Is there a minimum yield for a nuclear bomb?
D.F. Manno
in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb simply
won't fission?
Wikipedia says that the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless rifle
projectile, at 10 or 20 tons of TNT, was "very close to the minimum
practical size and yield for a fission warhead." But I'm not inclined to
accept Wiki as an authority.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by
faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."
(Dan Barker, former preacher, musician, b. 1949)
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>I've got an idea for a novel that involves detonating a very small nuke
>in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb simply
>won't fission?
>
>Wikipedia says that the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless rifle
>projectile, at 10 or 20 tons of TNT, was "very close to the minimum
>practical size and yield for a fission warhead." But I'm not inclined to
>accept Wiki as an authority.
I cannot vouch for the accuracy, but:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html
Shawn Wilson
> I've got an idea for a novel that involves detonating a very small nuke
> in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb simply
> won't fission?
>
> Wikipedia says that the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless rifle
> projectile, at 10 or 20 tons of TNT, was "very close to the minimum
> practical size and yield for a fission warhead." But I'm not inclined to
> accept Wiki as an authority.
No, there is no meaningful minimum yield, all the way down to
literally firecracker strength and below. No one would build a
nuclear hand grenade since the exact same resources and materials can
make a much more powerful bomb, but it *can* be done.
Technologically there is a minimum mass of reaction material, below
which you will get nothing. A poorly designed bomb will have very low
reaction efficiency and a very low strength. This is usually called a
'fizzle', which *is* a nuclear reaction, just not much of the warhead
is reacted before the rest gets scattered by the explosion.
Mac
> in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb simply
> won't fission?
>
> Wikipedia says that the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless rifle
> projectile, at 10 or 20 tons of TNT, was "very close to the minimum
> practical size and yield for a fission warhead." But I'm not inclined to
> accept Wiki as an authority.
Yeah, as a practical matter there is, even now. Because of the
obvious political and practical problems with really small nukes, the
various powers that be never pushed them to their (apparent, then-
current) limits, which was sized for a 105mm gun. After the Davy
Crocket showed up the potential issues, there wasn't too much money
put into it.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
The US isn't the only player in the game. What a 1st World country may
have done in the past in terms of military weaponry, could be vastly
different from what some small country or group is working on
currently. The goals would be vastly different, in that the US was
looking for a stable battlefield device, while someone else may be
seeking a one-time suicidal toy.
Boron
Mac
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:14:19 -0700 (PDT), Mac <ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU>
True. The engineering and research constraints still favor big
entities, though.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>On Oct 21, 12:30�pm, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hootmail.com> wrote:
There is no question, but success will not be measured by big entity
standards.
Boron
Mac
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:44:45 -0700 (PDT), Mac <ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU>
Yeah, it probably would, in this case. For his novel's purpose, he
wants the thing to go off. If you just wanted a tiny dirty bomb,
there are easier ways to do that.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
I was thinking out in the world, not in a novel. My bad.
But a dirty bomb can be something else, actually, and much easier to
pull together than a "real" nuke.
Boron
Greg Goss
>I've got an idea for a novel that involves detonating a very small nuke
>in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb simply
>won't fission?
>
>Wikipedia says that the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless rifle
>projectile, at 10 or 20 tons of TNT, was "very close to the minimum
>practical size and yield for a fission warhead." But I'm not inclined to
>accept Wiki as an authority.
You'd accept information from random yahoos on a usenet group rather
than an agressively peer-reviewed site? Anyhow, I'd agree with them.
I don't know the rifle projectile, but the Hiroshima / Nagasaki bombs
were pretty close to the minimum "easy" yields. To go smaller than
those in yield requires getting really complex in the designing and
going really big on the implosion (conventional) explosives.
Hiroshima was 13 to 18 KT and Nagasaki was about 21 KT.
There were a couple of really small US nuclear test yields after Bush
restarted testing. There is argument (among people who really don't
know anything about the subject -- us included) about whether they
were testing sub-critical mass explosions, or that the tests just
"fizzled". The US tests were considered to be exotic, high-tech
subcritical experiments, until the North Korean test had a similar
yield, after which all three tests were relabled as fizzles. I think
one of the US tests is considered to have had a sub-kiloton yield.
On the other hand, you don't really need nukes to get these yields. I
think that one of the Russian space program launch vehicles gave a
half-megaton yield by blowing up, er, a half megaton of highly
explosive material.
Nuclear weaponry has got physically much smaller than the WW2 designs.
