Nuclear Grenade

I heard someone speaking about the Americans developing a nuclear grenade.

He said it only had a tiny amount of nuclear fuel in.

The person said that they had been told it by a professor who teaches where they are studying.

At the time I thought that a nuclear weapon couldn't be made small enough to use a grenade type weapon; carry a few around, throw one to clear a building...

Anyone know if the Americans have developed this or if a weapon of this type could even be practical?

[edit on 11/9/04 by Hyperen]

Nuclear artillery shells can be made, so why not the grenades.

Nuke artillery was and I think still is in use. The army tried using a nuke mortar in the 50's but, the shooters were within the blast radius, so that idea was scrapped. I think that would be the same story for a nuke grenade, too much, too close. Yikes.

This if build would have to rank as one of the dumbest weapons of al time. I mean are we now designing munitions for suicide bombers?

well technically we COULD, but you know, with START-2, we cant LEGALLY make any new nukes or types of nukes. But besides that, I think we're moving on to more oxygen based weaponry that suck up oxygen and use it like a nuke...like the MOAB

There has been rumors of a nuclear rocket propelled grenade. A nuclear hand grenade would just be stupid IMO.

This is the smallest I have ever seen proof of The Davy Crockett, It was the smallest and lightest nuclear weapon ever deployed by the U.S. military. It was designed for use in Europe against Soviet troop formations.




I have also heard of nuclear demolition charges to take out things like bridges

www.brook.edu...

The DOE had actually approved the construction of a highway through the mountains of Nevada that was to be excavated with the use of nukes! They finally figured out that the fallout would be massive and cover several of the surrounding towns for miles and miles. Now that is an exercise in stupidity.

[edit on 11-9-2004 by Der Kapitan]

It is much harder to scale down nuclear weapons into something the size of a hand grenade. It is far harder to compress a few grams of plutonium than it is to compress a few kg's.
However I believe the purpose of sub critical testing is to eliminate these problems. So they are able to test new devices, without a fission reaction.
The US has a deal with the French to share results from subcritical tests so the French don't do it.

Wouldn't the person be in the area where the radiation would fall. They throw the grenade and run as fast as they can and hopefully they get away before it explodes.

Originally posted by longbow
Nuclear artillery shells can be made, so why not the grenades.

Yeah, here's video:
www.vce.com...

This video clip is from Trinity and Beyond and I recommend watching it.

Originally posted by E_T
Yeah, here's video:
www.vce.com...

This video clip is from Trinity and Beyond and I recommend watching it.

I never get tired of watching that amazing video clip.

Trinity and Beyond is a great documentary which is an absolute must see.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
well technically we COULD, but you know, with START-2, we cant LEGALLY make any new nukes or types of nukes. But besides that, I think we're moving on to more oxygen based weaponry that suck up oxygen and use it like a nuke...like the MOAB

I think you are referring to a FAB (Fuel Air Bomb). The MOAB is not a FAB, it is a very large conventional munition.

the smallest nuclear device that the army military developed for its troops that I can recall is the nuclear backpack it can be carried by one solider and placed somewhere and take out anything fro a good distance. a grenade would be stupid one accidentally goes off oops there goes your platoon

Theoretically, the hand grenade is practical, but you better be pretty dang strong to throw it anywhere. It would need Californium, which has a low critical mass, and you could lower the critical mass to about 200 grams using several kilograms of high explosive to compress it. I can't visualize anyone throwing a 5 kilogram nuke to a safe range. It would work fine in a recoilless rifle like the davy crockett bomb though. It's more realistic to have a backpack bomb, leave it next to a building, put in a case that can't be opened in any reasonable amount of time, set a timer and have everyone run. The bad guys can only carry it so far once they find it!

Not a nuclear grenade, but a nuclear bomb the size of a grenade.

This doesn't have much benefit on the battlefield, but gigantic benefit in other ways.

Originally posted by DanD9
Theoretically, the hand grenade is practical, but you better be pretty dang strong to throw it anywhere. It would need Californium, which has a low critical mass, and you could lower the critical mass to about 200 grams using several kilograms of high explosive to compress it. I can't visualize anyone throwing a 5 kilogram nuke to a safe range. It would work fine in a recoilless rifle like the davy crockett bomb though. It's more realistic to have a backpack bomb, leave it next to a building, put in a case that can't be opened in any reasonable amount of time, set a timer and have everyone run. The bad guys can only carry it so far once they find it!

I don't think you understand physics too well, californium can't be imploded to create a nuclear yield. All it is, is highly radioactive.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Not a nuclear grenade, but a nuclear bomb the size of a grenade.

This doesn't have much benefit on the battlefield, but gigantic benefit in other ways.

Has a nuclear bomb that size been developed?

What uses would it have?

The nuclear weapons that already exist seem to be able to do a good job.

if you ran fast enough....

Originally posted by mad scientist
I don't think you understand physics too well, californium can't be imploded to create a nuclear yield. All it is, is highly radioactive.

Do you care to comment in more detail? Feel free to post cross sections and such, I'll be able to read this stuff.

I'm pretty sure the Californium device will work.

There are plenty of sources who say

Other transuranics such as curium and californium could also theoretically be used in nuclear weapons, but are not believed to pose significant proliferation threat at the present time, as they too rare, especially in separated form, or too radioactive

And, when I was a kid, there was an urban legend about californium bullets that Soviets manufactured to be used against tanks.



[edit on 15-9-2004 by Aelita]

Yes, californium is fissionable, and in small quantities. It is extremely expensive though. It's also extremely radioactive, it heats up to be bright hot in gram quantities, and is surronded by a glow. It's possible, but impractical.