[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/777/ - Weapons and War

"An oppressed class which does not strive to learn to use arms, to acquire arms, only deserves to be treated like slaves" - V. I. Lenin
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1749151255895.gif ( 2.86 MB , 326x184 , UpshotKnotholeGrable.gif )

 No.1531

I had seen a video online showing a fricking artillery cannon shooting a shell that was a nuke. Looking up some information, I learned the artillery cannon is named the M65, also called the "atomic annie", which was designed to shoot nuclear shells, such as the W9. (Fun fact, the M65 was part of Upshot–Knothole Grable nuclear test in 1953 at area 5 nevada test site)

The artillery shells for me was a whole other rabbit hole for me,and it made me wonder: Would it be hypothetically possible to have smaller types of shells that can be shot from a gun? Realistically, no, and even if it was hypothetically or scientifically possible, nuclear rounds would be absolutely illegal.
>>

 No.1532

File: 1749160324358.png ( 471.36 KB , 800x640 , ClipboardImage.png )

>shells that can be shot from a gun

Smallest possible yield of PU-239 is 10Kg. You can maybe reduce that with an explosive lens that compresses the bomb, or a reflector. Both increase the number of chain reactions and decrease the amount you need for it to go supercritical.

So maybe you can have an RPG kind of thing. Something that would send the bomb far enough away that you can still use it without killing yourself, but without so much recoil that you can still fire it.

Seems like for it to be man-portable it would have to be rocket powered. Wait a minute didn't they make that already? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
>>

 No.1533

>>1531
>Would it be hypothetically possible to have smaller types of shells that can be shot from a gun? Realistically
Yes, there is a element that has the physical properties that gets you down to about the size of a marble for spicy fun with fission.

The element isn't naturally occurring, but it is not that hard to bread it artificially.

The downside is that this stuff emits a lot of heat, constantly, because it's got a relatively short half life and you have to store your spicy bullets in a powerful refrigeration unit, or you'll have an extremely bad time.

Remember nukes make plasma, they're not actually explosives, the enormous shock-waves from the big boy nukes are from thermal expansion of heated air. The stuff i'm talking about mainly emits ionizing radiation, powerful enough to melt a tank, but it would not make a big boom. So if you want a radio-active puddle of liquid metal, this is it.

If you are wondering why i'm being a little bit coy about some of the details, that's because there is a somewhat cost effective path to mass-production. There's already places on earth that are contaminated because some people thought depleted uranium munitions were a good idea. This would be a thousand times worse.

If we are talking scifi, you can make a fusion bomb the size of a rice corn, assuming you have anti-mater as the "ignition source". Hardly any contamination, even compared to conventional chemical based weapons. 30 soldiers could raze an entire city. In the long run we'll have to get better at peace or we'll extinct our selves.

Unique IPs: 3

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome