A ~40 kg nuclear payload (total device weight) would be a very small tactical nuclear weapon, comparable to the smallest historical U.S. designs like the W54 warhead used in the Davy Crockett. Expected Yield
Realistic yield range: Roughly 10–100 tons of TNT equivalent (0.01–0.1 kilotons), possibly up to a few kilotons in an optimized design.
The W54 warhead (core ~23 kg, total device ~23–50+ lbs depending on configuration) produced yields around 10–20 tons TNT in tested configurations, with variants up to ~1 kt.
A full ~40 kg package (including casing, explosives, tamper, and electronics) could achieve similar or modestly higher output, depending on design efficiency (implosion vs. gun-type, fissile material quality, etc.).
This is orders of magnitude smaller than the Hiroshima bomb (~15 kt) or modern strategic warheads (100+ kt).
Yield-to-weight ratios for small pure-fission devices are low compared to larger thermonuclear weapons. A 40 kg device sits firmly in the "tactical/mini-nuke" category.
Blast and Effects (Approximate for a ~20-ton yield surface/near-surface burst) Use standard nuclear effects scaling (cube-root for blast radius):
Fireball: Tens of meters across — intense heat and light. Severe blast damage (5 psi overpressure, enough to destroy most buildings): Radius of ~100–200 meters. Moderate damage (1–3 psi, windows shattered, light structures damaged): Several hundred meters. Thermal radiation (burns, fires): Effective out to a few hundred meters, depending on weather. Prompt radiation (gamma/neutrons): Lethal doses within a few hundred meters — the dominant killer for such small yields at close range. Fallout: Significant local radioactive contamination, especially in a ground burst, but limited widespread dispersal compared to larger weapons.
For context:
Comparable to a very large conventional explosion (e.g., bigger than many truck bombs) but with intense radiation and EMP effects. It could devastate a city block or small military formation, cause panic, and render an area uninhabitable for a period due to fallout, but it would not level a city or cause nationwide strategic damage.
Important Caveats
Actual performance depends heavily on design, fissile material (highly enriched uranium or plutonium), sophistication, and detonation altitude (airburst maximizes blast/thermal; ground burst maximizes fallout). Iran (or similar actors) does not have publicly confirmed miniaturized nuclear weapons at this scale. Achieving reliable yield in such a compact package is extremely difficult even for advanced nuclear states. These are estimates based on declassified historical data and physics scaling. Real effects vary.
This is a hypothetical scenario. Small nuclear devices are primarily a proliferation and terrorism concern due to their portability, but they remain extraordinarily hard to produce and deploy effectively.
So basically half a Hiroshima.
Imagine what 20,000 nuclear payload drones of this size might do?
Russian version can carry up to 200 pounds.
Or they can make dirty drone bombs and contaminate a bunch of areas...
To send an atomic bomb to the US all Iran has to do is put it into a shipping crate. No miniaturization needed.
This is all complete Bull Spit. Here’s a real nuclear engineer debunking mini nukes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiB9FX1OCaU&pp=ygUWbWluaWF0dXJlIG51a2UgdCBmdWxjZQ%3D%3D
The U.S. tried it multiple times, there is actually a minimum amount of material required for a nuclear explosion. Yeah, a drone will eventually be able to deliver a device, but how is IRAN in position to build it?
Iran has never built any nuclear weapon. Not a single device! Miniaturization is always an advanced engineering method of just about any technology tree. Iran has not even tested a single bomb. How are they going to go from never building any bomb to instantly building advanced mini nukes delivered by drone technology?
Somebody convince me that Iran can deliver any nuclear weapons. By ICBM? No, again, requires advanced miniaturization, they have no experience. Is it going to be delivered by bomber? What bomber? What bomb do they even have?
Iran and nuclear weapons have been a hysterical fever dream for 50 years.
Another hypothetical - how many Russian nukes can the Ukraine absorb? The Ukraine using a “tactical nuke” against Russia, is about the stoooopidest idea I’ve seen yet. Who would/could stand by the Ukraine if they did initiated a nuclear war?
Dirty bomb is the problem. Not a nuclear reaction. A small military drone could carry enough to ruin the Thames River.
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.
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.)
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.
Tucker is blaming the Jews and Bibi for this question.
They don’t need a bomb. All they would have to do is take some of that plutonium dust and explode it over tel Aviv and they would have to evacuate a large part of the city for a very long time.
Why would Iran even bother with drones when they have many missile types and an IRBM that could easily pack a nuke?
Consider that a drone could be used to distribute radioactive materials potentially killing thousands.
An Iranian drone or rocket couldn’t get off the ground and sufficient safeties are not in place.
The W54 was pretty advanced and very expensive as it was U235 based.
Warheads based on reactor grade Pu239 limit out at around 1k yield.
Only the prince of idiots would launch a nuclear weapon at Israel.