Why havent we seen a resurgence of small sub 1KT nukes mounted on missiles?

Why haven’t we seen a resurgence of small sub 1KT nukes mounted on missiles?

With our missile being so accurate there’s no need for 100kt and above monsters. You can effectively destroy critical infrastructure in cities and military installations while having relatively very little civilian casualties

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >what is escalation

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >what is escalation
      when you send troops over the border you accept the risk or losing them or you're an incompetent commander

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You're missing the point entirely moron. Keep trying though

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          its not an escalation when you do what the other side expects you to do, kill the troops put in danger

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Have you heard of W76-2?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Have you heard of brinkmanship?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >N.A.T.O. and Russia testing out their equipment out in Ukraine plus fighting each other in the Sahel belt via mercs
      >Mainland China regularly violating Taiwanese airspace and gunning down Vietnamese an Filipino fishing boats in ''''''''their'''''''' national waters
      >Best Korea lobbing ICBM's over Guam and Japan for the LoLz
      Oh but heaven forbid the Davy Crockett makes a comeback, that would surely be the start of WW3.

      They're insanely dirty, tons of fallout and full fission, and they still trigger nuclear war. They're higher misuse risks as well. If you're using nukes at all game theory is you just go all the way. "Tactical" nukes are a meme in the modern context, they only made sense in a cold war era of shitty guidance, with no or very primitive ICBMs (and not a lot of them). We got rid of them because they're obsolete.

      Aren't there ways to make nukes with reduced fallout side effects now? I dunno if that scales down to something that small however.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Aren't there ways to make nukes with reduced fallout side effects now?
        Yes (though "reduced" is very relative of course) but...
        >I dunno if that scales down to something that small however.
        It doesn't. You reduce fallout by getting more energy from fusion instead of fission. Tiny nukes though are ~pure fission (later models were probably boosted so technically would have like 1% fusion contribution, but mostly that's about increasing fission percentage).

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You reduce fallout by getting more energy from fusion instead of fission.
          also ground burst actually irradiates the dirt increasing the fallout, so you want air burst

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            True, though if we're talking attack on hardened targets it's either ground strike or low enough (close to fireball diameter or within) that there'd still be a lot of extra neutron activation. If we're talking counter value city hits then yeah airburst for sure to maximize destructive area of unhardened targets, but then we're not talking about tactical nukes anymore either. But if used in an anti-air role then yeah at least we'd avoid some extra fallout (and hopefully if it had ever happened we'd have been able to intercept over the ocean or northern canada or something, far enough away to reduce impacts further, and then pray winds went our way).

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >that would surely be the start of WW3
        Unironically yes

        its not an escalation when you do what the other side expects you to do, kill the troops put in danger

        You still somehow don't get the point numbnuts. You must be a not or a shill with a shitty script, probably the latter

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          oh ok you just don't know what escalation means

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >no u
            Good job dumbass

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              you cannot escalate against the enemy on your own territory, thats just by definition out of the picture, killing them is the expected action

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So if Ukraine nuked Russia Russia can’t escalate with their own nukes?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >can't
                Obviously Russia CAN do whatever moronic shit they want, even if it resulted in suicide, same as any other sovereign nation. But if Ukraine had still had a reasonable nuclear arsenal, and they used tac nukes inside of Ukraine to blunt a Russian invasion of Ukraine, thus suffering the fallout and so on in their own territory, then Russia:
                a) For what little it's worth they'd have zero international leg to stand on. You can use nukes inside your own territory anyway. Almost every nuclear country has done so for testing. It's someone else's country, if you enter it you're subject to their force.
                b) Should Russia choose to use nuclear weapons offensively in return, obviously Ukraine would then escalate to strategic usage in turn (and possibly other countries) and Russia would have most of its population wiped out. That's the core fundamental purpose of nuke: defending against an existential threat to your nation. Russia's stated goal from the start has been to crush Ukrainian independence and conquer everything for themselves. There is no reason for Ukraine not to use everything they've got.

