this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
466 points (97.4% liked)
Not The Onion
21004 readers
1051 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's from the 50s but as I understand it nukes as we have them now require certain physical properties and dimensions to work with that being about as small as you can get. Anything smaller and the reaction either fizzles out, you get a dirty bomb, or the explosive yield is worse than traditional explosives of equivalent size. To make it any smaller you'd need a fusion bomb most likely.
You'd still need a fission bomb, to initiate the fusion reaction.
Probably, though as I noted the problem with such small nuclear arms isn't their capacity but moreso their efficiency and consistency. A fusion bomb could help to amplify at least the capacity for destruction, assuming it can't be circumnavigated through some technological fuckery, frankly I don't think anyone can comment on fusion bombs with any degree of accuracy given that we haven't figured out sustained fusion reactors.