Anyone else looking to the normalization and social acceptance of using tactical nuclear weapons in a limited way to effect changes on the battlefield?
I hope Putin breaks the nuclear taboo, there's a big difference between a few kilotons deployed against a Ukrainian hardpoint and dropping a SATAN on NYC.
Am I the only one that wishes to see tactical nuclear weapons make a comeback?
BANAN
Nah man, I just want an all-out nuclear conflict where a bare minimum of 1200 nukes are fired at strategic Russian targets.
Nah that's stupid and won't happen, but limited tactical nuclear warfare is absolutely on the menu.
I hope Puccia suffers some embarrassing defeat again that encourages them to reach for this tool.
Then you'll always have to put up with Russia's bullshit. Enjoy.
Well, the flip side is you can nuke them back with some tactical warheads as well.
So it's win-win.
Ukraine ceases to exist, and another 200K Puccians vanish too.
>Ukraine ceases to exist, and another 200K Puccians vanish too.
if theres some bullshitanium device in place to stop nuclear aids-in-a-cloud from spreading to europe ill take it
NATO doctrine is to employ tactical nukes to disrupt and destroy Russian formations in Poland and Belarus, but after the SMO even NATO recognizes how much of a disproportionate overreaction that would be
Even ""Tactical"" nukes are going to poison the entire world with radioactive isotopes which are especially poisonous to children. We have a moral obligation to our children and the entire world to not use nukes unless it's absolutely necessary. Even doing "testing" is bad.
Bullshit. It's bullshit made up by anti-nuke homosexuals, just like nuclear winter.
Brainlet. Do you know how many nukes have been detonated worldwide since 1945 in nuclear tests? Over 2000! A few tactical nukes today would be frick all compared to what has detonated so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2EgzSwoKm4
There have been 509 atmospheric nuclear explosions.
I am so fricking sick of children. You've actually won me over to the nuke side.
Only the dirtbag russians.
Time to climb the escalation ladder!
For me, it's Barely Nuclear War.
>Just the (nuclear) tip
Nukes are gay and probably fake even
For me, it's Some Other Kinds of Controlled General War
The guy who created this chart also coined the word 'wargasm'.
Oh sure, israelites always loved the Bomb because they can't fight.
Which non-nuclear state are you from?
What would a few kilotons net you in this day and age? The use of nuclear weapons is a political message that has to be authorized at the highest levels of civilian government.
PGMs are common enough if you need to wreck a bunch of targets at once, and armored vehicles are meant to take a healthy amount of overpressure and flash heat exposure. Nukes not working well against armor is where the neutron bomb came in before ATGMs and PGMs grew to fill NATO's capability gap.
?feature=shared&t=990
This is the New Normal. Remember to take your iodine supplements Chud
>New
Ah that explains it.
You're a zoomer just realizing this is the world you live in, and you're putting on the edgelord act to hide the fact that it quietly mortifies you.
You'll get used to it. Your grandfathers lived with it, your parent's probably did, and now you will, too.
Now stop shitting up the board with teenager-tier moronation.
1. They have questionable utility as very rarely are troops that concentrated. You drop a nuke and kill 250 soldiers. Then what? Send more?
2. Air-fields, bases, bunkers, etc are static big targets, which you might as well use a strategic nuclear weapon for, not tactical.
3. No one can run a scenario where they are used, and it doesn't result in endless escalation.
4. Nuclear weapons are "based and red pilled" because they keep the peace.
Tactical nuclear weapons are used simply to get a greater yield where a weapons system can't resupply.
Missiles, torpedoes, suicide drones, some himars type systems and theatre level AA.
For example you might well use a tactical nuclear weapon in a SCUD because it's a cheap one way delivery platform that isn't especially accurate.
Another feature of a tactical nuclear weapon is what happens if it is damaged. The UXO risk is relative to only the explosive decompression element not the nuclear charge. So recovery would actually be very easy compared to a conventional weapon, notable with torpedoes because you don't want to put a whole port out of action, and SAM because you don't want a ton of C4 strapped to a ton of oxide/fuel falling back to earth.
MAD isn't real and you don't understand it. It's no longer a thing because of the relative durability of modern satellite based surveillance. America can fire one tactical nuke at China, China can see it, China can fire one back
Considering NATO ISR advantages, spotting and nuking Russian armor buildups would be an effective spoiling attack. Nuking Russian trench lines and minefields to clear an assault would have the same effect as extensive CAS with less risk
That’s moronic, and would lead to nuclear proliferation by all countries neighboring a nuclear power. It would lead to Russia being wiped out as a power since most of their people live in two cities.
>I hope Putin breaks the nuclear taboo
If Russia uses a Nuke it will be annihilated by a NATO total commitment fist strike. That's set in stone and has been since the cold war. That happening is probably a great thing for everyone except ziggers and the dictators they sustain though.
Are you fricking moronic?
Do you want to take the SOVL out of warfare forever?