                Just as subhuman vatniks have whined about every way Ukraine has defended themselves and tried to paint Russian mass warcrimes as poor poor ruska being bullied, no doubt they'd claim Ukraine had "escalated", but nobody would care least of all Ukraine. So Russia would have to decide if it was worth having Moscow and everywhere else nuked or not.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    nukes aren't real, vatnik

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They're insanely dirty, tons of fallout and full fission, and they still trigger nuclear war. They're higher misuse risks as well. If you're using nukes at all game theory is you just go all the way. "Tactical" nukes are a meme in the modern context, they only made sense in a cold war era of shitty guidance, with no or very primitive ICBMs (and not a lot of them). We got rid of them because they're obsolete.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >muh fallout
      >muh nuclear war
      frick off pidor, nobody is scared of monke's nooks

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        lmao can't you ziggers come up with anything original? These falseflag attempts are absolutely pathetic.
        >those are totally Russians in the pictures guys
        >Soviets definitely had advanced nukes that work guys not big lumbering shit
        >we're white!
        kek

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          post gun + outlet vatnik

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >gets exposed and btfo
            >let me try this other meme our controller gave us next see i fit in!
            >post what I ask for first? they don't let us do that in my country though!!
            lol. Imagine someone asserting the Davy Crockett is soviet or that Russians have accurate missiles ("accurate" means 1m CEP zigger-kun, inability to hit a static power plant instead of apartments somewhere in a 10 mile radius is not "accurate" by civilized standards) trying to pretend to be /k/ or even American too.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >no gun
              >no outlet
              kek you're 100% not an American

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >no gun
                >no outlet
                >no hands
                Projection doesn't work once people catch on vatnik scum.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                cope + seethe turd worlder

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for finally doing the minimal and here you go, now cope and seethe yourself over being American but also a complete and absolute fricking moron who apparently hates our country and actually thinks Russia is in any way a peer.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Id rather be a Russian then a democrat

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                MAGA

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >make fun of russians
                >get accused of being russian
                kek, you're definitely a brainrotted trannoid

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/eZwpuJw.jpeg

                Thanks for finally doing the minimal and here you go, now cope and seethe yourself over being American but also a complete and absolute fricking moron who apparently hates our country and actually thinks Russia is in any way a peer.

                The absolute state of /k/ right now

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      These can replace strategic nukes. You can cripple a nation without having appealing civilian casualties

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >These can replace strategic nukes.
        No, they cannot.
        >You can cripple a nation without having appealing civilian casualties
        No, you can't.

        NATO has overwhelming conventional dominance in all battle spaces and precision long range strike options. The USN alone has over 4000 Tomahawk cruise missiles. We don't need to use nukes for anything except countering nukes. If we're countering nukes it calls for strategic weapons. The whole idea is that nukes SHOULD be hard to use, last resort items. "Making nukes easier to use" isn't good it's bad. Frick off you absolute mouthbreathing moron.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You just want to satiate a bloodlust

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I am indeed all in favor of first striking Russia's nukes and then wiping them out, so guess I can't deny you got that one correct. Your fault for being such absolutely insufferable homosexuals ever since the mongols raped your ancestors for a few generations though.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You can first strike russias nuke with sub 1st nukes

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You can first strike russias nuke with sub 1st nukes
                Yes that's the plan, which is why Russia was so angry about development of super fuses. But SLBMs are themselves strategic, not "tactical". To the extent they kill fewer civilians it's simply because almost nobody is moronic enough to not separate counter force and counter value targets by a solid distance, indeed part of the value of land based nukes in the modern era is to attract opposing nukes.

                Of course the response is still the same but you can cripple a nation without having the deaths of hundreds of millions of people on your conscience. It can also make it easier to rebuild the country if you can occupy it with your conventional forces

                Your moronic tac nukes do nothing in this scenario. If the vatniks or chinks nuke us in a serious way, we won't have tac nukes or conventional forces to respond with and thus need our ICBMs/SLBMs. If we preserve our conventional forces, then there's no need for tac nukes either because conventional PGMs already can do everything required to "cripple the enemy".

