Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: BenLurkin; UCANSEE2; Texas Fossil; posterchild; KarlInOhio

Here is an example of how far they got with a weapon that was actually deployed by NATO in Europe 50 years ago. If the total warhead was 53 pounds, the nuclear material was probably some fraction of that. A lot of weight would have been used to keep the nuclear materials apart and allow the device to withstand the shock of being fired.

I am interested in the Astor Torpedo also. This was a nuclear torpedo carried by our submarines which had a yield about equal to Hiroshima. They said it was safe to fire, because the submarine would have its capability degraded by only 5%. My question was always for the submarine hundreds of feet underwater, and depending upon a host of mechanical devices functioning properly, which 5% was going to be degraded?

Davy Crockett (nuclear device)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29


11 posted on 03/18/2017 10:17:58 PM PDT by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Retain Mike

Davy Crockett was a dirty bomb. No Nuke explosion.

Critical mass or implosion devises are not small.


22 posted on 03/19/2017 5:41:43 AM PDT by Texas Fossil ((Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson