Why is the use of tactical nuclear weapons such a big deal?

Everyone says that using tactical nuclear weapons is a line that can't be crossed. Why not? The effect isn't any different than conventional explosions, it's just in a smaller package.

Why is bombing soldiers all well and good, but bombing soldiers with nuclear weaponry isn't? Why is it okay to shell an enemy armored vision with artillery, but nuclear artillery is a no-no? It's the exact same result, you just use less explosives. Hence the term "TNT equivalent".

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ANOTHER nuke thread
    What happened this time? Is this still the chimpout from that early warning radar getting blown up?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't know anything about that, I don't even post here. I just figured someone here could explain it to me.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I don't even post here
        >Posts here

        >I don't know anything about that
        > The effect isn't any different than conventional explosions, it's just in a smaller package.
        Go back to

        [...]

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's a valid question, and you don't own guns sandeep, so frick off

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It isn't. The tactical nuke concept is obsolete since MAD doctrine is almost universally accpeted as considering any and all nuke powered weapon the same, whichever the yield actually is.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >almost universally accpeted as considering any and all nuke powered weapon the same
          >almost
          and then we have the thermonuclear warning shot

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If it’s obsolete why do tactical nukes still exist and why do they still make tactical nukes? America has dial a yield nukes that go down to 3kt

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            to allow smaller systems to still use nukes when shit hits the fan, at least that would be my assumption

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it's a valid question, and you don't own guns
        Is this a warriortard thread?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Take your meds

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        thanks for confirming you're a butthurt shill

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They have not been used to date ergo their use would mean something has changed. And the last thing anyone wants is for the state of nuclear deterrence to change.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Geez anon, I don't know why using the weapon with a massive blast radius and deleterious fallout effect would be considered a taboo instead of using multiple reasonably precise munitions that won't flatten a square kilometer around where they hit and give nearby villages a higher rate of cancer.

    You baka ass motherfricker.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >fallout
      Minimal if an air burst

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        'Minimal' radiation spread over a bigger area is not exactly unproblematic anon

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          how serious the fallout becomes depends a lot on the local geography. if for example you "tactically" nuked a valley area, the fallout may be totally contained there depending on wind. if it has very impermeable rock, the fallout may wash out to sea with rain relatively quickly.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          2121 nuclear tests around the world, old reactors and nucelar waste dumped into the sea, undisclosed mumber of RTG's abandoned around the world, multiple massive radiological accidents all around the world, Radium girls incident, Radithor incident, Windscale fire incident... and then, there you are, caring about fallout from one small airburst.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >massive blast radius
      I mean they can make them small

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Where do you draw the line between a tactical nuclear weapon and a strategic one? For that matter, where do you draw the line between the tactical USE of a nuclear weapon, vs a strategic use, regardless of the weapon class itself?

    The answer is that all these distinctions are relatively arbitrary and subject to context and interpretation. What is NOT though, is what is or isn't a nuclear weapon. The current world order is predicated on this line: use of nuclear weapons is an unthinkable, and irreversible escalation leading to total war. One with an unthinkable cost to the species and the planet itself.

    Contrarian thirdie shithole countries trying to blue this line are asking for a change in the state of the global order that they obviously do not fully understand. The use of a nuclear weapon will not be a good, or productive thing for anyone. It will, however, be much worse for some than others. Specifically those eyeing their use. So frick off moron, come back when you're a member of a developed society.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yield, range, and deployment type

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Bombing civilians is already universally condemned. It doesn't matter how it's done. The Japanese atomic bombings aren't even the worst bombings in history. Tactical nuclear weapons have shorter ranges and are designed to be used against enemy military forces. Strategy nuclear weapons are typically designed to cross continents and are how a nation would try to win a nuclear war. They are completely different.

        A tactical nuclear weapon can't achieve anything that a high performance precision guided munition can't. You wouldn't admit to being a nuclear power without PGMs and combined arms doctrine, would you?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >A tactical nuclear weapon can't achieve anything that a high performance precision guided munition can't.
          They're not the same. You would need a lot of precision guided munitions to destroy a carrier task force or an entire armored division.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can't reliably do either of those things with a tactical nuclear weapon.

            You can reliably do both of those things with PGM spam, with less collateral and no fallout.

            Big think.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          10kt tac nuke wipes out 80% of a full battalion. One bomb/missile, one plane, one explosion.
          How many munitions achieve the same anon? Dozens, at a minimum. Raching into the hundreds range to include support, APCs, personnel, AA radars, arty?