                Also the only thing on my conscience if somebody nuked America or NATO would be failing to obliterate them back. If you use nukes that's on you and everything that will and should come after.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >we
                >us
                but you're not American

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The tactical nukes can become the strategic nukes

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Probably not actually. Silos can probably tank a sub kt explosion

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Probably not actually. Silos can probably tank a sub kt explosion
                Almost definitely not. Number I've typically seen tossed around for silo pressure is 3000 psi. Nukemap suggests a 20 ton equivalent nuke can do that in an area ~60' (18m) across:
                >https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=0.02&lat=35.9644116&lng=-107.7179712&airburst=0&hob_ft=0&psi=3000,20,5,1&zm=16
                Dunno if it stays accurate that small, but even so that is a really fricking tiny CEP requirement, particularly as it needs a ground hit, for a ballistic missile. And how are we hitting hundreds of silos deep in the middle of nowhere in Russia or China without ballistic missiles before they notice and launch which is kinda the point of a 1st strike. The now dead MX Missile was considered insanely accurate (and crazy expensive) for a ballistic missile and that had a CEP of like 90m. So you need like 2.2x that to have a >95% assurance of a kill, and probably in reality given how insanely important it is to work you probably want a bit more.

                That'd come out to maybe 250-350kt, and interestingly the reported yield of the W-78s and W-87s on the Minute Man IIIs are 300 or 350 kt, which would mean a 3000psi radius of ~222m or almost exactly 2.5x 90m.

                So yeah: the idea that sub-kt or even single/double digit kiloton nukes are useful for 1st strike seems really really implausible.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >NATO has overwhelming conventional dominance in all battle spaces
          lol

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Russia is superior to NATO in even a single area of conventional warfare, of any kind, at all, anywhere.
            lol yourself. Even the USSR concluded by the early 80s that they had completely lost in any conventional conflict.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        As any use of nuclear weapons will likely trigger a nuclear war, all nuclear weapons are strategic weapons.
        Really the only possible use for a return of 'tactical' nuclear weapons is if missile defense systems become advanced enough to completely counter ICBMs. This will probably never happen, as almost any technological advancements that result in more advanced interceptors can also just be used to make more advanced ICBMs.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >As any use of nuclear weapons will likely trigger a nuclear war, all nuclear weapons are strategic weapons.
          No, defensive use of nuclear weapons is unlikely to trigger a nuclear war, if only because if the attacker has nukes and was willing to use them why wouldn't have they in the first place if they're planning on unilaterally invading you? If a nuclear war is already going on then there's nothing to trigger either, the strat nukes have already launched and indeed part of the point of tac nukes would be to try to stop the strat ones from landing.
          >Really the only possible use for a return of 'tactical' nuclear weapons is if missile defense systems become advanced enough to completely counter ICBMs.
          They're already there for smaller numbers. Building more or not is about economics, perceived risk, and geopolitics as much as anything.
          >This will probably never happen, as almost any technological advancements that result in more advanced interceptors can also just be used to make more advanced ICBMs.
          Naw, you're really over stating this. The most promising advanced defense would be DEWs or particle weapons, neither of which has the slightest application to ICBMs. But more importantly even with pure missiles physics favors the defender in important ways due to the rocket equation. ICBMs must be much, MUCH bigger and fundamentally more expensive then interceptors need to be. An SM3 is ~22' long and 1.5 tons. A Minuteman 3 is 60' long and 36 tons. Light decoys only help before reentry, so DEWs/PBs or high accel missiles still have at least 30 seconds assuming they don't just blap decoys too. Heavier decoys cost mass and actual warheads, which are at a major premium.

