How aren't mini nukes a real thing yet? They shouldn't be too difficult to make considering they can already make big ones and the possibilities are endless
Carrying around a miniature nuclear warhead would make you a preferred target out of anyone else.
The Fatman is literally based off a real weapon.
A real weapon that was scrapped because a man-portable nuclear armament isn't a good idea in real life
>>27949263
You can't really make a nuclear explosion that small.
It just doesn't work.
>>27949263
They have existed for decades.
>>27949263
To sustain a fission reaction, you need a certain amount of Uranium. This amount is called critical mass. Below critical mass, you can't get a fission chain reaction.
We've gotten very good at making (relatively) small nukes, but they still are over critical mass.
>what is the Davy Crockett?
Also in case you haven't noticed, using nuclear weapons tends to be very frowned upon.
What's with all these "I was clearly drinking and thought of this dumb shit while playing this game or watching this movie" threads?
>>27949271
Yes you can.
>>27949263
What is the Davy Crocket, also
>launching a nuke with compressed air
jesus fuck.
>>27949280
The Davy Crockett wasn't used at ranges under 50m.
>>27949270
>>27949283
Davy Crockett?
>>27949263
Looks like the launch collar wouldn't permit the shell from traveling through since the fins on the back are squared and the collar is a semi-circle...thanks Bethesda...
>>27949289
Nor would any real life example of a "mini nuke"
That's what OP asked. If there could be mini nukes, not whether they should be shoulder fired distances that one can throw a football
>>27949295
Noticed that too. The fins are round in game though soooo..
Artillery has em
>>27949295
>>27949313
You can find the place that tested and tweaked the first launchers in F4. It is implied that many people were killed doing so. And given the 40k-tier stupidity and disregard for human life present in the pre-war Fallout universe...
>>27949295
>>27949313
>>27949356
>Using ellipses because you're either too lazy to complete your sentences or lack the confidence to make a solid assertion lest it be incorrect
R E D D I T
>>27949356
I like that part of the fallout universe it's like.
>what if instead of atomic energy becoming taboo, everyone focus'd nearly all of their energy into it.
That's why so many things are nuclear powered and electronics are fairly crude. It is one of my favorite sci-fi series because the sci-fI is based on entirely different doctrines than our real timeline, so you don't get that awkward moment when you get to that year in real life and go "well that didn't happen",
of course it didn't, entirely different tecology trends were in place.
>>27949283
>blast radius larger than maximum range
No, you literally can't
>>27949405
>literally
Just because it's a bad idea doesn't mean it's an impossible one.
>>27949405
Why do people repeat this shitty meme?
Range of 1.25-2.5 miles, depending on launcher, and lethal radius of about a quarter mile.
>>27949405
The davey crockett could launch just over a mile. And it's warhead would not produce a blast that size.
But yes it was scrapped because it was still dangerous to the operators and didn't fit with doctrine. Why would you bother inserting someone that close if you ar e nuking them regardless?
>>27949263
Cluster munitions have a similar battlefield effect without all the complications of handling a nuclear warhead.
It's not really possible to make a nuclear device smaller than like 20-30kg or so
At least with existing high explosive materials.
Theres no such thing as a "mini-nuke" because a critical mass of plutonium will make a 15kt bomb.
You get smaller explosions by making the reaction inefficient.
>>27949263
The Davey Crocket was a real, "portable" tactical nuclear delivery system. Beyond the technical problems of having a blast radius larger than the naximum range, there were serious ethical dilemmas over whether battlefield commanders should have access to nuclear weapons.
I'm facinated with them, but the world is better off without weapons such as these
>>27949440
>lethal radius
meanwhile the crew that launched it still has to dig a deep hole to hide in and get in protective suits. Because they would get injured and irradiated if they didn't.
>>27949471
>Beyond the technical problems of having a blast radius larger than the naximum range,
opinion disregarded, stopped reading here.
learn your shit before lecturing others
>>27949480
hardly
The only effect would be perhaps a slightly higher % chance of cancer 20+ years later.