There was reportedly a Soviet-designed "suitcase" bomb. It (if it
existed) was suitcase-sized, but at 180 pounds a bit heavy for a
suitcase. The wiki article on the late-90s speculations said 50 to 60
pounds, which is not what I remembered from that period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke#Controversy_surrounding_Russian_suitcase_nukes
Anyhow, all of this (other than Hiroshima and Nagasaki yields) is from
memory from reading a lot of flakey sources. You're probably better
off with wiki.
--
apart from one noisy guy up in Canada, no-one wants
a three-cylinder tissue box on bicycle tires.
huey.c...@gmail.com
> I've got an idea for a novel that involves detonating a very small
> nuke in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb
> simply won't fission?
>
> Wikipedia says that the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless
> rifle projectile, at 10 or 20 tons of TNT, was "very close to the
> minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead." But I'm not
> inclined to accept Wiki as an authority.
I dunno shit about nukes, but I do know a little bit about the
government, and my guess is that, If there's anything smaller than a
Davy Crockett, it is almost assuredly classified.
...which is both a license to make shit up with impunity AND an
interesting hook.
--
Huey
David Friedman
Boron Elgar <boron...@hootmail.com> wrote:
I think the relevant point is that making a nuclear weapon at all is
moderately hard, although now within the reach of any substantial
government willing to spend the money. Making a very small nuclear
weapon is much harder, which makes it pretty iffy for any power that
doesn't have both lots of money and lots of sophisticated engineers.
Thus, for instance, Californium has a critical mass of only 5 Kg, so is
a possible candidate for making a very small nuclear weapon. But it's
normally produce in tiny quantities. According to the Wikipedia article,
"By the 1990s, Oak Ridge was producing 300-400 mg of Cf, mostly Cf-252,
every two years."
At that rate, getting the critical mass takes a couple of thousand
years. If you have Oak Ridge or the equivalent.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Don K
news:qcCdncXRBeg9O0LX...@speakeasy.net...
A Dick Cheney nuclear quail gun!
Jack Campin - bogus address
> nuke in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb
> simply won't fission?
Have a read of John MacPhee's "The Curve of Binding Energy".
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
****** I killfile Google posts - email me if you want to be whitelisted ******
Boron Elgar
Why recreate the wheel? There is no immediate need to start from
scratch while there are nukes all over a corrupt Russia and
sympathetic sources in Pakistan.
Boron
Sano
news:fibvd59g93fcd341c...@4ax.com:
The main issue with bothering to develop small devices is that one
ain't liable to be very far away from things like fallout and EMT -
whatever trashes electronics.
huey.c...@gmail.com
> - Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> - wrote:
> > <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >> Boron Elgar <boron...@hootmail.com> wrote:
> >>> There is no question, but success will not be measured by big
> >>> entity standards.
> >> I think the relevant point is that making a nuclear weapon at all
> >> is moderately hard, although now within the reach of any
> >> substantial government willing to spend the money. Making a very
> >> small nuclear weapon is much harder, which makes it pretty iffy for
> >> any power that doesn't have both lots of money and lots of
> >> sophisticated engineers.
> >> Thus, for instance, Californium has a critical mass of only 5 Kg,
> >> so is a possible candidate for making a very small nuclear weapon.
> >> But it's normally produce in tiny quantities. According to the
> >> Wikipedia article, "By the 1990s, Oak Ridge was producing 300-400
> >> mg of Cf, mostly Cf-252, every two years."
> >> At that rate, getting the critical mass takes a couple of thousand
> >> years. If you have Oak Ridge or the equivalent.
> > Why recreate the wheel? There is no immediate need to start from
> > scratch while there are nukes all over a corrupt Russia and
> > sympathetic sources in Pakistan.
> ain't liable to be very far away from things like fallout and EMT -
> whatever trashes electronics.
I know an EMT who trashes electronics. It's probably a good thing he
never got that computer job he was looking for. He's much better off
as an ambulance driver.
The acronym you're searching for is "Electromagnetic Pulse", or EMP.
--
Huey
David Friedman
Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Those are big nukes. If the objective is making a very small nuclear
weapon, it's a wheel that hasn't been created yet, at least as far as we
know--surely not by Pakistan.
As I assume you know, an atomic bomb needs a critical mass of whatever
fissile material it uses in order to sustain a chain reaction. The
critical mass for U235 is about 52 kg, for instance. In addition to
that, you need other stuff to make the bomb actually go off. Using
something with a very small critical mass makes it easier to make a very
small nuke.