          Tac nukes solve big problems faster cheaper and more effectively than conventional munitions.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bombing civilians is already universally condemned. It doesn't matter how it's done. The Japanese atomic bombings aren't even the worst bombings in history. Tactical nuclear weapons have shorter ranges and are designed to be used against enemy military forces. Strategy nuclear weapons are typically designed to cross continents and are how a nation would try to win a nuclear war. They are completely different.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This means that you're OK to let a nuclear enemy blast your forces without obliteraterating its capital in return. See where this is going?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is literally already done. It's okay to bomb enemy troops, it's not okay to bomb their capital. Everybody understands this.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How exaxtly do you expect any executive power to restrain themselves from Armageddon when there chief of staff comes in telling that a whole carrier group/division has been vaporized while he was drinking his morning coffee?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The same way they would react if the carrier group got destroyed by a missile swarm

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I would expect them to react as if a carrier group/division was destroyed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Where do you draw the line between a tactical nuclear weapon and a strategic one?
      I this context, strategic means it is part of a strategy. MAD is the strategy. Consequently, ICBMs are kept for the purpose of informing the enemy they could target and mass murder civilians at their home any time. However, some nukes are just too big (in terms of power) to be used in an everyday combat situation. Also, they are more hardly replaceable.
      Instead, the tactical ones are supposed to assist ground troops near the front-line. And this means less load, more targeted hits, Etc.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >MAD is the strategy
        So then, according to Western perspective, all nuclear weapons are strategic because the use of any nuclear weapon trigger MAD and a massive disarming strike.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Now you get it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I always got it moron. The idea of the use of tactical nuke somehow avoiding a full MAD escalation is a pure thirdie fantasy, and the existence of dial-a-yield weapons in the US arsenal with a 300t yield does not indicate they are not 'strategic' weapons. It just means we have the ability to limit the yield of our strategic nuclear weapons to no larger than necessary to accomplish the task at hand. Which is a disarming strike.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              This anon gets what I said here

              You imbecile... once again.
              Being able to adjust the yield of 2 different nuclear weapons does not make them one and the same.
              What I posted was NOT about saving resources.
              It was about getting the job done.
              "Da wesuto" uses the right quantity and quality of whatever to get the job done.
              I will attempt to make it even simpler:
              No one will use a bigger boom when a small one will suffice. It's not about saving money. It's not about yield being adjustable. It's about getting the it right. Not too big not too small.

              and before.
              The asiatic moron thinks all nuclear weapons are the same because they're adjustable, which in turn would imply that, there's some gray area where they're small enough to "get away with it".
              They can't figure out that adjustable nukes only means that we want to get things done properly.
              In their turdie fantasies all nukes are theirs and are dialed to maximum.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The answer is that all these distinctions are relatively arbitrary and subject to context and interpretation. What is NOT though, is what is or isn't a nuclear weapon. The current world order is predicated on this line: use of nuclear weapons is an unthinkable, and irreversible escalation leading to total war. One with an unthinkable cost to the species and the planet itself.
      A+

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >line that can't be crossed
    Like pot is a "gateway drug", one puff and you go straight to heroin and crack. Tactical nukes are like that, the next step is total global Armageddon.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fallout, radiation, and doctrine.
    >Fallout
    If I nuke my own border area with the wind just right I can rain fallout on an enemy. So in western planning this is considered a hostile CBRN attack, even if it's just a 'test'. The cold war backroom dealings that happened over some nuclear tests because of this are a thing of policy makers nightmares.
    >Radiation
    Basically the same as above, but radiation also makes it harder to pick out possible longer range and non-tactical launches and threats. Not impossible mind you, but paranoia demands you still worry about such things.
    >Doctrine
    Since the Korean War, western doctrine has treated the idea of tactical nuclear warheads as a farce. So, if you launch what you consider a tactical warhead, the only thing western forces see it as is a nuke, and respond appropriately. After all, it takes just two morons disagreeing about what yield is 'tactical' or what use is 'tactical' for one to declare it a full-scale nuclear attack and respond appropriately.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why didn't countries in WW2 just start using their chemical weapons stockpile, just another weapon- right?
    Surely one battlefield use to gain an edge wouldn't spiral into more, or the usage of that stuff against cities as a whole.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >just start using their chemical weapons stockpile
      Because it wasn't useful on the battlefield and was immoral against civilians

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        but bombing civvies with conventional bombs is moral

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    scaremongering from the cold war. in reality some wannabe kang will use it and outside very loud ass kveching nothing more will happen as long as the target was not some western country

    for example when changs start invading siberia and neither moscow or beijing wants to get nooked themselves for vladivostok. So its limited exchanges in the empty siberian wastes on live targets

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Nothing will happen
      I'm sure everyone will be totally fine with that genie being let out of the bottle and won't respond at all.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >won't respond at all
        What the frick are they going to do? If China and the US were in a war, and China used a tactical nuke against a strictly military target, the US isn't going to launch strategic nukes at Beijing, that's ridiculous. The most they'd do is condemn the actions and use their own tactical nukes against Chinese naval forces. Nobody would ever mistake a short ranged nuclear weapon with an intercontinental nuclear warhead.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why would it be ridiculous? China would have shown willingless to use nuclear weapons, and only sane response to that is total obliteration of China.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How is that a sane response?
            >china bombed someone else
            >we must bomb them so they are guaranteed to then bomb us

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They can't bomb us if they are destroyed.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can’t guarantee that

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well, I can't guarantee that China will not lauch first either, and they have shown willingless to use nukes. So the only sane thing is to strike the first.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It’s not sane to start a war over something like a 500t Davy Crockett going off

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It is not a war, it is removing insane rogue country willing to use nuclear weapons.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They’ve already used chemical weapons in Ukraine and it didn’t lead to further escalation

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                For now. I would bet that there is fun little nerve gas experiment in moscow metro sooner or later.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Start a war
                If someone is dropping 5 kiloton nuclear weapons we're already at war. You don't just casually drop nuclear weapons as part of a skirmish. Even if that was somehow the case, that alone is grounds for war; and in that case you begin that war by immediately destroying as much of your enemy's nuclear capabilities as possible. They've already proved a willingness to use it and it poses a serious operational roadblock to leave it standing. It also turns out the best way to beat nukes are nukes of your own.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes it 100% is, because it demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt or debate that you have a dangerous and irrational actor in play that needs to be removed as soon as possible.

                They’ve already used chemical weapons in Ukraine and it didn’t lead to further escalation

                Proof?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The only possible response there would be a strategic bombing yes. Because like [...]
            said, China has shown they were more than willing to break the nuclear taboo. Who's to say they wouldn't step it up to strategic counter-force or eventually counter-value attacks? Once that line has been crossed, you've entered extremely dangerous territory and nobody knows where you plan to stop or if you plan to stop at all. The only thing to do once nuclear escalation has been reached is to go whole hog and make it a nuclear war.

            Well, I can't guarantee that China will not lauch first either, and they have shown willingless to use nukes. So the only sane thing is to strike the first.

            What the frick are you children talking about? China has definitively NOT demonstrated a willingness to use nuclear weapons. It's all talk. You don't actually take a chink at their word, do you? That'd be as as stupid as believing a slav.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Read homie, read. Scenario is the one where Chinks have maybe blown up Murrican carrier group with a nuke.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Will literally never happen. Might as well wargame US response to being invaded by Xenomorphs.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So? Are you one of them black people who have already eaten a breakfast this morning?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                have a nice day thirdie.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And then the US led NATO alliance pulls all the stops, absolutely deletes every last scrap of Chinese naval power, and Beijing just goes 'lol fair play, we'll stop fricking around'. That's not how geopolitics and warfare work you absolute moron.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The only possible response there would be a strategic bombing yes. Because like

          Why would it be ridiculous? China would have shown willingless to use nuclear weapons, and only sane response to that is total obliteration of China.

          said, China has shown they were more than willing to break the nuclear taboo. Who's to say they wouldn't step it up to strategic counter-force or eventually counter-value attacks? Once that line has been crossed, you've entered extremely dangerous territory and nobody knows where you plan to stop or if you plan to stop at all. The only thing to do once nuclear escalation has been reached is to go whole hog and make it a nuclear war.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >China has shown they were more than willing to break the nuclear taboo.
            They've shown the exact opposite. What nonsense are you trying to pull, wumao?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Motherfricker the conversation was in the hypothetical of China using tactical nukes. How would you feel if you did not eat breakfast this morning?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the US isn't going to launch strategic nukes at Beijing, that's ridiculous
          are you sure about that anon

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        there is not genie to be let out the bottle moron. Tell me, how many nook detonations have taken place on the planet ever since ww2. This is something you hysterics always avoid or are just straight up oblivious to what the reality is

        Limited exchanges on military targets is not a if but when its going to happen. Just as nook weapons keep continuing to proliferate despite burger ass kveching. Norks have them, israel has them and the persians will get them soon enough. on top of already vatnik, chinks and the pajeets/pakis. Even discounting ex nookers like south africa

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    nuclear weapons are sacred, using them would break the tabo, also all those states with nuclear weapons are very much afraid that their nuclear warheads would not work, because everything has it's shelf life and due to the secrecy around nucelar weapons and how old the technology and know-how is, nuclear superpowers are basically unable to service those weapons to prolonge their shelf life.
    That puts you in a very bad spot, imagine launching a nuclear rocket, but it's a fricking dud, you just broke the taboo so it's justifiable to use nuclear force against you, but your enemy is also very scared, that their nuclear weapons are duds... what now?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Proper nuclear powers retain the know-how and routinely maintain their nukes Ivan.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Fogbank
        Are you telling me that US is not a proper nuclear power?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And then it was then reverse engineered again by the US so the capability was no longer lost.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Which proves that America isn’t a proper nuclear power since they didn’t maintain the know how on how to make fogbank