They can get down to the diameter of a 155mm artillery shell (approximately 155mm) using a linear implosion configuration, and it's theoretically plausible that they could be made as narrow as 105mm. Problem is, linear implosion devices use like twice the plutonium as a larger, more conventional nuclear weapon, so they wind up being much heavier and more expensive.
a real life nuke more or less the size of the fatman bomb from fallout would weigh over 100 pounds, which makes the launcher kind of implausible.
Also, it's game mechanics, but I bet you could easily get as big an explosion as the fallout fatman makes just from a regular-ass high explosive filled bomb of about that size.
Maybe that's how it works, it's just a big grenade with a bit of radioactives in it to add insult to injury
>>27949496
It's still rediculous when you compare the affects against traditional artillery, or an aircraft dropped nuclear device. Or a missile.
There is no sense in using one mini nuke from a mile away rather than 5 howitzers from 20 miles away and shelling until the desired effect is reached.
Or any number of the alternatives available to the military.
>>27949528
In a real fight to the death, making nukes is easier than building convention equivalent amounts of explosives
howitzers are an obsolete concept anyways, too rough on logistics, desu
>>27949528
>rediculous
it's ridiculous that people still can't spell this word.
>>27949496
Yeah, because veterans with cancer aren't a drain on the economy at all these days... and that is without using nukes.
I know the US military did experiment with the idea of portable nuclear weapons to be used in smaller-scale combat. Eventually, they decided there were too many difficulties with doing so. I don't know what they were, but I imagine moving fallout, danger of the nuke 'carrier' being destroyed and causing detonation, etc, etc.
There is a linit to how small a nuke can be made.
I can not remember the scientists name, but he was obsessed with makinh smaller and smaller nukes.
The us nuclear artillery , the davey crocket, and the "backpack" nukes were the fruits of his efforts. ( the mk-54, the w9, w19, w33, w48 , w54)
>>27949536
If you are talking about annihilation, then you are talking about ICBM-delivered Megaton payloads, not mini nukes.
And like I said, there are many alternatives such as bombers/attacker aircraft.
Why would nuclear artillery be better for logistics than howitzers, or better than ICBMs or aircraft delivered nukes for general annihilation
>>27949545
I deserve ridicule then.
>>27949566
You understand that there is a difference in scale between a convention fight, a tactical nuke fight, and a suicidal ICBM fight?
>>27949263
Remember The Alamo
>>27949611
i don't get it, what did he mean by that?
>>27949611
Fuck Groznyj Grad
>>27949610
Not him, but if you're using tactical nukes, chances are that the fight is gonna escalate to ICBMs real quickly.
>>27949627
probably just some meaningless /v/ trash anyway
I highly doubt it's worth knowing
>>27949627
Hi /v/ :^)
>>27949610
You don't understand my question.
A tactical nuke is s to ll bigger than a mini nuke.
My question was where does al a mini nuke fit into any of those doctrines,
>>27949536
>In a real fight to the death, making nukes is easier than building convention equivalent amounts of explosives
A howitzer-launched nuke has a yield of about 70-100 tons TNT equivalent, and costs about $2 million 1960s dollars, which is probably like $15 million current-year burger coupons.
I'm pretty sure it's cheaper and easier to produce the equivalent in conventional explosives, as well as generally more useful.
>>27949480
That's different from "lethal radius," stop moving the goalposts.
>>27949721
Any nuclear device has the ability to be a big explosion.
They produce small nukes by deliberately causing an incomplete reaction.
>>27949627
"I'm fucking crazy. Check this shit out."
>>27949528
>There is no sense in using one mini nuke from a mile away rather than 5 howitzers from 20 miles away and shelling until the desired effect is reached.
The Davy Crockett's effect comes mostly from its fallout. It was intended to be fired defensively, in the path of an advancing enemy.