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
> I've got an idea for a novel that involves detonating a very small nuke
> in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb simply
> won't fission?
Given the quality of other responses you've gotten, I'll skip all the
modalities and just say "No".
> Wikipedia says that the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless rifle
> projectile, at 10 or 20 tons of TNT, was "very close to the minimum
> practical size and yield for a fission warhead." But I'm not inclined to
> accept Wiki as an authority.
The really small nuclear bomb and meld seemlessly into the "Dirty bombs
made of conventional explosives mixed with (not terribly) radioactive
material."
Drawing a distinction between them seems rather pointless.
Xho
Mac
> D.F. Manno wrote:
> > I've got an idea for a novel that involves detonating a very small nuke
> > in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb simply
> > won't fission?
>
> Given the quality of other responses you've gotten, I'll skip all the
> modalities and just say "No".
This would, however, be wrong.
> > Wikipedia says that the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless rifle
> > projectile, at 10 or 20 tons of TNT, was "very close to the minimum
> > practical size and yield for a fission warhead." But I'm not inclined to
> > accept Wiki as an authority.
> The really small nuclear bomb and meld seemlessly into the "Dirty bombs
> made of conventional explosives mixed with (not terribly) radioactive
> material."
No, they really do not. Small real nukes can be about as "clean" as a
fission bomb can get, "fizzled" nukes and dirt conventional bombs are
not. Small nukes nuke all the unshielded electronics nearby. Dirty
conventional bombs don't. Despite the EconoMonkey's assurances
otherwise, you really can't make a nuclear handgrenade. The materials
that could be used, whose critical mass is low enough, probably don't
exist on earth in sufficient amount, and there are real limits to how
much you can densify solids with explosives,
> Drawing a distinction between them seems rather pointless.
Hardly. A small dirty bomb at an airport would have less dramatic,
but longer term, effects than a small blast that put out every window
and radio nearby, just as an example.
Sano
news:6-Odne_F_fAjI0LX...@speakeasy.net:
> Sano <gregs.supersmell@gmail_com> wrote:
>> The main issue with bothering to develop small devices is that
>> one ain't liable to be very far away from things like fallout
>> and EMT - whatever trashes electronics.
>
> I know an EMT who trashes electronics. It's probably a good
> thing he never got that computer job he was looking for. He's
> much better off as an ambulance driver.
>
> The acronym you're searching for is "Electromagnetic Pulse", or
> EMP.
Ah.
<I 'is posting under damn cheap beer>
Hactar
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> I think the relevant point is that making a nuclear weapon at all is
> moderately hard, although now within the reach of any substantial
> government willing to spend the money. Making a very small nuclear
> weapon is much harder, which makes it pretty iffy for any power that
> doesn't have both lots of money and lots of sophisticated engineers.
>
> Thus, for instance, Californium has a critical mass of only 5 Kg, so is
> a possible candidate for making a very small nuclear weapon. But it's
> normally produce in tiny quantities. According to the Wikipedia article,
> "By the 1990s, Oak Ridge was producing 300-400 mg of Cf, mostly Cf-252,
> every two years."
>
> At that rate, getting the critical mass takes a couple of thousand
> years. If you have Oak Ridge or the equivalent.
Which is almost certainly not fast enough to keep up with the decay (I
don't know the math involved) -- the half-life of Cf-252 is 2.645 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californium
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al
Rick B.
september.org:
"Stop dithering and nuke that bird!"
mike muth
> I've got an idea for a novel that involves detonating a very small nuke
> in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb simply
> won't fission?
>
> Wikipedia says that the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless rifle
> projectile, at 10 or 20 tons of TNT, was "very close to the minimum
> practical size and yield for a fission warhead." But I'm not inclined to
> accept Wiki as an authority.
The US Army has variable yield nukes which go down to something below .
5 kt.
The yield could be reduced by making the chain reaction less efficient
so the theoretical yield could be negligible. On the other hand, it's
pretty simple these days to manufacture a 10kt bomb you could drive
around - provided that sufficient fissionable material is available.
--
Mike
Mac
> On Oct 21, 8:49 pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've got an idea for a novel that involves detonating a very small nuke
> > in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb simply
> > won't fission?
>
> > Wikipedia says that the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless rifle
> > projectile, at 10 or 20 tons of TNT, was "very close to the minimum
> > practical size and yield for a fission warhead." But I'm not inclined to
> > accept Wiki as an authority.
>
> The US Army has variable yield nukes which go down to something below .
> 5 kt.