          I don't see how tactical nukes help in this case either though. SMD is going to be completely out of reach unless you've already won somehow. That's the point of using ballistic missiles in the first place.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      because sub-1KT does frick-all to strategic targets
      but this is exactly why the modern trend is for more MIRVs and relatively smaller (100KT) yield warheads, see for example the Russian nuclear weapons
      same goes for the UK's Trident D5 (100KT or 475KT) and France's M51s (150KT) or ASMP (up to 300KT)

      >"Tactical" nukes are a meme in the modern context
      They've become useful again due to anti-ballistic missile systems; if you split your KT allocation so to speak into say five MIRVs each yielding 100KT, you won't lose a single 500KT warhead to a single SM-3

      These can replace strategic nukes. You can cripple a nation without having appealing civilian casualties

      >appealing
      appalling
      which is kind of the opposite

      >/k/ - where two moronic Americans accuse each other of being Russian

      kek

      0.3kT is still 300 fricking tons of TNT. Thats like a delete entire city block or small town explosion. The big FABs MOABs and FOABs are around 10 tons and are pigfat needing big, slow bomber. There's entore research theme of sub-kiloton gab as it would offer the perfect bang to delete common formation sizes, individual buildings and have compact size to e.g. carry by F16 or as arty shell.

      >sub-kiloton gab as it would offer the perfect bang to delete common formation sizes, individual buildings and have compact size to e.g. carry by F16 or as arty shell.
      this

      >There's entore research theme of sub-kiloton gab as it would offer the perfect bang to delete common formation sizes, individual buildings and have compact size to e.g. carry by F16 or as arty shell
      If you plan to spray around tens of thousands of them then you're still creating an enormous fallout mess, it'd unironically be cleaner to just use normal full fat thermonukes. You also by definition have the kind of MIC necessary to do it conventionally. If you don't then they're not very effective militarily and definitely won't "delete common formation sizes" in the modern era because those are plenty spread out, and armor even a very small distances away won't have any problems. A ground burst W54 at 20T has a fireball about 60 ft across, 20psi over pressure radius of just 200 ft, even "3rd degree burns" is only like 450 ft. The "kill you in a month" radiation radius is the bigger one at that point, almost 1/4 mile, but a bunch of sealed armor is actually very effective at mitigating that.

      Same amount of money spent on PGMs is unironically bigger bang for the anti-armor buck, doesn't leave fallout for your own guys to deal with, and doesn't trigger other side to nuke too. They just aren't worth it in an era of ever more accurate weapons.

      Honestly it's the same as us abandoning big multi-megaton bombs. Those were a product of bombers and extreme inaccuracy, most of the blast was wasted. As soon as we could do pretty accurate MIRVs we started going smaller.

      >Same amount of money spent on PGMs is unironically bigger bang for the anti-armor buck
      until you start counting delivery platforms
      one F-35 delivering one B61-12 costs 100 million dollars and can delete a whole armoured battalion even dispersed in a single sortie
      to achieve the same effect conventionally, you'd likely need twelve F-35s each launching a number of SDBs, JDAMs and HARMs

      You can’t wipe out an armored formation with nukes. They are designed to survive them. A centurion survived unscathed from a 10kt detonation 400m away

      >You can’t wipe out an armored formation with nukes
      can with enough yield

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Unless a tank touches the fireball the blast pressure isn’t strong enough to harm it. Even then there’s designs like the object 279 which can withstand a direct hit

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the blast pressure isn’t strong enough to harm it
          Wrong
          The Nuclear Chieftain's hull survived, but all its sensors and optics were destroyed. The crew would have been killed. It's a mission kill.

          A 100KT weapon according to Nukemap will wipe out anything with at least 20psi overpressure and deliver 1000 rem of radiation out to about 1.5km radius or a 5+sqkm area. It would only take 4 such weapons - theoretically deliverable by a single F-35, or more likely 4 F-35s - to wipe out all the defenders and support units around a key area like say Kerch.

          Part of the trick is to find areas where units are forced to concentrate, such as assembly and staging areas, defensive strong points, transit points and supply depots.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >This weapon that can do the thing a multi-ton FOAB does in a >ton package is obsolete
      I don't think you understand how technology works

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh yeah? Technology is just so easy huh? Alright genius, explain vending machines.
        >coins go in
        >food comes out
        Good fricking luck dickhead

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >t. moron
        Hello? We don't use MOABs or MOPs almost ever either, because it's not a very useful explosion size in most cases. Too small to actually have a majorly different effect, too big to avoid collateral. But at least they're both clean and don't lead directly to nuclear exchange, and are much much cheaper with far less maintenance requirements.