IIRC the Soviet plan for a ground offensive required that they capture a bridge across the Rhine within seven days, because after a week their frontline troops would start to die en masse from radiation poisoning.
It could also be used by special forces, for purposes such as destroying airfields and fuel stockpiles.
>>27949627
Davy Crockett
>>27949743
Where to hide, decisions, decisions.
Kablooey!
This would have been how Western Europe became a glass car park.
There's no saying it wont but the holes these days will be a lot larger.
>>27949879
>This would have been how Western Europe became a glass car park.
>davy crockett yield between 10-20 tons of TNT
>1+ megaton weapons in service at the time
15 ton gimmick versus 1,200,000 ton strategic bombs, and *that's* the thing that would've destroyed western europe?
>>27949263
Already been done, look up "Davey Crockett"
>>27949965
that nuke was anything but mini, mate
>>27949934
Yup!
Twats with stripes shooting the place up making the bigger boys pull out the bigger toys.
Nuclear land mines or demolition devices would also point out that someone had gone there.
>>27949934
Alot of the doctrine at the time made distinctions between strategic and tactical nukes.
The US pulled back into a tactical nuclear defensive posture until the Reagan years to save money.
>>27949270
>>27949291
/thread
>>27949283
>You can't really make a nuclear explosion that small.
>>Yes you can. [posts the smallest one ever which was about four times bigger]
>>27949453
Shame our gov't is keks and have already eliminated most of their DPICM stock
>>27949536
>howitzers are an obsolete concept anyways
Dismissed.
>>27949291
No, the real life fat man.
Yes you dumb ass. I even had to guide some other fucker that thought the fat man wasn't real.
>>27949263
heres a pretty neat video of the davy crockett, skip to 240 for them shooting it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiM-RzPHyGs
>>27950209
340*
>>27949981
>>27950130
No one is arguing it's not bigger than the fallout mini nuke's blast but it is much smaller than other nuclear devices
>>27950166
>Post deleted.
Looks like those helis really did show up now didn't they?
>>27949480
Fucking moron
>>27950278
What the fuck did I miss?
>>27949288
>>that pic
>>27950400
Archive nigga, I ain't giving away a trade secret senpai.
>>27950400
>>27949278
Well, there is tritium boosting to reduce the amount of material and zippers and better reflectors, smallest yield was in the 100 ton range as a fissile. Shot Ruth and Ray was a linear Uranium Hydride device that didn't even have boosting or other advanced tech at the time.
Now, imagine a B-52 dropping a 100 cloud of Davey Crocketts on your enemies column or emplacement. Or sneak in the B2 and a 24 pack on ISIS territory.
Research Sam Cohen's book about the Neutron bomb that limited fallout and only killed a 1 km radius from an air burst. Leaving the area inhabitable in a few months for reclamation and burying the bodies.
>>27949288
>Tycho likes this
My nostalgia's sides!
Mini nukes were a thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition
>carry nuke to target, (power plant, dams, bridges)
>set bomb and gtfo by sub.
From what ive heard, this was really meant to be a suicide weapon. The team would defend the bomb so enemies cant get to it.
army had an MOS for this, 12E
>>27949451
>Why would you bother inserting someone that close if you ar e nuking them regardless?
Because not all nukes are world-killers. Back in the halcyon days of the early Cold War, before the hippies ruined everyone's fun with the idea on nuclear non-proliferation, all sorts of ideas for tactical nuclear exchange were bandied about. With low-yield warheads, the idea wasn't based around total devastation, so much as packing a fuck-ton of payload into a tiny little package.
But then things picked up in the arms race, and the USA and the USSR decided to focus more on the "global" aspect of nuclear exchange instead of "tactical" nuclear exchange. Which, let's face it, was probably a good thing in the long run.
>>27949453
It's a shame quality control is so bad cluster bombs have the ethical concerns of using mines...
>>27950909
Neat!