There's stuff that goes well below that, as I remember from my days
a'servin of His Majesty The Raygun (and/or The Peanut). You still
have a certain minimum size for a practical trigger, and attempts to
play with that with greater explosive tamping may make for a slightly
smaller nuke, but not a smaller or lighter bomb.
Snidely
> accept Wiki as an authority.
As mentioned elsethread (by Mac and/or Boron), we wump Wiki for
authoritativeness. But one of the people that sci.space.* most
respect on the subject is Carey Sublette, whose FAQ seems now to be
at
The Nuclear Weapon Archive
A Guide to Nuclear Weapons
<http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/>
You might compare notes there with other links. There is also a
micronuke calculation by him quoted at <http://yarchive.net/nuke/
micronuke.html>.
There are scattered references in other newstroops.
You might also scan for posts by Henry Spencer, although the first one
I saw was about H-bombs and the "layer cake" approach.
/dps
Mac
PS: I was CoE, where we thought mostly in terms of "really big
cratering charge", or of "victim." You were Arty, right?
Boron Elgar
<snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 21, 11:49�am, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
>> But I'm not inclined to
>> accept Wiki as an authority.
>
>As mentioned elsethread (by Mac and/or Boron), we wump Wiki for
>authoritativeness. But one of the people that sci.space.* most
>respect on the subject is Carey Sublette, whose FAQ seems now to be
>at
>
>The Nuclear Weapon Archive
>A Guide to Nuclear Weapons
>
><http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/>
Let's get to the serious stuff you can find linked through that site:
http://www.nuclearmuseum.org/store-home/
Time for holiday shopping.
I really like this:
http://www.nuclearmuseum.org/store/p9/Black-Fat-Man-Pin/product_info.html
Boron
Snidely
> You might also scan for posts by Henry Spencer, although the first one
> I saw was about H-bombs and the "layer cake" approach.
From that same thread, Peter Stickney offers <http://groups.google.com/
group/sci.space.history/msg/dc2b54db49667518>
/dps
mike muth
Armor, infantry (not regular infantry but something a little more
special), armored cavalry, staff guy, personnel sergeant. I learned
the artillery stuff and I can pre-plan targets, do calls for fire
(nothing special about that), compute fire missions, know the criteria
for selecting munitions, and planning for special weapons use/
effects. I also learned a lot of the CoE stuff, but mostly on the
construction rather than combat side.
--
Mike
Mac
> On Oct 22, 7:52 pm,Mac<ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 9:15 am,mike muth<mike.m...@unverbesserlich.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 21, 8:49 pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I've got an idea for a novel that involves detonating a very small nuke
> > > > in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb simply
> > > > won't fission?
>
> > > > Wikipedia says that the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless rifle
> > > > projectile, at 10 or 20 tons of TNT, was "very close to the minimum
> > > > practical size and yield for a fission warhead." But I'm not inclined to
> > > > accept Wiki as an authority.
>
> > > The US Army has variable yield nukes which go down to something below .
> > > 5 kt.
>
> > > The yield could be reduced by making the chain reaction less efficient
> > > so the theoretical yield could be negligible. On the other hand, it's
> > > pretty simple these days to manufacture a 10kt bomb you could drive
> > > around - provided that sufficient fissionable material is available.
>
> > PS: I was CoE, where we thought mostly in terms of "really big
> > cratering charge", or of "victim." You were Arty, right?
>
> Armor, infantry (not regular infantry but something a little more
> special),
SF? Early light infantry? Paid re-enacter...excuse me, 3rd Infantry
regiment?
huey.c...@gmail.com
> mike muth <mike.m...@unverbesserlich.org> wrote:
> > Armor, infantry (not regular infantry but something a little more
> > special),
> SF? Early light infantry? Paid re-enacter...excuse me, 3rd Infantry
> regiment?
Hey, don't make fun of the Greatest Dog Show On Earth! Besides, "Gardens
of Stone" is a much better movie than "From Here To Eternity".
--
Huey, formerly of the 25th Greatest Show On Earth
mike muth
not SF. All infantry is "light infantry" when dismounted. That's why
the light infantry carried the "11B Infantryman" MOS. While I was in
VN, there was no "light infantry designation." If you were carrying a
rifle in an infantry unit, you were "infantry." Even the infantry
squad which was supposed to be assigned to a cavalry troop was
"infantry." There were special flavors of infantry - snipers, airborne
infantry, rangers, LRRPs (often Rangers, but not always). While these
units were not *just* infantry (but one or more cuts above) and did
special things regular infantry units did not do, they were still
infantry.
