Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/28/2026 2:12:17 AM PDT by Jonty30
Iranian suicide/loitering drones (kamikaze UAVs) typically have modest payload capacities, in the range of 30–50 kg for the most common types, with some variants or larger models reaching higher. Key Examples
Shahed-136 (most prominent, widely exported/used): ~200 kg total weight, payload ~30–50 kg (commonly cited as ~40 kg warhead). Russian variants (Geran-2) have reached ~90 kg in some modified configurations by reducing fuel/range. Shahed-131 (smaller variant): ~10–20 kg payload. Other types like Ababil series or Hadid-110: Often 30–40 kg. Larger systems (e.g., Arash series): Up to ~225–260 kg in some reports, but these are less common for pure "suicide drone" roles.
These payloads are optimized for high-explosive, fragmentation, or thermobaric warheads — effective against infrastructure, vehicles, or personnel in swarms, but far smaller than typical ballistic missile warheads (hundreds of kg).
Nuclear Payload Feasibility A functional nuclear warhead is much heavier and more complex than conventional explosives:
The smallest deployed nuclear devices (e.g., U.S. W54 "Davy Crockett"/SADM from the 1950s–60s) weighed around 23–26 kg complete (including casing, explosives, etc.), with very low yield (tons to low kilotons).
Modern compact designs still require significant fissile material, high explosives for implosion, neutron initiators, electronics, and robust casing — practically tens of kg minimum for anything reliable.
Iran's known nuclear program (enrichment, etc.) has not been publicly confirmed to have produced operational, weaponized, miniaturized warheads suitable for small drones. Delivering a credible nuclear device would demand advanced miniaturization, testing, and integration that exceeds current open-source assessments of their capabilities.
In theory, a Shahed-136 or similar could potentially carry a very small, backpack-style nuclear device if one existed and fit within ~30–50+ kg (with trade-offs in range/fuel). Larger Iranian UAVs (e.g., Mohajer-6 or Shahed-149 "Gaza" with hundreds of kg capacity) would have more margin. In practice, this is highly constrained:
Payload limits drastically reduce range when maximized. Guidance, reliability, and survivability of slow propeller-driven drones make them poor for high-value strategic nuclear delivery compared to missiles. Proliferation, testing, and command/control issues would be massive barriers.
Iran's drone strategy emphasizes cheap, massed conventional attacks to overwhelm defenses rather than nuclear delivery. Nuclear-capable platforms would more likely involve their ballistic/cruise missile programs. This remains speculative and is a major concern for proliferation watchers, but current drone tech points to conventional use.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Apologies from my earlier response - for some reason, I read “Ukrainian” instead of “Iranian” - but, either way, it would be their last act of war.
Ukraine now typically shoots down about 95% of the long-range drones Russia sends.
It is my understanding that Russia is now relying more on missiles.
“Dirty bomb is the problem. Not a nuclear reaction. A small military drone could carry enough to ruin the Thames River”
If they use something like this, I predict that it will happen only one time.
Why would Russia or China want that group of trouble makers inside their country? Both are happy to use them against the US but not from inside their borders.
I’m surprised we have not seen it yet. But the terrorist do not need radioactivity. 10 lb of mercury (about a pint) would contaminate 1800 acre feet or drinking water or about 2.3 billion liters. Drones are a serious safety problem because a 10lb payload flying 1000 feet above security fences and guards adds a new dimension to domestic terrorism.
Sure- if they can get it - it’s under collapsed tunnels.
Everything you aid out (short of huge numbers like 20,000 bombs) was a risk BEFORE and why Trump had to do shat he did. This risk has been removed for years or decades even if we just walk away now - which we’re not doing.
To get access to the money they have squirreled away.
Not undetectable.
The Russians have tactical nukes that could easily be incorporated into a drone. They are small yield devices meant to clear the battlefield ahead of their armor.
Tactical nukes have been part of their doctrine for 50 years.
I would imagine if they had a death wish, they could buy some from Russia. Israel has much larger and better warheads. Using a nuke would be a death sentence for Iran. (And we would know within minutes where the material came from.)
Did you have the destruction of the Twin Towers on your bingo card.
Yep! You have no imagination.
I’ll never post how it can be done. It can be.
“Or they can make dirty drone bombs and contaminate a bunch of areas...”
Ditto...exactly...
Comparison to the W54 SADM is meaningless because its ‘pit’ was Pu-239. So far as anyone who knows is saying, Iran has never produced any plutonium, and a uranium pit would have to be several times the mass of a plutonium pit.
And if using U-235 instead of Pu-239, all the accompaning hardware (explosives, shielding, reflectors, etc) would be even heavier still because the mass of a sphere changes at the cube of the change in radius.
There was grumbling on the Interwebs for years about the Soviets losing control of some of their “suitcase” nukes after the fall of the USSR, but the smallest nuke they made was more the size of an upright piano than a suitcase.
The Iranians built the massive U-235 complexes to make U-235 which is far harder to detect than Pu-239, which is far more radioactive [half-life 24,110 years].
The far harder to make U-235 would get smuggled in and a bomb would be built near where it would be set off by agents or proxies.
For maximum damage, a bomb has to be exploded high in the air. This means the agents or proxies would try to put the bomb in a plane or cargo drone.
Like North Korea, Iran is more interested in extortion than actual explosion. For Iran, the extortion might be to get the Jews to abandon Israel. Of course, in a pinch, $300 billion will do.
“60%? And when do you think they’re going to find time to get it to 90%”
Going from 60% to 90% involves processing about 1% of the weight of material that they have already processed.
They started at about .7%.
**************************
“’Up to 60 percent of enriched uranium is still stored in tunnels in Isfahan, allowing Iran to produce a nuclear bomb in a short period of time,’ says Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”
“At the outbreak of Operation Rising Lion in June 2025, Iran possessed 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to 60 percent, which would allow it to produce 10 nuclear bombs in a short time.”
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/423681
See DARPA SIGMA - that was over a decade ago. You’re ‘hidden knowledge’ doesn’t circumvent physics.
Tucker is blaming the Jews and Bibi for this question.
with some of them being 10km below the survace and impervious to bomb strikes.
Yes. That’s correct. And it’s buried now. And why I said we have to get it out.
with some of them being 10km below the survace and impervious to bomb strikes.
Even if it did detect something, it would be too late.
After the oppsie at TMI, GPU bought lots of lead. They even air freighted the lead into Harrisburg,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.