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And it only took over six years and one thousand gorilion dollars, and it's just a tip of an iceberg.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A dramatic oversight that was corrected thanks to the US being a proper economic and military power, being able to put together capital and talent to recreate the knowledge. Nice try Piotr, almost got us there. Now please built anything new, or old for that matter.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Can't wait till you get together capital and talent to reverse enginner the Moon landing.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I cant wait to see russia slam a rocket into it again lmao

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I want America to do it again for shits and giggles
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_program

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >also all those states with nuclear weapons are very much afraid that their nuclear warheads would not work, because everything has it's shelf life and due to the secrecy around nucelar weapons and how old the technology and know-how is, nuclear superpowers are basically unable to service those weapons to prolonge their shelf life.
      This is fricking moronic. Yes, nooks need a lot of maintenance compared to conventional weapons, but the US, UK and France know how to do this. I can't speak for third world hovels like Russia.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It is, there are many moronic things around this fricking planet.
        But imagine this, there are two types of nuclear weapons, implosion and assembly type.
        implosion type uses plutonium, assembly type uses highly enriched uranium, Fat Man was implosion device, it was tested and then dropped, Little Boy wasn't even tested, "gun barrel" assembly type is very trivial design, it's also highly inneficient with limited yield and such.
        Back in the days in Los Alamos, they weren't concerned that Little Boy would be dud. They were concerned that it could explode or at least melts itself into radioactive puddle prematurely. It was just a piece of decomissioned naval gun that shot uranium slug into more fricking uranium. Guy on the plane stuffed the cordite bags behind the uranium slug and closed the bolt of the naval gun barrel mid flight to arm the bomb. And after that, they found a way to make the assembly type weapon lighther by not using one giant naval gun barrel shooting into stationary piece of uranium, now there were two lighter barrels aiming at each other, and that was the design that was light enough for ICBM's.
        BUT as I said before, it was very very inefficient and uranium proved itself very useful in reactors for generating electricity and after it was spent, part of that uranium turned into plutonium, so genious idea, let's use uranium for reactors and plutonium for weapons production, thus making all of our nuclear weapons implosion types, implosion types are... well they are implosion types weapons, very difficult to make with all the high explosive lenses, hollow plutonium sphere for those boosted cores with the ability to dial the yield all those failsafes strong links weak links and such...
        But what I'm trying to say is, when some third world shithole want a nuclear weapon, imagine North Korea, Iran, they will always choose assembly type weapon, because it's easy and those regimes generaly don't give a shit about electricity.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Our stockpiles of Soviet rust guarded by incompetent conscripts are trash because we never bothered to take care of it and would not know how anymore
      >Therefore first world nation with climate controlled storage and lab-like facilities with highly skilled maintenance workers following clear processes and we'll established schedules must also have nothing but piles of shit in their arsenal
      The third world mind, ladies and gents

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the fricking ruskies put the church in charge of maintaining their nukes. i'm taking bets on what they're filled with now. odds on favorite is dead altar boys.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's funny how when I suggest that when it comes to nuclear stockpiles shit's pretty fricked up all aroud the world without mentioning any specific nations, patriotic americans immediatelly start to accusing me of being russian and defending their own nuclear stockpiles while bald eagles are screeching in the backround.
        >Sir, person was murdered on this street, we just want to as...
        >I DIDN'T DO THAT!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          As an American, this is because there are two countries with nukes. Us, and not us. So the deduction when this conversation begins, you can see where the logic goes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            wow i engrished the shit out of that nevermind gonna go jump the border wall

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >being so bogged down in a border conflict with one of the poorest European post-Soviet countries that you have to seriously consider resorting to tactical nuclear weapons with dumpster tier CEP
    The absolute STATE of muscovites.
    You really are pathetic.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    same principle behind why you don't use deadly weapons in a streetfight or brawl. One guy brings a knife, then another guy pulls his glock, then someone decides to pull out of the AR-15 stashed in their truck and all of a sudden instead of just fisticuffs, you're in a firefight and half the people are dead. A small nuclear weapon is still a nuclear weapon, that is to say it's essentially cheating in a conventional armed conflict

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because despite all the theorycrafting and wargaming and simulations and all that other bullshit, nobody really knows exactly how big "oh, it's just a tactical nuke, it's not a big deal" is going to blow up in their faces, and they're not in a hurry to find out.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there is no such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon.
    you can seethe now.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What’s the point of making dial a yield bombs that go into the sub kiloton range then?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because we can, if you're going to maintain a stockpile of warheads they may as well be the most advanced and versatile warheads in your portfolio, and it ensures that in the event of a nuclear exchange we have the ability to minimize collateral damage to civilian infrastructure as much as possible because the US and the West as a whole actually values human life unlike our 'adversaries'.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you valued human life you wouldn’t have made them in the first place. Yeah Japan invasion would be costly but in a nuclear war will be far worsened

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They were built with the idea that you wouldn't be so fricking stupid as to make us use them. If it comes to it though, Western lives are worth any number of Eastern lives. Don't push your luck Chang. We'll only annihilate you if you make it the best option.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Those words don’t sound like someone who cares about saving human lives. Good job defeating your argument about making 300t yield atom to minimize civilian casualties

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You clearly lack an understanding of the fundamentals of Western philosophical rights.