I haven't done the re-enacting thing, nor was I with the Old Guard -
although my nephew was.
--
Mike
David Friedman
<cfc8b684-5adc-4f2b...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
mike muth <mike...@unverbesserlich.org> wrote:
> I haven't done the re-enacting thing, nor was I with the Old Guard -
> although my nephew was.
Fought at Waterloo, did he?
Mac
I was thinking about the 'sperimenting they were doing with the 7th
ID.
mike muth
Nope. Never had anything to do with the 7th ID. 1st ID, 3d ID
(twice, 3 units), 4th ID, 9th ID, 101st Airmobile, 1st AD (twice), 5th
Army, 196th Lt Inf Bde (but as Cavalry, not as infantry).
In 1971, I was with a unit which is not reflected in my official
military records. I will say no more than that about that period.
I did earn the CIB in Vietnam (and an ARCOM, Vietnamese Cross of
Gallantry with Palm, and Presidential unit Citation).
--
Mike
D.F. Manno
<74eebb03-3f68-42b2...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Mac <ANMC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
> Yeah, it probably would, in this case. For his novel's purpose, he
> wants the thing to go off. If you just wanted a tiny dirty bomb,
> there are easier ways to do that.
Exactly. I want a "Kaboom," but not an "Earth-shattering Kaboom" that
would take out the entire city.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by
faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."
(Dan Barker, former preacher, musician, b. 1949)
D.F. Manno
Jack Campin - bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > I've got an idea for a novel that involves detonating a very small
> > nuke in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb
> > simply won't fission?
>
> Have a read of John MacPhee's "The Curve of Binding Energy".
OK, will do.
D.F. Manno
huey.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> D.F. Manno <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> > I've got an idea for a novel that involves detonating a very small
> > nuke in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb
> > simply won't fission?
> >
> > Wikipedia says that the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless
> > rifle projectile, at 10 or 20 tons of TNT, was "very close to the
> > minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead." But I'm not
> > inclined to accept Wiki as an authority.
>
> I dunno shit about nukes, but I do know a little bit about the
> government, and my guess is that, If there's anything smaller than a
> Davy Crockett, it is almost assuredly classified.
>
> ...which is both a license to make shit up with impunity AND an
> interesting hook.
I do want it to be within hailing distance of plausible.
D.F. Manno
<52c533dd-dd79-4611...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
mike muth <mike...@unverbesserlich.org> wrote:
Little Boy was a 15kt bomb, and it destroyed Hiroshima. I don't want to
destroy all of Philadelphia.
D.F. Manno
huey.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> Besides, "Gardens
> of Stone" is a much better movie than "From Here To Eternity".
I didn't know that there was anybody else out there who liked "Gardens
of Stone."
huey.c...@gmail.com
> huey.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Besides, "Gardens of Stone" is a much better movie than "From Here
> > To Eternity".
> I didn't know that there was anybody else out there who liked "Gardens
> of Stone."
I didn't say that.
--
Huey
Mac
> In article
> <74eebb03-3f68-42b2-8df7-fc802b1ad...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Mac <ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
> > Yeah, it probably would, in this case. For his novel's purpose, he
> > wants the thing to go off. If you just wanted a tiny dirty bomb,
> > there are easier ways to do that.
>
> Exactly. I want a "Kaboom," but not an "Earth-shattering Kaboom" that
> would take out the entire city.
First thing to remember is that Japanese timber frame construction was
much more art than craft. To put in bluntly, it would have been
difficult to design structures less able to deal with blast than the
typical house in Hiroshima. That bomb was around...no, lemme look it
up. Wiki gives 13KT. A 155 nuke is a fraction of that. 72 tons,
again looking at Wiki. A 105-sized round, assuming such a thing had
been made, could have been about the same, since the later shell
designs were a little more efficient. So, the size we're looking at
would have been about a twentieth as powerful as the Hiroshima nuke,
going off in a much more solidly built city. (Although Philly uses a
lot of unreinforced brick, and that would do very badly close in.
Well built platform framing is much tougher, there's a great picture
of a house from the Long Beach quake where the framed partitions
(i.e., stuff that wasn't even meant to be structural) are holding
what's left of the structural brick up.)
David Friedman
"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> Little Boy was a 15kt bomb, and it destroyed Hiroshima. I don't want to
> destroy all of Philadelphia.
That settles it. You are not W.C. Fields.
Snidely
> Let's get to the serious stuff you can find linked through that site:
>
> http://www.nuclearmuseum.org/store-home/
>
> Time for holiday shopping.