Aww, they got rid of the MOS in '86. Boooo...
>>27949356
NORMIE REDDIT GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEE
>>27949271
yeah you can look at the davy crocket.
plus look at americanium or californium
>>27949627
Davy Crocket, the man that the weapon was named after, fought and died at the
Battle of the Alamo during the Texas War of Independence.
>>27949263
Nuclear Bullets.
Yes, they are possible. We simply need to get Californium down to a reasonable price (ie. not $10,000,000,000 a gram).
A "revolver" filled with californium filled .357 magnum "bullets" would strike with the force of 10 tons of TNT (ie. close to the power of Davy Crockett Warhead).
There also plenty of other trans-uranic elements out there that could be weaponized (Americium comes to mind) but they all extremely expensive and require a large amount of Uranium and Plutonium in the first place.
because anything nuclear immediately turns into a political question rather than a military one in the world we live in
>>27950192
You dumb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
>>27949405
Soldiers are expendable
>>27951154
>Soldiers are expendable
for some countries they are
>>27951163
for some even civilians are expendable
> russia stronk
>>27951163
They knew what they signed up for, their job is to literally be expendable
>>27949627
Fuck off back to /v/
>>27951142
I'm pretty sure you failed to comprehend what he wrote
>>27951238
>They knew what they signed up for, their job is to literally be expendable
not for decent commanders
>>27951093
Is Californium capable of making a reaction with that little material?
Genuine question, I don't know ad much as I'd like to about chemistry and nuclear fission/fusion and stuff
>>27949405
Nah, the fallout would be the problem. Launch it with the wind blowing the wrong way and you would have problems. Good CBR gear and doctrine and you might not have problems. Early on, they underestimated the effects of fallout. They didn't fully appreciate that until lambing season downwind of test sites. The resultant birth effects are strangely similar to Iraqi children born after desert storm.
Also, special ops got a nuke designed as well. As I recall, it was a gun type device that achieved a critical geometry by firing a slug into the center hole of three stacked disks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition
>>27949356
>You can find the place that tested and tweaked the first launchers in F4
Where on the map? I really like investigating lore and back story
>>27951238
>>27951154
>>27951428
If you like investigating lore, Bethesda is not the company to you. They did a fantastic job of shitting on as much of the lore from previous games as possible.
>>27951470
Aw you upset Private Cannonfodder?
>>27950933
>Boooo
>this nigga wants to be a suicide bomber
Go join isis you fuck
>>27951428
It's part of the main story, or at least the brotherhood questline, I am still on my first playthrough and I don't know whether the brotherhood questline is supposed to be part of the main quest or not
>>27949611
>>27951566
Sir, I don't think you understand:
I would rather kill myself with a nuke in my back for a proper cause, rather than a religion of peace (Opps).
>>27949469
>We got a retard over here
Criticallity is based on neutron leakage. Lower masses and sufficient compression easily create super-criticality and are pretty standard in every nuclear weapon.
>>27951485
That's disappointing, I fucking hate the FO4 main story being on rails.
>I kinda agree with faction 'X'
>First couple missions are cool then it just becomes "Murder everyone that isn't us"
>No way to avoid it without picking another faction and having them order the same thing.
Fuck this game, I just quit playing main story and went around calling in Chinese nukes on raiders.
>>27950909
>From what ive heard, this was really meant to be a suicide weapon.
Friend of mine was trained to deploy this. He was told 'set and gtfo'. But subsequent to that, it was revealed that the weapon could be discovered and disarmed too easily. And defense by the small infiltration team wasn't likely. The device had a timer, supposedly to allow the 'gtfo' part of the plan. But in reality, the timer was set internally to zero. So, yeah, a suicide mission.
>>27951821
If the device had a zero-count timer, there is no point in it being disarmable at all, why not just make it impossible to disarm and give it the functioning timer and a tamper detonator as backup?
>>27951772
Also, fuck the lack of choices having an impact on the game.