                Right only extend to you up to the point where you willingly violate another's. At that point, you ate no longer covered by the umbrella of morality. Stop dogging your own hole. You don't even realize how infantile you seem.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So what scenario would require the use of a 300T yield nuclear bomb?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Total nuclear annihinaltionnof an enemy.
                You don't drop a massive bomb where a small one will do.
                You'll have better uses for the big ones.
                And no making more big bombs is not a solution. There are different calibers for the same reason.
                They get different jobs done.
                The scenario us the same though: absolutely making sure your enemy is dead.
                There're no "lol let's exchange tiny nukes" scenarios that NATO will deem acceptable.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                moron. The 300kt bomb and the 300t bomb are the same bomb. You can just change the yield on it

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it thinks it's smart
                Lol. Lmao, even.
                Yes, the yield can be adjusted, and you can be sure they already have been. To maximize the desired effect.
                I answered your question. Your strawman is irrelevant.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Stop pretending you aren’t moronic
                >You'll have better uses for the big ones.
                That makes zero sense since the big explosion and little explosions come from the same bomb.

                What is this idea that the upper and lower capability bounds of a weapon require specific, preexisting scenarios to justify their use? It's better to have the flexibility and capability and not need it, then to end up in some unforseen future scenario where you did and not have it. I suspect that, given the incredible depth of expertise of US nuclear weapons development, once they were already in the process of formalizing a dial-a-yield weapon they just decided to let it go as low as practically possible. There doesn't need to be any other justification besides 'we can', and 'might as well have the option to only make it as powerful as it needs to be'. If it turns out some absolutely deranged nuclear wannabe tyrant puts us in a position where we have to thoroughly disarm them, and they camp their truck-based ICBM launchers a little too close for comfort to a population center, a 300t yield will destroy them just as assuredly as a 300kt yield if placed precisely enough while doing no more harm than necessary. This is the entire basis of PGM doctrine. In any case, I suspect we'd use conventional PGMs as much as possible anyway in a scenario like that, but if it comes to it you'll use what you have ready.

                Please, if for nothing else but your own pride, go outside and pick up ONE(1) piece of garbage before you post again. I promise you can make your own country better, without trying to drag everyone else down to your level. Believe in yourself and your ability to make things better for YOU, life isn't a zero sum game.

                300T can only be used in a tactical scenario

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >300T can only be used in a tactical scenario.
                Wrong. Even if you were correct, which you aren't, once again just having the capability doesn't demonstrate an intent to use it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The airforce says it’s a tactical bomb. Stop denying they aren’t real

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I never denied they were real, I only corrected your falsehoods on what their existence implies. US having low yield nukes does not somehow imply we will accept any foreign actor using a nuclear weapon in any capacity, tactical or otherwise. This isn't difficult to understand, at least for the Western mind.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you had a western mind you would realize you butted into a chain of responses starting with someone claiming they didn’t exist

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't, this is me.

                What is this idea that the upper and lower capability bounds of a weapon require specific, preexisting scenarios to justify their use? It's better to have the flexibility and capability and not need it, then to end up in some unforseen future scenario where you did and not have it. I suspect that, given the incredible depth of expertise of US nuclear weapons development, once they were already in the process of formalizing a dial-a-yield weapon they just decided to let it go as low as practically possible. There doesn't need to be any other justification besides 'we can', and 'might as well have the option to only make it as powerful as it needs to be'. If it turns out some absolutely deranged nuclear wannabe tyrant puts us in a position where we have to thoroughly disarm them, and they camp their truck-based ICBM launchers a little too close for comfort to a population center, a 300t yield will destroy them just as assuredly as a 300kt yield if placed precisely enough while doing no more harm than necessary. This is the entire basis of PGM doctrine. In any case, I suspect we'd use conventional PGMs as much as possible anyway in a scenario like that, but if it comes to it you'll use what you have ready.

                Please, if for nothing else but your own pride, go outside and pick up ONE(1) piece of garbage before you post again. I promise you can make your own country better, without trying to drag everyone else down to your level. Believe in yourself and your ability to make things better for YOU, life isn't a zero sum game.

                Lay off the kvass.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My dumb asiatic friend.
                Not all nuclear weapons are the same even if they can all be adjusted.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Every UK bomb is variable yield. Most Americans ones are. You posted that thinking you could save resources choosing the lower yield

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You imbecile... once again.
                Being able to adjust the yield of 2 different nuclear weapons does not make them one and the same.
                What I posted was NOT about saving resources.
                It was about getting the job done.
                "Da wesuto" uses the right quantity and quality of whatever to get the job done.
                I will attempt to make it even simpler:
                No one will use a bigger boom when a small one will suffice. It's not about saving money. It's not about yield being adjustable. It's about getting the it right. Not too big not too small.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No it’s about being able to use it in a tactical scenario. You would chose the lower yield setting to bomb an enemy strongpoint if you have your own troops near by

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are proving more moronic with every single post.
                No one will have any troops anywhere near friendly nukes. Once an enemy nuke goes off all friendlies are evacuated back home and the enemy is wiped off the map.
                There's isn't a single scenario in which there are NATO armies marching through china or russia on foot. There will be no need to dial down yield to avoid friendly fire. Even if friendly forces are in the vicinity they will be evacuated out of there at any cost. NATO has such capabilities.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What is this idea that the upper and lower capability bounds of a weapon require specific, preexisting scenarios to justify their use? It's better to have the flexibility and capability and not need it, then to end up in some unforseen future scenario where you did and not have it. I suspect that, given the incredible depth of expertise of US nuclear weapons development, once they were already in the process of formalizing a dial-a-yield weapon they just decided to let it go as low as practically possible. There doesn't need to be any other justification besides 'we can', and 'might as well have the option to only make it as powerful as it needs to be'. If it turns out some absolutely deranged nuclear wannabe tyrant puts us in a position where we have to thoroughly disarm them, and they camp their truck-based ICBM launchers a little too close for comfort to a population center, a 300t yield will destroy them just as assuredly as a 300kt yield if placed precisely enough while doing no more harm than necessary. This is the entire basis of PGM doctrine. In any case, I suspect we'd use conventional PGMs as much as possible anyway in a scenario like that, but if it comes to it you'll use what you have ready.

                Please, if for nothing else but your own pride, go outside and pick up ONE(1) piece of garbage before you post again. I promise you can make your own country better, without trying to drag everyone else down to your level. Believe in yourself and your ability to make things better for YOU, life isn't a zero sum game.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        so you can blow up small things.

        No it’s about being able to use it in a tactical scenario. You would chose the lower yield setting to bomb an enemy strongpoint if you have your own troops near by

        it's so you can have highly survivable delivery platforms.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the great convention strictly prohibits the use of atomic weaponry. Stoneburners are a particularly vicious tool of war. Those unfortunate enough to witness the use of such a weapon are rendered blind, eyes become empty sockets.
    To use a stone burner is to risk planetary destruction. Depending on the amount of fuel present the device can burn a planet to its core, splitting it in two.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why not?
    Very simple.
    Use nuke against a country that has nukes? Its nuclear war. Good job.
    Use nuke against a country that has no nukes? If no reaction follows, every random shithole will feel obilated to make their own nukes to ensure their safety. If they cant make nukes, they will resort to other weapons of mass destruction as chemical and biologial ones to compensate this.
    Those weapons are not meant to "just" kill military personnel. Those weapons are meant to kill entire life force, the goyim so to say. Wars were fought as a game of chess amongst politicians. Imagine if instead of playing chess you will just shoot each other with guns. That would kinda ruin the entire game.
    So once a nuke lands, it means unavoidable mass civilian casualities with lasting consequences, which means other side will do the same to you.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Thats like coke.
    First its one small bomb, then its slightly bigger one, and then you just cant stop until you notice yourself and all around covered in radioactive dust.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Use a tactical nuke and your nation will be dismantled by the Atlantic powers. You will no longer exist as a national, cultural, or economic entity. You will be disarmed, deprogrammed, and assimilated. If you want to remain a sovereign entity, this is the rule you play by.

    That's it, full stop. There is no way to bluster or argue your way around this. It is not open to discussion. No amount of chest puffing or mental gymnastics will change more than 60 years of wargaming and policy hammered out by people with a level of education and competency beyond your wildest imagination.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this ones a bit shaky. it completely depends what country started that shit.
      if we bring gun analogies back and say there is a hostage taker he is the first user and the poilce forces and hostages are the rest of the world the amount of nuclear weapons the hostage taker has represent how much damage he can cause from barely a hundred to a few hundred which might be a hand gun or AR to a thousand or more Nukes which equals having a suicide vest with the thumb on the button as a deadman switch. The Approach of how to deal with the Hostage taker beyond glassing him is not an absolute layed out perfect path or plan and not anybody is ready to erradicate an entire country because everyone feels like pushed into a corner.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is the most direct evidence of the inferiority of the asiatic mind I've seen on /k/ in ages. They will never achieve a functional, high quality of life civilization without dramatic intervention and assistance from the West. Sad really.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because no one wants to be known as the moron that normalized the use of nukes

