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

From: Eugene Leitl (eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de)
Date: Sun Oct 08 2000 - 20:32:06 MDT

Michael M. Butler 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

Uh-oh, californium core must be rather heavy on your high
explosive. Won't age very well, I'm afraid. You better store that
separately (as a side effect, there will be no vermin in the cellar).

> 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

The smallest warhead produced seems to be only 10 t equivalent. Btw,
here are some yummy search items:


Be afraid. Be very, very afraid. If this works, here's something
rather compact, with a pure programmable yield and no fission
primary. All you need is magic geometry, timing, and a little bit of
tritium and deuterium.

(these particula hapax legomena brought to you by another resident
Evil Genius Who Shall Remain Nameless, muahahahahaha!).

> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT