small tactical nukes in the Air Force. When, out of curiosity, I asked him just how small these were he of course gave me the, "That's classified", reply. When I persisted he finally spread his legs, reached down to the ground with both hands and slowly lifted up while grunting "Uggg, ummpff, phew..." I'd say that means a pretty heavy backpack or suitcase!

For more on small nukes get a copy of McPhee's "The Curve of Binding Energy" which profiles physicist Theodore Taylor. Interestingly, the book came out in the mid 1970s and contains a section on how a terrorist might bring down the WTC with a small nuke.

 

[buka001]

So whats the progress on the court case? Any dates for the hearing?

Although I do reckon that when they loose or never go to trial, they'll claim the courts are in on it.

 

[negativ]

When I persisted he finally spread his legs, reached down to the ground with both hands and slowly lifted up while grunting "Uggg, ummpff, phew..." I'd say that means a pretty heavy backpack or suitcase!

There are, of course, wildly different conclusions one could draw from such a demonstration.

 

[beachnut]

The smallest blast from a nuke would have been seen. At 10 to 20 times the energy effects of flight 175, in an real explosion; the effects of the smallest nuke would have been seen as a blast, not a collapsing building, or some simple puffs.

No nukes were seen on 9/11. It takes a special group of 9/11 truthers to push this nuke stuff.

 

[Cainkane1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery

 

[gumboot]

That's a bit careless really. It must take a really special sort of person to start designing a backpack and end up with a nuclear weapon.

Kathmandu were looking to diversify into other markets.

-Gumboot