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      McArthur did. But then again, he was a moron.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tactical nukes produce really high amounts of radiation given their relativly low yield, they explode in an unclean manner so to speak compared to larger strategic weapons. That radiation cant be controlled. Its the same reason biological and chemical weapons are taboo. A conventional munition can naturally also hurt civilians, but usually thats only if you specifically target something where civilians are.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because at the end of the day its still a nuke meaning no matter what you try you already escalated it to the point bigger nuclear exchanges are inevitable

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its not as big a deal as the public thinks but still a big teal and a taboo, all that bring said at this point Russia should be nuked. They had their chances, time to say goodbye.No warning, no escalation, just do it. That's perfectly fine too after the last year of threats against Washington, New York, London, Berlin nuclear tsunamis, satan missiles, ruin space etc. Take them at their word and kill them all. Nuke Russia

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it would be so easy to do too. Carpet bomb pidorsburg and muscovia. With that puccia stops functionally existing as all the colonial oblasts outside of that dont even wipe their asses without muscovias jackboot telling them to

      its really a crying shame the most powerful and dominant civilization of current era are westerners who unfortunately are so naive and soft handed they fail to make the tough decision before its too late

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also with their early warning gone now I kinda agree. Decapitate the snake

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is essentially a way to prove that your country abides by the gentleman’s agreement: “I won’t nuke you if you don’t nuke me.” If you’re fighting a conventional war and the enemy has not used a tac nuke on you yet, you can tell yourself “alright they’re still not willing to use nukes, so we don’t need to launch a full salvo first strike.” On the other hand, once a tac nuke has been used against you, one might say “shit they’re willing to use nukes, maybe we should just launch a first strike and try to take out as many of their nukes as possible first?”

    It is a way for everyone involved to stay on the same page.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anon, once you let the genie out of the bottle you can't put it back.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There isn't any moral basis for not using them and practically speaking they are way less coss effective; it's about optics, any country can just brush off bombing civies with shit like thermobarics and white phosphorus, but they cannot get away with nuking people.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    cont.
    And that's why the nuclear superpowers are so afraid of any of those frickers trying to make a nuke, because they are trying to make a shitty weak inefficient nuke that would probably even work, because assembly type, meanwhile those superpowers have warehouses full of different types state of the art difficult to maintain implosion warheads without the ability to know for sure that they would work when needed. No one want to find out.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just from a practical perspective, if you took the actual cost per pound for TNT equivalent from conventional bombs vs nuclear weapons you are going to get fricking hilarious proportions, even with the MIC israeliteing it's still cheaper to go conventional; I might be wrong but the W87 warhead costs like 6 or 8 billion dollars
    https://www.gao.gov/assets/d20703.pdf

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's kinda hysterical, that better detterence strategy than -mutual assured destruction- is the
    -can't tell for sure if we could manage to retaliate fully, so we won't risk it-

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tactical nukes are actually useful for destroying extremely fortified structures that conventional munitions do not do a good job on (think the Hummus Hospital base, Iran's Uranium enrichment place), but as other posters pointed out the optics is too shitty so it pussifies all the world leaders into not using them.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anon nothing would happen if Russia used a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, it's just posturing for the normies. They haven't used one because in this kinda war there aren't any targets for nuclear weapons.

    And they won't, ever, just nuke Kiev or any bigger city and anyone suggesting that is a legitimate moron. It's not that kind of war.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think using nukes against navy vessels makes sense

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think removing moscow and beijing from the map makes sense

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You have convinced me that nuclear bombs are in fact safe and effective.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if a nuke was set off underwater, close enough to an aircraft carrier to flip it over, how much evidence would there be that a nuke went off, other than a flipped over aircraft carrier

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mass reply homosexuals should be thrown in a trench and shot

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      are you angry your bot broke, pajeet?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Post a gun and/or jalapeño poppers immediately

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Anon get some bed sheets

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >wants to take out an important airfield
    >do you
    >a) use multiple precision munitions to take out airframes, air strips, helps, storage facilities, etc etc
    >or
    >b) use a low yield nuke, wiping the airbase off the map, and giving your enemy you just nuked the ok that nukes are fair game opening up the very real possibility things will escalate until MAD
    I'm just talking out my ass so I may be way off the mark here. However, I can see this happening and I guess all this talk of "tactical" nuclear warheads as some attempt to normalize nuclear weapons as conventional weapons. Not sure why morons think weapons have to be inhumanely efficient to the point it where it completely fricks over the little blue planet we live on.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      escalation is a made up nonsense. there was so much fear mongering about it after russia used tear gas in ukraine but as usual nothing happened

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >made up nonsense
        >see morons irl escalate dumb minor shit into a brawl
        >few result in weapon brandishing leading to permanent injuries/death
        If that isn't real, I'm not sure what is

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          its made up nonsense for governments

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nah. It's just the government is made up of multiple people so even if someone wants to escalate, the others can reel that one person back. It's also why the government is so fricking slow to implement anything.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Tactical versus strategic has always been defined by use conditions. Early nukes often had a size distinction but that was more a function of immature arms development. PGMs have supplanted tac nukes in most use case scenarios for various reasons. However, total escalation is only one nuclear use theory and not everyone follows it. France's nuclear posture includes a nuclear warning shot as a form of escalate to de-escalate while the USA's posture is informed by the concept of Nuclear Utilization Target Selection which holds that nuclear exchanges can limited and nuclear use is simply another step on the escalation ladder.

