If you’re going to allow zombie threads then why don’t you add the word “zombie/2003” to the thread title?
I didn’t say anybody made any single conventional weapon like that; I said that 1kT yield is achievable with chemical explosives, which it is. What I had in mind was not actually a bomb-dropping scenario, but a hypothetical “yeah, you could stack up enough H-6 or whatever…” scenario. Yes, it would be the size of a building. Alternatively, you could drop a bunch of bombs, like on Tokyo during WWII.
Ah. On review of the thread, I see that you might think I was refuting your response to tirechangerwix. While it’s probably one of the things that started me off, I wasn’t responding to anything particular by the time I finished composing my post. What I was trying to get across was that neutron bombs are in the “very destructive, but lower yield than Little Boy” category, rather than the “unimaginably destructive, yield measured in megatons” variety. I think it would take a national effort to produce a million tons of TNT or anything else that goes bang, whereas we could scrape together a thousand tons if we had to.
I thought js_africanus was back… 
Not easily achievable. My father used to work on nuclear treaty verification, and one of the main area of interests was whether they could determine the difference between an accidental chemical explosion (such as a natural gas filled mine) and a nuclear explosion, as part of that they set up a Chemical Kiloton experiment. This took a great deal of effort and wasn’t just a matter of borrowing one of the military’s bombs. Remember 1kt means about 2 million pounds of TNT, or a cube about 28 feet on a side composed entirely of TNT. Something you could set up for an experiment, but not something you could deploy militarily.
ETA: I see Nametag clarified his post so he’s off the hook.
It’s my understand though that nuclear weapons are more destructive for the same amount of force because the energy is released much more quickly. At the speed of a nuclear reaction rather than a chemical one. That’s why only nuclear weapons and meteorite impacts leave behind shocked quartz; ordinary explosions, even really big ones like an exploding volcano don’t produce an intense enough shockwave.
It’s actually the complete opposite. With a conventional nuclear weapon (there’s an oxymoron), the radius of lethal levels of radiation is much greater than the radius of the blast effect. The result is a lot of soldiers, particularly those in armored vehicles, who have received a lethal dose of radiation, but will be in the ‘ghost walking’ phase and won’t be dead or even incapacitated for a week or more. The neutron bomb, or more properly enhanced radiation weapon releases such high levels of radiation that the onset of the effects are near immediate incapacitation with no ‘ghost walking’ latency phase and death within 48 hours or so; additionally armor offers little to no protection. There’s a table on the effects of various exposure levels to radiation here, ERWs would deliver >30Sv.
But the point is dropping even a 1 KT TNT explosive yield on an oil field would do an extraordinary amount of damage, critically damaging or destroying surface structures at a few thousands of meters. Many people seem to have absorbed the idea that neutron bombs just kill people and leave structures “standing” but in fact, while the blast and thermal effects are only a fraction of what is seen by weapons that maximize x-ray yield, they’re still an order of magnitude or more greater yield than any conventional weapons, including thermobaric weapons and the BLU-82 or GBU-43/B ‘MOAB’.
Stranger