I've held for almost a decade that tactical nuclear weapons will be used without hesitation in near peer conflict.
We don't see them in Ukraine because it's a limited conflict, Russia is just applying gradual pressure and European special forces are trying to bleed Russia out. Neither side wants a full blown conflict, neither are actually fighting for or against Ukraine.
I think it's very likely that the US or its allies will nuke Chinese Naval bases, as china's Naval power approaches that of the US the Americans will act pre-emptively.
Modern nuclear weapons are designed to create less rather then more fallout, and at sea the political ramifications will be much lower. I speculate that the US only persists with uranium penetrators to keep their public warm to the idea of limited nuclear bombing. Nuclear torpedoes are basically the norm now, under the surface everyone is going to use nuclear depth charges and torpedoes.
Tactical nukes won't be used because they aren't useful. Anything that you need to blow up that can't be blown up with conventional weapons is a target for a strategic weapon.
>I dont want to take out an entire fleet at anchor as well as the harbor with one bomb
You can just say you're gay; its much faster
Its his fricking point you moron, if you want to destroy the fleet, the harbor and maybe even the city next to it you wont use a tactical nuke, you will use an strategic one. Because you dont want to use one single low yield nuke, but a bunch of bigger ones via MIRV in order to make sure that they arent intercepted
>you wont use a tactical nuke, you will use an strategic one
define "tactical nuke" and "strategic nuke", dipshit
A tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) or non-strategic nuclear weapon (NSNW) is a nuclear weapon that is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations, mostly with friendly forces in proximity and perhaps even on contested friendly territory. Generally smaller in explosive power, they are defined in contrast to strategic nuclear weapons, which are designed mostly to be targeted at the enemy interior far away from the war front against military bases, cities, towns, arms industries, and other hardened or larger-area targets to damage the enemy's ability to wage war.
>a nuclear weapon that is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations, mostly with friendly forces in proximity and perhaps even on contested friendly territory
fair enough
look, this is Kerch
all the important bits; the Kerch bridge abutment, railhead, port facilities, and the airport are within this 6km sided box, 36 sqkm in total
a 2,000lb bomb creates a crater roughly 20 sqm IIRC, and has killing effects in a radius of about 500m to 1km, which is why "danger close" is defined as roughly that that distance
a circle with a radius of about 0.6km has an effect of roughly 1 sqkm, so it's a useful heuristic here to remember that one 2,000lb JDAM = 1sqkm
you'd need about forty 2,000lb JDAMs minimum to carpet bomb that area, not counting harder targets which will need more than one bomb
on the other hand, a Davy Crockett does moderate damage (using simplistic open source modelling) to everything in a 1-mile radius, or about 8 sqkm
strictly speaking, that is a viable target for four Davy Crockett size (or larger) tac nukes. ideally centred on the four targets mentioned above. one doesn't necessarily have to commit a strategic warhead.
>name one
see above
>then name one that takes 300000 jdams
if you wanted to wipe out all of Kerch with a single weapon instead of multiple tac nukes
open-source nuke effectiveness is modelled by cube-root scaling, and that is acknowledged to be overly optimistic
>what's a target that requires a tactical nuke?
>umm a city?
the defense rests.
>I am only capable of reading a tiny part of a post
I gave four other examples, frickwit:
>the Kerch bridge abutment, railhead, port facilities, and the airport
also, you could use a 300kt tac nuke on say an army brigade or division entrenched over an area about the same size as I showed
p.s.
>using a nuke on a dispersed trench network doesn't make it a tactical asset.
why not?
Because I said so. All nuke usage immediately becomes strategic; tactical nukes are a meme
NTA but you're wrong. No, I don't care why you disagree.
You guys are so fricking stupid.
No you fricking moron, immediately and painfully kys
how powerful is a
>tactical
nuke?
Davy Crockett warheads were only equivalent to 20 tonnes of TNT, or in burger units about twenty 2,000lb Mk84s
so that's the most powerful tactical nuclear weapon you'd use?
you asked
>how powerful is a tactical nuke?
and I gave you one single example, not
>the most powerful tactical nuclear weapon you'd use?
the French ASMP missile iirc is one of the biggest tac nukes and has up to 300 kilotons yield, or about 300,000 of those 2,000lb MK84s
so bombs 20 times as powerful as the one used to destroy 80 percent of Hiroshima is a tactical nuke?
I think my case rests that there is no such thing as tactical nuclear weapons.
>my case rests
hardly
the implicit assumption in your post is that the Hiroshima nuke defines a strategic nuke, which remains to be proven; and you're ignoring the very low yield example I gave above, which is a motte-and-bailey fallacy
my point is absolutely supported by the fact that, a weapon capable of flattening a city has no tactical target application where the goal is the destruction of the assets in its area of effect, instead of a political demonstration of wrath. That's explicitly the intended use case of France's first strike weapon.
there is no tactical environment where a nuke isn't highly wasteful of destructive power, that's why all nukes are strategic (read: political) weapons.