        Tac nukes are cope weapons for worthless shithole countries like Russia with awful advanced manufacturing and conventional forces. Real countries win conventional wars conventionally and use nukes to counter other nukes.

        lol and I just noticed you said
        >This weapon that can do the thing a multi-ton FOAB does in a >ton package is obsolete
        >FOAB
        >not MOAB
        Way to reveal yourself. So as I said I can see why it makes sense for YOU, being a worthless shithole country.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          America still poses tactical nukes btw with yields going all the way down to 300T

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Variable yield big nukes isn't the same as tiny dedicated tac nukes. There's no downside to having high variable as a capability when it still dials up to hundreds of kt if you have the tech for it, might as well just in case. We've got leftovers from the cold war, though even that is controversial, but special purpose stuff tends to hang by status quo until the time comes to decide about budgeting for refresh. But we're not developing and doing a "resurgence" of sub-kt stuff for missiles or artillery or whatever, in fact we abandoned that DURING the cold war as soon our guidance got good enough and our conventional capabilities swept past the USSR. Even for ABM where actual American mainland cities are at risk, as soon as direct intercept was even on paper good enough we ditched nuclear interceptors.`

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >There's no downside to having high variable
              Cost

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The cost of nuclear weapons, including their production, maintenance, security reqs etc, is absolutely stratospheric no matter what. There is no such thing as a cheap nuke. The incremental cost of high variable over anything at all is a nothingburger and growing less so.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            there are no such things as tactical nukes. all nukes are strategic by way of being nuclear and having no useful battlefield purpose.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              There were definitely tactical nukes during the cold war early on anon, they're pointless long since but don't be a fricking moron about it. Before we had any decent guidance nuclear warheads on air to air or anti-ballistic missiles definitely served a real purpose, and we designed them. Nuclear torpedos and depth charges as well. Arguably even stuff like OP's. These are all nuclear weapons you're using defensively, either over neutral territory or flat out your own territory. They were very much qualitatively and quantitatively different then strategic nukes on strat bomers or long range ballistic missiles, and they weren't escalatory either because if you're using them to defend against opposing strategic nukes the war has already gone hot. Obviously you hope to keep the damage and fallout on your own side to less then what it would have been by doing nothing.

              Of course our nuclear interceptors were dropped as soon as electronics, computers, radar etc advanced enough to mean we could use conventional warheads or kinetic instead. Doesn't change that there was such a thing as tactical nukes.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They're insanely dirty, tons of fallout and full fission, and they still trigger nuclear war. They're higher misuse risks as well. If you're using nukes at all game theory is you just go all the way. "Tactical" nukes are a meme in the modern context, they only made sense in a cold war era of shitty guidance, with no or very primitive ICBMs (and not a lot of them). We got rid of them because they're obsolete.

              because there is no such thing as a tactical nuke. and for small nukes the radioactive effects start to range with the blast effects.
              nobody is going to say
              >oh, you only lethally irradiated 9,000 people, it's NBD
              they'll fricking poison gas your capital.

              I swear to god this meme has to die. There is a useful distinction between strategic and tactical nuclear arms depending on the delivery method and yield to an extent. An ICBM field is under very direct control of the chiefs of staff, while a nuclear artillery piece is under the direction of a battalion/division commander. During the cold war the difference was very obvious with hard-targeted ICBMs, SLBMs and bomber fleets vs. tactical aircraft and atomic ground to ground short-range missiles intended for use against enemy formations and other close military targets.

              The existence of 'limited' or 'tactical' nuclear war between two nuclear powers is the myth, not the existence of tactical weapons.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can’t use nuclear weapons in a tactical role

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you can't bbbecause YOU JUST CAN'T OKAY

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can, see

                There were definitely tactical nukes during the cold war early on anon, they're pointless long since but don't be a fricking moron about it. Before we had any decent guidance nuclear warheads on air to air or anti-ballistic missiles definitely served a real purpose, and we designed them. Nuclear torpedos and depth charges as well. Arguably even stuff like OP's. These are all nuclear weapons you're using defensively, either over neutral territory or flat out your own territory. They were very much qualitatively and quantitatively different then strategic nukes on strat bomers or long range ballistic missiles, and they weren't escalatory either because if you're using them to defend against opposing strategic nukes the war has already gone hot. Obviously you hope to keep the damage and fallout on your own side to less then what it would have been by doing nothing.