>If you do that your companion won't like it and you can't have gay sex with them
Bitch, really? That's it? The whole story line boiled down to "chose your main faction, kill everyone else, grind materials for new house"
Nothing mattered, you couldn't mediate between everyone no matter how hard you tried. And the factions sucked too,
>Bickering fucktards that are pretty much post apocalypse /k/ (best faction)
>SJWs trying to free slaves
>Gun grabbers in metal suits
>Out of touch hard left Democrat yuppies that think their shit doesn't stink and if you're not one of them you should be euthanized
Fuck everything about the story of this game.
>>27949627
> anon makes historical reference/pun.
Idiots think its /v/ related.
Never change /k/.
>>27949263
I have 0 doubt we could make them. But nukes have become more political than anything else.
>>27951969
That felt like the case in every fallout since 3. Your karma and moral choices basically affect how you are treated and the factions are shallow and cannot be reasoned with.
The factions are flawed on purpose, but the lack of being able to mediate a compromise in the major disagreements of the plot seems amiss all things considered.
Then again when you were able to talk your way through the end of new vegas and take control of the Mojave to seemingly make everything hunky dory it felt like a copout.
The wasteland is never meant to be fixed, giving a genuinely 100% good faction to side with or an option to take over and personally oversee the rebuilding of civilization (in cutscenes alone) kinda cheapens the direction of the games.
>>27949263
Because we haven't got to designing one to fire from the shoulder yet.
But all it takes is one man with great determination to succeed in making the weapon to become a reality.
Besides everyone likes to get a tan from the distance boom every now and then because I would definitely like to get one it would feel nice.
>>27951597
You have to kill your son or nuke the common wealth because your son is the leader of the institute, also yes it it.
>>27952499
>But all it takes is one man with great determination to succeed in making the weapon to become a reality.
Basic physics limits the lowest possible size of a fission device. Below a certain mass, the device just spews radiation, and never actually explodes. So all you need is one man with the determination to give a lot of people cancer.
If you actually want to harness the power of nuclear fission to create a massive shockwave, causing ridiculous amounts of material destruction relative to the volume of the device, you'll have to go bigger.
>>27952532
Jokes on you it was already spoiled for me. Didn't ruin shit because I knew that the story would be shallow and anchored by muh decisions and "but he's family"
The plot of FO4 is pretty much Fallout 3: 2
>>27952400
I'm just pissed that I can't progress the story without murdering every other faction.
>Go kill queen SJW bitch
>Don't want to because current companion is the super spy and I like him.
>Try to mediate
>Basically get told "that's nice, do it anyway"
And that's when I quit playing and turned on Battlefront
>>27949270
Did you know the word literally has been misused so much that the definition now means figuratively. So now literally means actual and factual.
You can't misuse it. And you didnt. Just thought I'd let you know.
>>27952789
What the fuck are you talking about. I used the word correctly. It is literally based on the Davy crockett.
Literally meaning actually and without exaggeration
>>27952789
Did you know that literally is literally a meme in the same tier as t b h f a m
>>27949278
If we ever figure out AM, we can get something like this with MICRO-GRAMS of material. Give it 50 years.
>>27949283
>man portable
>pic'ed rig weighs about 320-400lbs.
Yeah, not seeing that as man-portable save PA from said certain game that is not even close to being avail yet.
>>27953253
A micro gram will give you the equivalent of about 36 kilos of TNT after excepting energy lost to neutrinos. Rule of thumb is grams get you kilotons.
>>27949636
...naw.
>>27950913
>the idea wasn't based around total devastation
...uh, citation needed...?
>>27951300
Closest thing we have to AM.
>>27953346
Ah, sorry. 1 kilo gram of the shit iirc is 47.8 MT.
>>27951093
Sure, if you don't mind your 'bullets' having a half life of 45 minutes after you make them.
>>27953535
>Posting that meme-level picture.
You're retarded.
