Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nukes: The Next Generation

Posted by michael on from the things-that-go-boom dept.

jonerik writes: "Following up on the weekend's posting on the revision of American nuclear war-fighting plans, the New York Times has this article on the difficulties in building a new generation of nukes. The American nuclear arms industry is much smaller now than it was ten years ago, testing the new, smaller "bunker busters" would be problematic, and no one's certain that a nuclear weapon with a tiny explosive yield that's capable of penetrating yards of reinforced concrete could actually be built."

3 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Why do they need this? by PD · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are there bunkers in existence that are not vulnerable to the conventional bunker busters? Might those bunkers be in Iraq? I am mighty skeptical that there's a bunker in existence that can't be destroyed by a large precisely targeted conventional bomb. The only exception to this would be a bunker that's extremely deep, but a small nuke would also have trouble with this. Probably nothing that can't be solved with a larger nuke. Funny (not funny haha) how we all thought 5 years ago that since the Russians are our friends we didn't have to worry about nuclear war, and now our President might actually use nukes in an upcoming war.

    --
    If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
  2. Hey, the american citizens! by codexus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Couldn't you get rid of Bush before he starts a thermonuclear war?

    Cause I don't know about you, but the rest of the planet is getting a little bit scared.

    --
    True warriors use the Klingon Google
  3. Of course small munitions are possible! by JCMay · · Score: 4, Informative

    This place has all you want to know about the "Golden Age" of American nuclear testing.

    This is a picture of the Hardtack II / De Baca test, which was a small nuclear gravity bomb (11.3 inches in diameter, 15 inches long, weight 66 lb). It had a "disappointing" 2.2 kTon yield.

    Even more interesting is Upshot-Knothole / Grable which was a nuclear cannon shell.

    How small did they get? Here's the W54 (Davey Crockett) warhead, normally used as a rocket mortar round. It weighs 50 pounds, and has a yield of 22 TONS. Not Kilotons. Not megatons. Tons.

    Of course small nuclear devices are possible, even workable. Not every miltary explosive needs to be like Castle/Bravo (the largest nuclear device the US has tested).