>
> I really like this:
>
> http://www.nuclearmuseum.org/store/p9/Black-Fat-Man-Pin/product_info....
:-)
/dps
Bill Turlock
>
> In article <bogus-AD3A87....@news.albasani.net>,
> Jack Campin - bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > I've got an idea for a novel that involves detonating a very small
> > > nuke in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb
> > > simply won't fission?
> >
> > Have a read of John MacPhee's "The Curve of Binding Energy".
>
> OK, will do.
Raven-Poe
> In article <qcCdncXRBeg9O0LX...@speakeasy.net>,
> huey.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > D.F. Manno <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > I've got an idea for a novel that involves detonating a very small
> > > nuke in a U.S. city. Is there a minimum yield below which the bomb
> > > simply won't fission?
> > >
> > > Wikipedia says that the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear recoilless
> > > rifle projectile, at 10 or 20 tons of TNT, was "very close to the
> > > minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead." But I'm not
> > > inclined to accept Wiki as an authority.
> >
> > I dunno shit about nukes, but I do know a little bit about the
> > government, and my guess is that, If there's anything smaller than a
> > Davy Crockett, it is almost assuredly classified.
> >
> > ...which is both a license to make shit up with impunity AND an
> > interesting hook.
> I do want it to be within hailing distance of plausible.
With a carefully designed bomb, you can get pretty much any yield you
want: that Davy Crocket (which was also available as a man portable
demolition pack) was selectable down to .01 kt, or a paltry 10 tons
TNT equivalent. With sufficiently advanced design, an intentional fizzle
can be made to give you even lower yields. However, such stuff is far
more difficult than a simple 5-20 kt bomb.
But there's no problem with that leaving a goodly protion of a city
still standing: cities are big things and a Hirosima sized bomb isn't
going to get every last bit.
John
--
Here, have 10 Manhattan Points (TM)
Remove the dead poet to e-mail.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Raven-Poe
> In article
> <52c533dd-dd79-4611...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> mike muth <mike...@unverbesserlich.org> wrote:
> Little Boy was a 15kt bomb, and it destroyed Hiroshima. I don't want to
> destroy all of Philadelphia.
Well, Philly isn't built like Hiroshima was: so the fire effects won't be
as pronounced. And Philly is big too: 20 kt bomb will only flatten things
out to 1.7km and burn stuff out to 2.0 km. Set it off at the airport and
loads of downtown would survive. Or use a 1kt device downtown and limit
the destruction to a radius of less than a km.
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)
wrote:
I know how to drop a nuclear bomb from an F/A-18, if that's any help.
Actually, the same technique holds for pretty much any model of
high-performance light to medium attack aircraft.
Mary "The trivia one picks up in the course of one's career...."
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
reunite....@gmail.com or mil...@qnet.com
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/
Snidely
<reunite.gondw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know how to drop a nuclear bomb from an F/A-18, if that's any help.
> Actually, the same technique holds for pretty much any model of
> high-performance light to medium attack aircraft.
>
> Mary "The trivia one picks up in the course of one's career...."
Come in on the deck, hot, pull up, release the bomb, continue the
loop, and skedaddle inverted?
ISTR reading that in junior high, I think about F-101s. But if the F/
A-18 isn't fast enough for that, some sort of high altitude or stand-
off release seems desirable.
/dps
DT
reunite....@gmail.com says...
>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:52:30 -0700 (PDT), Mac <ANMC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU>
>wrote:
>
>> On Oct 22, 9:15�am, mike muth <mike.m...@unverbesserlich.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The yield could be reduced by making the chain reaction less efficient
>> > so the theoretical yield could be negligible. �On the other hand, it's
>> > pretty simple these days to manufacture a 10kt bomb you could drive
>> > around - provided that sufficient fissionable material is available.
>>
>> PS: I was CoE, where we thought mostly in terms of "really big
>> cratering charge", or of "victim." You were Arty, right?
>
>I know how to drop a nuclear bomb from an F/A-18, if that's any help.
>Actually, the same technique holds for pretty much any model of
>high-performance light to medium attack aircraft.
Was this for a supersonic drop, or the standard bomb run? We worked on the
scale model testing of the supersonic drop. The conventional bomb shape
(low drag) would often whip back and strike the tail. They reshaped the
bombs to a blunt, high drag shape, and they peeled away from the aircraft
like magic. We had some nice multi-picture sequences printed up to show
the path of the bomb.
--
Dennis