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    muh escalation.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Shut the frick up

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >he thinks we don’t know about inspect element

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      SARRR DO NOT REDEEM INSPECT ELEMENT

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Do you unironically assume everyone you disagree with is an Indian or is it shitposting?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          SAAAARRRRR

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Frick off Linsey Graham

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What happens when one side starts to lose the tactical nuke war?

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The effects of conventional UXO and civilian casualties are already a major concern. Use of a tactical nuke all but guarantees enormous amounts of non-military casualties, ecological upheaval, etc.
    This is one of many reasons that limiting nuke use to zero is that rare issue that the U.S., China, India, France, the UK, and damned near everybody else can all agree on. Putin has been told privately by both Modi and Xi that violating the nuclear taboo means they’ll back whatever play NATO decides to run. It’s not a “come on guys, just one” kind of issue.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >ecological upheaval
      what is the half life of the fallout from small yields. Hint: the clay is walkable after a week of detonation.

      or what, every tactical is now a chernobyl

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >tactical is now a chernobyl

        it actually sort of is, because so little of the fissile material gets consumed by the explosion compared to a higher-yield device. but still, part of Nevada desert have been contaminated with similar testing, it's no doomsday scenario.

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is no such thing as a 'tactical nuclear weapon'. Why is this so difficult for people and or this board? There are nuclear weapons. How they are used defines if they are tactical or not.
    >b-b-but
    No. You can call them low yield nuclear weapons or you can not, but low yield =! tactical. If I drop a 1Mt nuke on a civilian city with no military value, I have strategically bombed a city. If I drop a 50Mt nuke on a carrier group, I have used a nuclear weapon tactically, in order to change the outcome of the tactical situation on a battlefield or area of operation. Finally, the US has categorically said there is no such thing as a 'tactical nuclear weapon' and ANY use of nuclear weapons is a strategic use.

    Stop using the term 'tactical nuclear weapon' when you mean low yield nuclear weapon. If you mean 'why aren't they dropping low yield nuclear weapons in order to change the tactical outcome of a battlefield or area of operation' fine, but you're not. You're pretending there is separate categories for 'this for tactical use, this for strategic use' when that isn't the difference.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Simplifying everything you've said with conditional logic,

      If I were to say "Using a low yield nuke in a tactical situation" and "using a tac nuke" they mean the same thing,
      So effectively the -phrase- "tactical nuke" is a shorthand for "a low yield nuclear weapon used with a tactical purpose".
      So tac nuke "is a valid word" regardless of whatever whoever says, and you're just a pansy ass.

      Thanks, good night.

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most thinking people have been calling for a total commitment nuclear strike against Russia nuclear arsenal and population centers for over a year. Its a great idea and it should be done. Obviously it was the humane thing to do to try an give the Russian population food and a second chance after their communist terror state collapsed but now this Putin shit and their celebration of atrocity in Ukraine? Just kill them all. They are not an apocalyptic threat to humanity but they aspire to be and have no worth to civilization other than selling second rate weapons to third world dictators.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They are not an apocalyptic threat to humanity but they aspire to be and have no worth to civilization other than selling second rate weapons to third world dictators.

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    /k/ - glowie astroturfing

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's convenient to say it. The last 80 years has been peaceful in that no meaningful country has faced an existential threat to its existence such that the immediate military advantage of using nukes outweighs the literal and political fallout. Situations like that are inevitable though, so imo the people claiming that it's some kind of uncrossable line are extrapolating from a very narrow slice of history in saying that multi-party nuclear deterrence is a viable, long-term global order. Someone's eventually going to press the button, and it's probably going to be some browns blowing each other up with a small arsenal over something pointless.

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tactical use of nuclear weapons rapidly leads to strategic use. This is why tactical nuclear weapons as a concept largely died by the 1980s. Every war game Soviet and American planners ran (independently of each other) resulted in both sides annihilating each other in a general exchange in short order.

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Daily NOOOOOK thread

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the whole point of those lines is that they're stopping points for slippery slopes

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There aren't any legitimate military targets large enough to necessitate a nuke. Plus there is the matter of radiation.

  50. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a red line. Doesn't matter if it's small or big, a nuke is a nuke.

    Tactical nukes make no sense though as the yields can be matched by MOABS.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The MOAB can only match the Davy Crockett or W54 on the lowest setting and even then it is weaker still but a few tons of tnt equivalent.

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