                Of course our nuclear interceptors were dropped as soon as electronics, computers, radar etc advanced enough to mean we could use conventional warheads or kinetic instead. Doesn't change that there was such a thing as tactical nukes.

                . Tactical nuclear weapons make sense used defensively if you've got no better options. What they don't make sense for is offense in the age of PGMs when you've got overwhelming conventional dominance.

                [...]
                [...]
                I swear to god this meme has to die. There is a useful distinction between strategic and tactical nuclear arms depending on the delivery method and yield to an extent. An ICBM field is under very direct control of the chiefs of staff, while a nuclear artillery piece is under the direction of a battalion/division commander. During the cold war the difference was very obvious with hard-targeted ICBMs, SLBMs and bomber fleets vs. tactical aircraft and atomic ground to ground short-range missiles intended for use against enemy formations and other close military targets.

                The existence of 'limited' or 'tactical' nuclear war between two nuclear powers is the myth, not the existence of tactical weapons.

                What does anything you wrote have to do with them being obsolete? The posts you replied to are not memes, they're replying to OP's question of why America has had a "resurgence of small sub 1KT nukes mounted on missiles", and his stupid shit about how you can destroy "critical infrastructure in cities and military installations while having relatively very little civilian casualties". Which is just fricking dumb on multiple levels. Whether air burst or ground burst, detonating a W54 in the middle of a city would cause mass civilian casualties and trigger all out nuclear war, even if sure it'd be less then a megaton bomb would. And it'd only be minimally effective against hardened installations, if it even got through.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They never got used in the Cold War because you can’t use them

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, they never got used because by both effort and raw luck the cold war never went hot. They absolutely would have been used for their intended purpose if it had, to hopefully mitigate some damage.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Korea and Vietnam was the perfect time to use them. Same with Ukraine war. All three countries cannot retaliate with their own nukes

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No they weren't. The US itself was at zero threat, and stood to lose far more in return. Stop running on memes.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They had nothing to lose

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Holy shit are you literally moronic.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ESL

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I could almost see Korea especially with how new they still were at the time, but Vietnam?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What does anything you wrote have to do with them being obsolete?
                Absolutely nothing. To answer the actual thread, low-yield tactical nukes were made obsolete by their lack of utility. West germans wanted to lean heavily into nuclear defense because that would allow a small force to maintain credible defence, while the US decided to move away from relying on tactical nuclear weapons because they cannot be used in actual combat (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada...) due to the nuclear taboo, and instead decided to lean on PGMs and cluster munitions for tactical use. Tacking on an additional arsenal of low-yield weapons would come at an immense cost that would only ever pay off if the decision to use nukes is made.

                To summarize, tactical nukes made sense for e.g., West Germany, that has zero interest in expeditionary warfare, but do not make sense for a great power that must be able to commit to a large scale of conflict intensity.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if i take 1 more dose of radiation i am kicking ur ass boomhauer

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because there is no such thing as a tactical nuke. and for small nukes the radioactive effects start to range with the blast effects.
    nobody is going to say
    >oh, you only lethally irradiated 9,000 people, it's NBD
    they'll fricking poison gas your capital.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Of course the response is still the same but you can cripple a nation without having the deaths of hundreds of millions of people on your conscience. It can also make it easier to rebuild the country if you can occupy it with your conventional forces

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no you can't.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Train stations, ports, power plants, enemy silos, and military bases can all be destroyed with a Davy crocket

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ok, pick a city in the US and overlay all the davy crocket blast radii on it for all the targets you think need hit. then post it here. use nukemap, it'll be easy.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I’m on my phone but you would need 1 bomb for each site

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                dumb phoneposter

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ok, when you get home do it. because a Davy crocket has a lethal radiation range of 400 fricking meters.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That radiation gets blown around the area after. You can’t just immediately go in after the explosion to start repairs which will be hard to do because there’s no electricity and no ga

