Prev: Re: [OT]Anti-americanism? (FMA) Next: Re: [DSII]Aerospace firing

Re: Now on topic previously was Re: [OT]Nukes... tunnels.... boom....

From: katie@f...
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:34:22 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Now on topic previously was Re: [OT]Nukes... tunnels.... boom....

Quoting Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com>:
> But just how small can a tiny nuke be? I can vaguely remember a
similar
> 
> thread a few years back during which some people discussed just this.
> They 
> pointed out that there is a minimum size a nuclear warhead, can anyone
> 
> clarify this or is it going to easier to use normal explosives if that
> 
> really tiny nuke doesn't really make that big an explosion?

I recall hearing of a 100tons yield nuclear shell.

There are references in various places to uranium hydride weapons that
have 
yields of 500tons.

"During the 1950s and 1960s, nuclear weapons were developed for every 
conceivable military mission. An estimated 1,000 W48 nuclear artillery
shells 
(designed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) were produced and
deployed 
with Army and Marine Corps forces between 1963 and 1991. The W48 had a
yield of 
0.02-0.04 kilotons (equal to 2-4 tons of TNT). "


Prev: Re: [OT]Anti-americanism? (FMA) Next: Re: [DSII]Aerospace firing