Re: Shoulder launched nukes?

Kent Nordstrom wrote:
> While it is true that exotic compression schemes and boosting can
reduce the
> amount of material require, exotic compression schemes would likely be
> heavier and bulkier than the traditional
> "explosive-shell-around-a-fissionable-ball" of the 40s-era design.  So
even
> though you'd need less plutonium, you'd probably need more mass for
> explosives, tamper, tritium reservoirs, or whatever.	Bottom line is
that a
> nuke probably can't get much lighter than 10kg

	What if you used Californium as your fissionable material?
	(the classic Traveller "collapsing rounds")