Why werent nuclear hand grenades ever fully developed?

Why weren’t nuclear hand grenades ever fully developed?

It would give the individual infantrymen unparalleled destructive power. With one device they can destroy entire buildings, poison crops and water supplies and clear out trench systems

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The SADM was as close as they got, which used the smallest primary they had (tsetse). In other words, short of egg-shaped primaries the rough size of a soccer ball currently used for trident MIRVs, there's nothing smaller, and may even be impossible to produce.

    However, Sandia has been making non-fissile miniature mockups of fully functional warheads for several years now for use in destructive testing. Maybe things have changed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But still, no true mini nuke?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        smallest you can make it is backpack nuke, a nuclear demolition charge

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because nukes are extremely heavy, even in hand grenade form

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    weaponizable moronation

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >F G N W
    Pure fusion will make tiny nukes great again.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Israelis develop these

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because if you gave them nukes, there would only be individual infantryman.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For what purpose?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Every soldier has greater destructive power

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Considering how many videos I've seen of cadets/soldiers fumbling grenades I'd be a bit scared of one clumsy guy accidentally vaporizing his whole squad.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's no reason why Special Forces couldn't have been issued atomic rifle grenades.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They had portable nuke suicide teams, called 'blue lights'

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        "Green Light Teams", actually.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Light_Teams

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Light_Teams
          Billy Waugh recalled being launched subsurface from the U.S. nuclear attack submarine USS Grayback while carrying an actual atomic weapon, a W54 SADM

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Early models contained a mechanical detonation line merely 330 feet (100 m) long from nuclear device to detonation team.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Dying in a nuclear fireball is such a kino death though. Your body is just reduced to nothing before you know what happens

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                With mini nukes you don't die from the fireball, you die from the radiation. Acute radiation sickness is easily in the top ten worst ways to die.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You just need to embrace atoms glow

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because you can't make a nuke with standard fissionables that are hand throwable.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Source?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >daily "why don't they make doomsday nukes" thread

    I don't understand
    is it purely a slide tactic? are newbies finding this place so frequently that we need to do this stupid thought experiment every week?
    I recently checked in PrepHole after a few years away, and this board has gotten so shitty that it felt normal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >an atomic hand grenade is a doomsday scenario
      Stop being so scared. Remember two weeks ago when people were freaking out about Russia using chemical weapons because of “escalation”? Literally nothing happened

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >thrown distance: 20m
        >blast radius: 2km

        yeah, totally a realistic weapon
        no casualties if the bodies are all vaporized!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You can recruit uneducated disposable fanatics. Just give them a grenade and direct them to throw it at the nearest enemy

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nta but It's clearly the same nuke obsessed mongoloid, same manner of writing, same dogshit moronic ideas based around 'muh nooks'.
        I'm just glad it's not another fricking discussion about how "nukes could totally crack the planet u guise!1!!" again.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      morons, slide treads,, and PrepHole invaders

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because nukes are based and it’s a shame they haven’t been used since WWII

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Critical mass of Pu-239 is 22lbs. That's without any other components. The lightest nuclear warhead ever made was the W-54 at 51 lbs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Californium has a critical mass of about 5lbs, but the problem is that 5lbs of of californium would cost about 73 billion dollars.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Hafnium is cheaper

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        AM the size of one kilogram has a yield of about 47-55Mt.
        The cost of such is the Global GDP over 2 centuries.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >you know what?
    >frick you
    >frick me
    >frick both of our squads
    >and frick everything within a radius of 500 meters for the next half a million years

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >this is what Americans actually believe
      The Simpsons was a mistake

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I’ve long said that no one person has done more damage to clean energy in this country than Matt Groening.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The radiation from nukes isn’t that intense. Hiroshima is still safe and inhabitable.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >would give the individual infantrymen unparalleled destructive power
    That's exactly why. There's an upper limit to exactly how badly an infantrymen fricking up can cause headaches for a damn good reason.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's a reason we don't list "Conduct Unbecoming of an Enlisted" as a crime.

      The radiation from nukes isn’t that intense. Hiroshima is still safe and inhabitable.

      Problem with smaller nukes is that eventually you can't get to Critical Mass which means it's just scattering uranium dust everywhere. Think less Hiroshima and more Chernobyl.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Little Boy used 1.7% of its fissile material in fission. That's why the subsequent radiation poisoning was so bad. Didn't stick around for very long, though.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    even the warhead W82 from the 2nd generation AFAP 155mm artillery shell weighed ~30kg.

    Do you really want 80% of the weight of an entire twink hanging from your plate carrier.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because the smallest possible nuke is a size of bowling ball and weights about twice as much.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Handing Pte Mongo a nuke
    No.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    go long !

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    And inevitably kill the user. How many suicidal soldiers do you have on hand? Especially ones that haven't killed themselves despite having unrestricted access to guns and explosives.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can't make them that small. And even if you could, nobody is going to sign off on giving 18 year old privates nuclear release authority.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the closest we ever came were probably little backpack nukes meant for use by special forces. The idea was sneak to a bridge, put a timer on the nuke, and get outa there.
    You need a certain amount of high explosives to initiate fission, as well as a healthy amount of electronics, so below a certain size I don't think you get much if any yield

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Physics. We did build suitcase nukes. it's hard to throw a 150 lb oversized suitcase though. Easy enough for one person to move around on wheels.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *