1
$\begingroup$

At the risk of drawing unwanted official attention to myself, I'm curious.  It is alleged that a tactical warhead had little or no effect on six persons less than six kilometers away. 

What is the minimum "safe" distance from the weakest possible nuclear warhead? I am aware that they have to be designed so that criticality cannot occur until triggered, but I don't know the size or power of the minimum mass needed for an actual explosion.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I cannot, because I am not familiar with the latter term. Perhaps a different edit will satisfy you. $\endgroup$
    – WGroleau
    Commented Nov 28, 2022 at 20:58
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The smallest possible nuclear "blast" (from a physics point of view) would be e.g. one nucleus struck by a neutron triggering fission. I suspect you mean the smallest weapon, but there's no way of knowing how small a weapon could (in theory) be built and even then "safe" is relative. "safe" in the middle of a flat countryside is different from "safe" in a city surrounded by potentially falling or propelled masonry and glass. $\endgroup$
    – StephenG - Help Ukraine
    Commented Nov 28, 2022 at 21:06
  • $\begingroup$ warhead/weapon—is the difference significant? $\endgroup$
    – WGroleau
    Commented Oct 18 at 21:01

0

Reset to default

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.