What's the most potent automatic weapon a person can carry?

[mks57]

@633squadron

Whew! For a moment, I was afraid I’d have to explain it. I mean geez, doesn’t a blast radius of 500 yards and a range of 100 make you just a bit suspicious? :rolleyes:

Not necessarily. I remember being told something similar in grenade training about the WP grenade. Its effective range was larger than the distance it could be thrown by the average soldier.

[Ranchoth]

You know, actually, I seem to remember that one could, theoretically, build a bullet-sized nuclear warhead using Americium isotope “fuel” that’d have a yield in the tens of tons. The catch being that, as I remember, said isotopes are hard to synthesize, and they have a half-life of like two days. Kinda impractical, any way you go at it.

[Raguleader]

@633squadron

Whew! For a moment, I was afraid I’d have to explain it. I mean geez, doesn’t a blast radius of 500 yards and a range of 100 make you just a bit suspicious? :rolleyes:

I dunno, it’s the Army.

One professor of mine mentioned a couple of interesting nuclear weapons the Army played with, including a cannon that fired nuclear shells and was capable of hitting a target as close as 100 yards away (it’s maximum range was a bit farther than that, I think). IIRC, another idea involved a nuclear landmine which infantry would deploy in the face of a Soviet tank offensive. Run out in the path of the tanks with the mine in a backpack, drop the pack into a pre-placed concrete hole, run back to cover before the tanks catch up with the mine.

[Ranchoth]

@Raguleader

IIRC, another idea involved a nuclear landmine which infantry would deploy in the face of a Soviet tank offensive. Run out in the path of the tanks with the mine in a backpack, drop the pack into a pre-placed concrete hole, run back to cover before the tanks catch up with the mine.

Might have been the Special Atomic Demolition Munition?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Ranchoth

You know, actually, I seem to remember that one could, theoretically, build a bullet-sized nuclear warhead using Americium isotope “fuel” that’d have a yield in the tens of tons. The catch being that, as I remember, said isotopes are hard to synthesize, and they have a half-life of like two days. Kinda impractical, any way you go at it.

According to this you’d still need something like 9kg for a critical mass of americium. Looking at the list californium-251 looks like the best bet with a 5kg critical mass (although on another page they suggest 2kg might just do it). With an 898 year half life it’ll hang around longer but it seems it is a very lethal substance bomb or no bomb. Might be a bit too nasty to carry around as a nuclear “bullet”.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Forgot to add Americium-242 (probably what you would use for a bomb) has a 141 year half life.

Actually I am not sure I fully understand the deal with Americium since most of the isotopes have less than a 51 hour half-life but 242 is a nuclear isomer (or meta state?) that has the 141 year half life.

Sorry for the hijack…just some weirdness I had not encountered before.

[Ranchoth]

@Whack-a-Mole

According to this you’d still need something like 9kg for a critical mass of americium. Looking at the list californium-251 looks like the best bet with a 5kg critical mass (although on another page they suggest 2kg might just do it).

Just out of curiosity, how much physical space would those 9kg and 2kg masses take up?

[Quartz]

These small nukes seem perfect for throwing down a cliff or a shaft - anywhere where there’s plenty of good solid stuff between you and it when it goes off.