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.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
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,
Jim
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...
Imagine if Iran used that weapon, what 24 ballistic missiles carrying 5+ warheads each with more yield than Nagasaki or Hiroshima are used to return fire. Imagine Iran turning to glass. Collateral damage? Of course, it’s the mutual destruction rules. We did the Cold War with it. Russians aren’t suicidal. Iran not so much. By the way that’s payload of one boat.
The IRGC doesn’t care. They believe if they make the earth uninhabitable the 13th Imam will save them. They completely believe this.
They are not people you can bargain with on the basis that threatening their lives inhibits them. They’ve love to be turned into white shadows, because they would die as martyrs and go to heaven.
It is the powerless 90 million Iranians that don’t want to die like that,but they have no choice.
To send an atomic bomb to the US all Iran has to do is put it into a shipping crate. No miniaturization needed.
Those drones have 800km range. They can devastate both coastlines if they do it right and they might be undetectable until too late.
Then it's time for them to "screw their courage to the sticking point", stand up, and do something about it for themselves.
So we went from the knee-jerk reflex statement of the last 5 Presidents saying, “Iran will never have a bomb” to the current analysis of what type of Drone delivery system could carry what size of a nuclear bomb from Iran???
WTF is going on?
Are we now seriously contemplating an Iranian first strike on Israel?
We were told they were “decimated”.
So...where are we really now?
You think Israel is going to take Pres. Trump’s word for it?
Ezekiel 38 will happen
Whether or not it’s nuclear... Dunno...
That’s being arranged, but they aren’t strong enough yet to do something.
A nuke on a drone is just an engineering problem.
The previous Presidents just wanted to delay it until it was somebody else’s problem.
The drone technology has leapt generations in just a couple of years.
I only know how bad the IRGC is.
I didn't get that from reading the article. If the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons and the expected maximum yield from a drone-carried bomb is .1 kiloton:
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.
So 15 compared to .1 kiloton. 1/150th of the yield, if my early morning math is correct.
It is always a problem when you do not fully understand your enemies’ mind-set. Trump should have pummeled them to a pulp and then blast the pulp again for good measure.
All these ceasefires and MOUs mean nothing to Iran. They will now attempt the unthinkable and as in the past, only tiny Israel will pay attention and pre-empt.
The atomic bomb “Little Boy,” dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, contained 64 kilograms (approximately 141 pounds) of highly enriched uranium.
A quick estimation, not exact, is that 40kgs would be about half a Hiroshima.
The ceasefires allows Israel and US to track military assets for the next round of bombings. The military is not wasting its time.
However, we are trying to avoid Iranian casualties and there are hundreds or possibly thousands of km of tunnels, with some of them being 10km below the survace and impervious to bomb strikes.
This is a thirty year old problem to solve, which we don’t have the time to solve conventionally.
I personally favour cementing the tunnel entrances and posting a guard until the cement dries. Lock them underground and turn those tunnels into tombs.
Can they be buried in by large explosions?
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.