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No one tell this dumb Black person about neutron activation.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Uh-huh

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes but then the country you just conquered is full of people who hate you and want to kill you. Enjoy your forever insurgency compounded by the after effects of a nuclear first strike.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Which is what Bush wanted to dksd0hdo

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    35 replies in and none of you Black folk know that most of the US tactical arsenal is variable yield, B61 is speculated to go down to 0.3kT

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why not just use conventional weapons at that point?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They are still way weaker

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        0.3kT is still 300 fricking tons of TNT. Thats like a delete entire city block or small town explosion. The big FABs MOABs and FOABs are around 10 tons and are pigfat needing big, slow bomber. There's entore research theme of sub-kiloton gab as it would offer the perfect bang to delete common formation sizes, individual buildings and have compact size to e.g. carry by F16 or as arty shell.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >There's entore research theme of sub-kiloton gab as it would offer the perfect bang to delete common formation sizes, individual buildings and have compact size to e.g. carry by F16 or as arty shell
          If you plan to spray around tens of thousands of them then you're still creating an enormous fallout mess, it'd unironically be cleaner to just use normal full fat thermonukes. You also by definition have the kind of MIC necessary to do it conventionally. If you don't then they're not very effective militarily and definitely won't "delete common formation sizes" in the modern era because those are plenty spread out, and armor even a very small distances away won't have any problems. A ground burst W54 at 20T has a fireball about 60 ft across, 20psi over pressure radius of just 200 ft, even "3rd degree burns" is only like 450 ft. The "kill you in a month" radiation radius is the bigger one at that point, almost 1/4 mile, but a bunch of sealed armor is actually very effective at mitigating that.

          Same amount of money spent on PGMs is unironically bigger bang for the anti-armor buck, doesn't leave fallout for your own guys to deal with, and doesn't trigger other side to nuke too. They just aren't worth it in an era of ever more accurate weapons.

          Honestly it's the same as us abandoning big multi-megaton bombs. Those were a product of bombers and extreme inaccuracy, most of the blast was wasted. As soon as we could do pretty accurate MIRVs we started going smaller.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think you realize how spread out formations are. Watching Russians die has warped your brain. Here's what a Western armored brigade looks like. Keep in mind the models aren't to scale with the map and ought to be dustmote-sized. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmwIDC-VNac

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can’t wipe out an armored formation with nukes. They are designed to survive them. A centurion survived unscathed from a 10kt detonation 400m away

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >A centurion survived unscathed from a 10kt detonation 400m away
              Which should be obvious to people, a 10kt ground burst would only produce even 1psi (ie, light building damage, that'd be the pressure expected to break regular glass windows) out to 253m away!

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a 10kt ground burst would only produce even 1psi out to 253m away!
                While I know /k/ tends to trivialise nukes, I believe you're using your tool wrong. Nukemap shows a 10kt ground burst to provide "Heavy blast damage radius (20 psi): 469 m". Did you confuse kt and Mt and enter 0.01kt when you meant 10kt?
                Because 0.01kt does in fact give "Light blast damage radius (1 psi): 253 m (0.2 km2)" or would if there was such a thing.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, I did indeed mix up units there.
                >or would if there was such a thing.
                I had been thinking about the OP one, the W54 warhead, which did indeed go all the way down to 10 tons (that's tons, not kilotons) of TNT equiv and up to 1kt. Had that on the brain and then missed the kt so yeah fricked that up.

                That said I could still believe a sealed armored vehicle surviving 20psi too I guess. Though that's still damn close to a much bigger warhead and the test details would be interesting, like if it was a ground detonation or an airburst. That tool will let you do both or any arbitrary height, and optimize height for different effects. I was running at 0 since I was thinking in terms of hardened nuclear silos, but for any other targets airburst is usually much, much better at maximizing blast effect since max point damage is completely wasted if you're hitting a bigger military base, airport, city, industrial area or whatever.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >A centurion survived unscathed from a 10kt detonation 400m away
              this is a good point however most nukes will probably be used against logistical chokepoints

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      which, kind of funilly, is pretty much the same yield as the davy crocket.