>a weapon capable of flattening a city has no tactical target application where the goal is the destruction of the assets in its area of effect
prove it (you can't)
>instead of a political demonstration of wrath. That's explicitly the intended use case of France's first strike weapon
EVERYTHING IS A POLITICAL DEMONSTRATION
if a USAF F-15 shot down a Russian Su-34 over Ukraine today, that would also be a political demonstration
that doesn't make an F-15 a strategic asset however
>there is no tactical environment where a nuke isn't highly wasteful of destructive power,
wrong, and I just showed you why: the smallest nuke is equivalent to twenty JDAMs and there are plenty of targets that would take at least that much firepower, if not more, to destroy
>that's why all nukes are strategic (read: political) weapons
that remains to be proven
certainly not by this line of reasoning
>plenty of targets that would take at least that much firepower,
name one.
then name one that takes 300000 jdams.
>that doesn't make an F-15 a strategic asset however
using a nuke on a dispersed trench network doesn't make it a tactical asset.
Tactical vs strategic is more a question of use rather than yield.
You can use a multi megaton nuke tactically (against a tank company for example), although it's probably overkill for that task.
You can use a single kiloton nuke strategically (against a power plant, or a government center), even though generally you want to use the biggest bombs you have for these types of attacks.
You can't have a setpiece tit for tat escalation if each step potentially costs millions of lives.
If Russia is stupid enough to cross the nuclear threshold it's nuclear capabilities will get neutralised instantly in its entirity even if it means nuclear attacks on every single russian nuclear asset.
Tl;dr any nuclear proliferation immediatly results in a full scale neutralisation i.e. nuclear strikes across russia.
Seems like one of those slippery whatcha-call-it's.
tactical nukes aren't even that useful.
Tell me what on the frontline you're gonna ook ook nook to magically get anywhere in Ukraine.
It's essentially the exact same as using your planes for bombing runs, except you have to risk less of them when they get shot down.
Nuclear weapons are only useful as strategic weapons.
If the Ukies had nuked the Russian trench network and minefields their summer offensive wouldn't have been the embarrassing slog it was
As long as Moscow becomes a glass crater that never again inhabits humanoid life I'm happy with anything.
no vatBlack person, you will never be allowed to ook ook nook nook anyone
Tactical nuclear weapons are a complete misnomer. Quite literally every war game the US and the USSR ever ran where they tried to use nuclear weapons, even on the most limited scale, simply escalated into strategic use almost as soon as the first shot was fired. Both countries had almost entirely abandoned the concept by the mid-1980s and had good reason to do so.
they would've challenged putin to trial by combat. huge law school pussy small ball boys that absolutely deserve to get nuked
Who is this ginormous mega-homosexual?
Why doed he argue like a queer? Am i being trolled?
I look forward to Iran testing a bomb. That and their hypersonic missiles, and the backing of Russia and China, means ZOG is stopped in its tracks. No more carrier fleets and the shitty little entity is overrun.
>I look forward to Iran testing a bomb.
Two more decades, inshallah.
In the most forgiving, weak-West fantasy scenario, Russia using even the smallest, most "ethical" nuke and target possible, they become the world's greatest terrorist state immediately, get cut off from the global community entirely (including their Fairweather Chicom friends, but not Norks and maybe Iran, who would be blacklisted with them if they don't), and the government would collapse by internal pressures quickly. I'm not certain of NATO occupation, because that would only incentivize them to use more, but nobody would be trading with them to an even harsher degree than now, and everyone would be fricking with them indirectly as much as possible. There's also a longstanding and widley recognized taboo of targeting heads of state for official assassination, and that taboo would also be broken were they to carry out any nuclear strike. If you thought Putin was paranoid about Covid, he would have to become a bunker baby to survive the week of. That "strongman" image the Russians like about him so much would dissappear. It would also make NATO more relevant, and thus stronger and better supported, just as the "SMO" has, so it would only strengthen their enemies to do so. I can't think of a single way it would help them, and it would have to be an act of utter desperation for a crumbling power structure to do so.
Honestly I believe that nuclear weapons could be normalized if limited use against purely military targets MAD would never apply.
>using nukes against military targets is acceptable
>every country on the planet that doesn't have nukes has effectively no military
>every country on the planet rushes nukes asap
>comfy mad with every unstable podunk shithole sitting on several hundred nukes
I can't imagine anything that could go wrong
Pretty much how I see it. US deterrence has been deteriorating since 2008 and is almost non-existent, today. Everything we thought couldn't happen 10 years ago is happening today. Absolutely nothing is stopping someone from using a nuclear weapon on military targets and I'd even wager that dropping one on a city would see "grave concern" from the West.
Let's be fricking clear that a lack of deterrence ends up normalizing fricked up shit. Nuclear weapons use is not exempt from this.