First, nuclear weapons are easy to make and are much less complicated than making a computer. Countries like syria and Iran did try to make them several times but western countries bombed or cyber attacked them.
This time please please please let it be a Tsar Bomba Ka Baap.
Crude nuclear bomb and a well designed low yield weapon are two different faces of a bomb. You could have a canister full of HEU with a rod of plastic explosive in middle. It is too a short of bomb with right fuel, but it is known as a dirty bomb instead of a nuclear bomb.
The warhead also includes several items for packaging which adds weight. I don't think the weight can be further reduced to that extent.
I doubt that. The yield of the nuclear warhead is so low that would make the whole weapon useless. 1kt yield? That won't impose any meaningful damage to any army ever trained how to fight in nuclear condition.
Artillery shells were also made nuclear by USA. It may not cause a serious damage but even 1kT will cause larger damage than other conventional warheads of same size. A circle with radius of 100 metres will be hit very hard and almost every equipment within it will be wiped out and the damage to infantry and battle formation can be upto a circle of radius 300 metres.
Actually it would be of sub Kt yield. But more then that, it is about polluting the whole marching column. It is more about psychological warfare then tactical. Who would want to venture in a area polluted with nuclear fallout? Warhead like those of Nasr are more dirty bombs then pure nuclear weapon.
Not necessarily. It could yield higher or lower depending on the design.
Here are some videos to debunk the myths of blast effects :
It takes only 6-12 kgs of plutonium and 10-20 kgs of HEU for fission bombs and only a few grams of tritium and deuterium are added for hydrogen bombs rest is weight of other things like explosives, trigger and electronics, casing, etc. So we have not used 12 tons of fissile material. And we have a minimum 450 ready to use warheads from 1994 itself. And fissile material for 3000 warheads more already known to all P-5 nations. We are not assembling bombs as this material is being used for nuclear powered submarines and future nuclear Power aircraft carriers.
2-3 kg weapons grade plutonium is needed and 25-30kg 99% enriched uranium is needed for a warhead. In case of reactor grade plutonium, we need 4kg of plutonium per bomb. You must be joking to say 6-12 kg plutonium is needed per bomb. The Nagasaki bomb, which was the first ever plutonium bomb explosion (they didn't do even a test before) was made of 6kg plutonium. The Hiroshima bomb had 60kg Uranium. Bombs have got much more efficient after that.
We have HEU and related technologies but it is exclusively being and will be used only for Nuclear powered Submarines and future Aircraft carriers.
Had I written anywhere that they would be roasted? I just mentioned about venturing into a polluted warzone, not a test zone. The people in video you have posted did ventured there in danger zone, but had it been shown how they had been kept in isolation after that and been cleaned thoroughly thereafter before venturing among others. Now you could say that with NBC suit protection we needn't worry about that, but just imagine each and every soldier in a column wearing those and going to war.
What yield are you talking about here. What design are you prescribing here?
For plutonium bomb, the only possible way is implosion. Yield is about 15-20kT, non-fusion bomb
Any army ever had proper training under nuclear war circumstance can minimize that damage. For example, the training of Soviet army can make the majority of a armored battalion survived from an attack of an US h-bomb with 10k yield. If soviet army could managed to do this, how many tactical nuclear weapons does Pakistan need to stop Indian army 20 years after cold war? Does Pakistan have that much nuclear material for such scale of nuclear force?
Who would want to venture in a area polluted with nuclear fallout? Any army came through cold war would have planned and trained to do this. Even today, anti-nuclear is still part of every major army drill. I will be surprised that Indian army hasn't received such kind of training.
