I don't get it. Why can't armies use tactical nukes in war? If you airburst, the radiation is negligible and the damage is huge. It's the perfect weapon. I understand dropping megatons on cities, but on a front with only soldiers, a 30 kt airburst wouldn't hurt any civilians and the contamination would not even remotely be a problem. Russia should start using them, and then the US would give the Ukrainians some. The taboo is just retarded.
sweetie, nukes are fake, okay?
Now imagine using them like conventional explosives, now see lunar landscape in war, you get idea.
>now see lunar landscape in war,
Looks a lot like the Somme in WWI
slippery slope argument
a well founded one
Cluster bombs did the same job cheaper.
>3km radius
Well, that would help russia to actually hit shit, but I don't think the cost of a nuke even comes close to the cost of 5 vehicles and 50 soldiers that will be killed.
You could easily delete a base or a logistical hub with that thing
A logistical hub has enough ammo to do the work for you with a 100lbs bomb
so can most competent bombing nowadays
1. The radiation is not, in fact, negligible, and the contamination is indeed a problem. 30kt is only "small" relative to bigger nukes. Little Boy was 15kt, Fat Man 21kt. It's a big blast.
2. It pushes everyone up the nuclear escalation/proliferation ladder. Start flinging around nukes and those with them will use more and more. Those without them will have to have them to compete, which means the NPT is dead, which means every rando nation starts aiming for nukes either directly or buying them off Pakistan or something. Small nukes are HARDER, not easier, than big ones. Nukes everywhere raises massively the odds of non-gov orgs getting them also.
3. They're not actually very useful militarily. The damage from an airburst will do shit against hardened/armored military targets. It's a LOT more in the favor of advanced countries to just keep stuff conventional.
>The taboo is just retarded.
No, but OP is a gay 100% of the time.
>The radiation is not, in fact, negligible, and the contamination is indeed a problem.
>They're not actually very useful militarily. The damage from an airburst will do shit against hardened/armored military targets
You're actuality retarded and I feel explaining this to you would be like talking to a brick wall
>I cannot comprehend that radiation/fallout which will contaminate things, thermal that will set big areas on fire for awhile causing lots of pollution, etc to make it shitty for civilians after the war simultaneously isn't going to stop the protected soldiers inside a tank/ifv/apc
>y-you're t-the r-re-retard ;_;
Yeah.
Because retards would use them on civilians anyways and cause all kinds of collateral damage.
Just look at Russia. They can't resist bombing McDonalds, shopping malls, and schools already with their drones and rockets. It would just take one moron pissy that his company isn't pushing fast enough or that his favorite cumscript died to start lobbing them at anything manmade.
>a 30 kt airburst wouldn't hurt any civilians
I hope this is a joke.
If the battle is happening in the middle of the Sahara or Siberia or Moscow or somewhere like that with no humans around it might be true, but yeah that's not where most wars are fought.
>Moscow or somewhere like that with no humans around
lel
>"hey fuckboy, we have nukes and you don't so we're taking all your shit"
>wtfffff why is everybody rushing to build nukes???/
>the damage is huge
That's the fucking thing! It is a disproportionate and sudden use of force, which effortlessly can erase entire defensive or offensive plans, rendering conventional forces exceptionally vulnerable or outright irrelevant.
Introducing their significant and unpredictable force into the conflict naturally disrupts any conventional long-term strategy by encouraging usage of rapid and overwhelming force, so that one can guarantee the neutralization of hostile tactical nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. And the easiest way to achieve this A1-priority is through more nuclear attacks, even if just tactical.
And as quickly as fortunes can turn in such an environment, where entire armies can be rendered crippled in mere minutes and hours, who's to rule out executing an operational or strategic strike to counterbalance this loss?
At least with strategic weapons there is usually some warning of the attack or the preparation of one. But tactical weapons can be, as pictured, be just about anywhere and attack without warning. In that sense they're more dangerous to planners and commanders and harder to counter in a non-escalatory manner.
good tank
Escalation, brinksmanship
Would U.S. Leaders Push the Button?
Wargames and the Sources of Nuclear Restraint.
By Reid B.C. Pauly
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b9d3f0f9f87703767ff0084/t/5dd1fc0201bff5552dbfd242/1574042627240/Pauly+-+Would+US+Leaders+Push+the+Button%3F+-+IS+Article.pdf
Drone delivered Davey Crockett is the future of warfare.
What are your thoughts on tactical nukes being used on soldiers of your country by the enemy or dropped on your cities?
The smaller warheads usually scatter far more radioative material given their blast yeild compared to large nuclear warheads. Granted, certain modern tactical weapons are designed well enough so that the reaction will reduce this, but dropping 10x 5kt warheads will distribute far more radioative material then dropping one 50kt warhead.
tldr; big nukes "burn" more efficiently
>I understand dropping megatons on cities, but on a front with only soldiers, a 30 kt airburst wouldn't hurt any civilians and the contamination would not even remotely be a problem.
Once the genie's out of the bottle, there's no way to stuff him back inside.
Once you give grunts nuclear toys not even God himself would stop them from bombing a base, an airfield, a hospital, an apartment block.
Just look at the completely emotionless shooting of everything Russians are doing today. Had USSR included nukes in their regular arsenal, those would already be polluting anything from Kiev to the most remote villages on the Polish border.
Soldiers are dumb as shit, ideally without morals and most fucking certainly not people who think things through or engage in philosophical discussions about the damage caused by reckless escalation.
They're just a bunch of scared apes with funny toys and buttons that remind them of crayons they eat at lunch.
Negligible radiation do not exist in civi speak.
It's either safe or instant soul-destroying cancer.
Using the nuke first would make you the attacker