      That radiation gets blown around the area after. You can’t just immediately go in after the explosion to start repairs which will be hard to do because there’s no electricity and no ga

      >That radiation gets blown around the area after.
      due to the low altitude of the burst you get all 3 types of radiation. prompt radiation of the actual fission events, significant fallout from lofted debris AND persistent local radiation from activated material at the blast site. it's a very distinctly nuclear event and will be treated as such by anyone who receives such an attack.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well at least more people can perceive it instead of just being dead

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >35 replies in and none of you Black folk know that most of the US tactical arsenal is variable yield, B61 is speculated to go down to 0.3kT
      Highly variable yield is potentially useful flexibility but isn't the same thing as what OP pictures or is talking about. A variable yield warhead is still large, as large as needed for its maximum yield. To take your B61 example, that thing masses over 700 lbs, so the bomb alone is more then double the entire mass of an AIM-120 for example. In contrast the W54 used for AA missiles, the Davy Crocket, nuclear demo charge etc got down to like 50 lbs (and just 20 T yield, so 0.02 kT, an order of magnitude less). That's a totally different delivery vehicle space IMO.

      So I agree with OP that we don't really do that anymore. I just don't agree that the people making that decision were wrong, because I don't think they're advantageous to the US and have lots of downsides (including sheer raw cost).

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The davy Crockett cost 600 million per unit to make.
    It's insanely expensive, is dirty with radiation and doesn't have much purpose besides taking out a stationed army in area you don't ever want to go to.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    morons just want the Fat Man gun from Fallout, I swear.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071
      We need pure fusion warheads to make small nukes good.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Best I can do is 99% look up the Housatonic test and Ripple II device.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >/k/ - where two moronic Americans accuse each other of being Russian

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why not invest more into useless nooks

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The smallest nuclear warheads ever built were in the 2KT range and were mounted on Nike surface-to-air missiles of all things

    pic rel

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The goal of nuclear weapons is to murder lots of people not less

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because if we start using them they start using them. Once nukes are on the table all of our troops need NBC protection and everybody gets cancer.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Sage

    >break taboo
    >get glassed

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      NOOOOO IT WAS ONLY TACTICAL ALL I DID WAS VAPORIZE A RAILHEAD IN THE MIDDLE OF A CITY!!!1!1!1

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you want to proliferate more nukes in a military full of beaner gangs that steal gear all the time?
    wanna re think that?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        think about it, everyone with nukes has difficulty storing and maintaining the current inventory
        adding more that are harder to track and easier to lose is a great idea for the plot of a 90s action movie

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          We need nuclear hand grenades

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          moron you're responding to isn't being serious about it

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because plutonium is about 50 times more expensive than gold. Forget about politics, the real reason people stopped building tactical nukes was because cluster bombs were cheaper.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >fOrGeT AbOOt POLiTics
      The politics were an inextricable part of the problem. Small towns in Cold War West Germany were spaced just about right for any use of a tacnuke to irradiate at least one. Guided weapons eliminated the fallout problem which made forward defense a non-suicidal prospect which made it possible for NATO to overcome Soviet intimidation and undermining attempts to win the Cold War.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Guided weapons eliminated the fallout problem which made forward defense a non-suicidal prospect which made it possible for NATO to overcome Soviet intimidation and undermining attempts to win the Cold War.
        correction: guided weapons made forward defence efficient enough, evolving into AirLand Battle

        the problem with the forward defence concept is that it was mere wishful thinking when it was stuck with the same weapons used for Active Defence i.e. cluster bombs and TOW missiles. what was needed to make it viable was Tomahawk, Maverick, Hellfire, M270 MLRS, Javelin, Copperhead, SADARM, LANTIRN, Paveway, improved Sidewinder and Sparrow, Apache Longbow, F-117, GPS, all the guided weapons
        basically the miracle of microelectronics

        with these weapons NATO finally achieved the smart weapon tech advantage it needed to offset the WP's numbers advantage WITHOUT resorting to nukes, AND the Soviets knew it. and that was what demoralised them once and for all.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *