Nuclear Weapon question

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

AFAIK there is a minimum amount of uranium or whatever you must put in a nuke. What would be the yield of the weakest nuke?

[Darth Wong]

It depends on the materials being used. I believe the Davey Crockett was only about 0.01 kT minimum yield.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Would that be cheaper or more expensive than detonating the equivalent amount of TNT or C4? In other words, at what point do nuclear weapons make sense financially? For instance, you could probably sink an aircraft carrier with a ~.1 kT, right? Wouldn't that be worth it?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

It depends on the materials being used. I believe the Davey Crockett was only about 0.01 kT minimum yield.

Modern day.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Just to let you know why I want to know:



The NX-01 phaser cannons are canonly 500 gigawatts normal, 5 terawatts overloaded. Their torpedoes are much weaker. Some producer or something said the torpedoes were stronger then modern day nukes. Very moronic.

[Exonerate]

Just to let you know why I want to know:



The NX-01 phaser cannons are canonly 500 gigawatts normal, 5 terawatts overloaded. Their torpedoes are much weaker. Some producer or something said the torpedoes were stronger then modern day nukes. Very moronic.

Hehe, stronger than 0.01 kt... Hardly a boost to their claims, if its even an increase.

[Patrick Degan]

Would that be cheaper or more expensive than detonating the equivalent amount of TNT or C4? In other words, at what point do nuclear weapons make sense financially? For instance, you could probably sink an aircraft carrier with a ~.1 kT, right? Wouldn't that be worth it?

In terms of strategic deterrence, they already make financial sense, considering how many fleets of bomber aircraft would be required to equal one Trident missile, for example. But for antitank combat, which was what Davy Crockett seemed to be intended for, a nuke is overkill to a ridiculous level and offers more hazard on the battlefield than can be reasonably bought back by tactical effectiveness. On that scale, it's better simply to use lots of smaller conventional weapons which are cheap to produce.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

In land warfare, I agree. But you could probably sink an aircraft carrier battle group with ~100 kT, and just the carrier itself with ~.1 kT, correct? So wouldn't that be worth it, particularly if you were fighting against the U.S., for whom the aircraft carrier is a significant fraction of military power in a region?

EDIT: Oh, and by "at what point" I was talking in terms of yield, not technological progress. I'm talking about present day.

[SyntaxVorlon]

It's actually easier(from what I know) to use more in a fission reation, as critical mass would have to be reached through pressure from the explosives around the nuke itself.
No I would go with a fusion or AM bomb, far less mass, far more deadly.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Yes, but I was talking about present day. To achieve fusion in a missile, you have to use a fission reaction as primer, usually giving you at least 1 MT, and that's overkill for a group of ships, not to mention ecologically damaging. And as far as AM missiles go, if they were feasible, we'd be building them.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yes, but I was talking about present day. To achieve fusion in a missile, you have to use a fission reaction as primer, usually giving you at least 1 MT, and that's overkill for a group of ships, not to mention ecologically damaging. And as far as AM missiles go, if they were feasible, we'd be building them.

AM is feasible on a given scale. But would YOU like to be flinging around missile that, if the containment goes or you need to self-destruct, could take half your nation out*?

I know I'd rather go with better nukes for now than AM weapons of much oomph!

*Proportional to available yield.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Crocket yielded 22 and later 18 tons in testing. However there have been a few bomb tests as low as 10 tons, but bone of those where ever weaponized as far as I know.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes, but I was talking about present day. To achieve fusion in a missile, you have to use a fission reaction as primer, usually giving you at least 1 MT, and that's overkill for a group of ships, not to mention ecologically damaging. And as far as AM missiles go, if they were feasible, we'd be building them.

Actually its not. Warships, especially a carrier with an armored deck, something the USN had a shit load of throughout the cold war, is one of the hardest targets around. The only way to sink such a vessel is really to either catch in inside of the fireball, or to explode the nuke underwater.

The second option is possibul; the Soviets produced a wide range of 5-kiloton nuclear torpedoes. However submarines have a habit of being sunk by carrier ASW. That left missiles, and the ones valuable for several decades where not that accurate, even with active radar homing. This was the result of poor computer tech and the missiles size, which was dictated by the need for very long range and high speed. Those two requirements also required very high flight paths, which mean the missile dove on the target. Very lethal with any warhead if you got a direct hit. But a multi ton weapon diving at mach 3 can't aim its self very well.

In accuracy's, the hardness of the target, and a desire to wipe out as much of a battle group as possibul with one missile all drove 50's, 60's and some 70's nuclear anti ship missiles into the 1-5 megaton range. By the late 70's missile where more accurate and far more where available. At that point they dropped down to about 200 kilotons.

Environmental damage is not much of an issue. The fallout is mostly going to fall back into the ocean. A couple pounds of radioactive material in the North Atlantic or Pacific won't do shit. Keep in mind the Russians dumped dozens of fueled reactors in the Sea of Japan. Both are still fished safely.

[Sea Skimmer]

Would that be cheaper or more expensive than detonating the equivalent amount of TNT or C4? In other words, at what point do nuclear weapons make sense financially? For instance, you could probably sink an aircraft carrier with a ~.1 kT, right? Wouldn't that be worth it?

In terms of strategic deterrence, they already make financial sense, considering how many fleets of bomber aircraft would be required to equal one Trident missile, for example. But for antitank combat, which was what Davy Crockett seemed to be intended for, a nuke is overkill to a ridiculous level and offers more hazard on the battlefield than can be reasonably bought back by tactical effectiveness. On that scale, it's better simply to use lots of smaller conventional weapons which are cheap to produce.

One B-1B can deliver more explosive force then a Trident D-5 with a full RV load out. And it can hit targets over a wider area. Bomber's are more expensive in them selves, but offer greater firepower and above all flexibility then a ICBM or SLBM. That's why the US and USSR kept building them.

In the war the Crockett was intended for, allot of small conventional weapons would just get hit by a Soviet nuke. Large conventional masses of troops where simply not a viable straggly for America. The US could never match Soviet numbers, the cost would be absurd and they'd suffer overwhelming losses in any case. The Crockett allowed a relatively small force to combat large groups of conventional forces, while not offering much in the way of a nuclear target its self.

The weapon was highly effective, and fallout minimal. Fallout is dependent on how efficient the device is, and how much debris it has to work with. Unused bomb material gets attached to whatever gets pulled into the fireball, then falls back out creating fallout. Crocket had a tiny fireball and very little fissabul material in the first place. It was also very efficient.

The Soviets eventually realized that weapons like Crocket made there bloated 50's and early 60's conventional forces fairly worthless junk in a future war, while there own nuclear arsenal had the whole of four nukes that could reach America, with three days prep time.

Khrushchev saw this almost at once, but it took a while to get the Union's conventional forces slashed and more invested in nuclear weapons. By that point America's nuclear asreanl was reaching overwhelming levels anyway. In the 1950's and 60's a lot of nukes would get dropped on the but the Soviets could keep going with an invasion of Europe.

That's one of the reasons why Crocket and many Atomic Demolition Munitions got scrapped in the early 70's.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Thanks for the info, Sea Skimmer.