Re: Future baby nukes (boffin-sized?) was Re: http://www.echelon.wiretapped....

Date: Sun Oct 08 2000 - 11:19:46 MDT

In a message dated 10/8/2000 8:40:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

<< How's this for full sentences:
 I was trying to figure out the blast and radiation effects of a
 hypothetical 10-20t yield 2kg (total mass, not pit mass) Californium
 baby nuke just the other day, and I found out that the published
 official software models poop out at 0.1 kiloton. What a pity. I wonder
 if I should file a FOIA request on the Davy Crockett effects
 information--they must have test shot info on at least one of those
 puppies, since they were actually fielded for a while. That ought to get
 me on *somebody's* list, if I'm not already. :) I nosed around a bunch
 on the 'net, too.
 *Why* was I doing this? I was trying to figure out just how dead some
 characters in the movie version of _Starship Troopers_ ought to be. We
 hard-SF readers are a funny bunch.
 Btw, for any who didn't know, SSBN is also the designation for the US
 Navy's fleet ballistic missile submarines.
 Go Echelon! Beat Constitution!
 Mike >>
My guess is you left out the phrase anthrax--a teriffic rock group. Also
bio-engineered Botulinus Clostridium. I was remembering that there is the
explosive effects of Californium, but I can't remember whether its
Californium-54, 94, or 254?
Dr. Freeh has a bad haircut! Can we use Californium to make better fission
Is Californium a safer fuel to use? Is it potent enuf -perhaps thermionic

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:15 MDT