Can someone please explain what tactical nukes

[laruemtt]

are and how "limited" is the radiation from these as compared to your standard everyday nuke? is calling them tactical supposed to lessen the shock value of us actually using nukes?

[dmkinsey]

1. They're smaller

Strategic nukes are meant to obliterate whole cities.
Tactical nukes designed for smaller more localized targets.

[shraby]

2. Tactical probably means that they hit what they

are aimed at.

[DELUSIONAL]

10. probably delivered by cruise missiles (submarine)

I believe that the Trident subs are undergoing a major refit --

[Shipwack]

16. Only 4 subs being refitted..

They were being retired to bring us into compliance with some treaties. Now they are (two done, two in process) being converted to fire Tomahawk missiles.

I -believe- (I'm at work, can't research right now) that we have already gotten rid of our nuke warheads for the T-Hawks.

[cynatnite]

13. yeah, they'll be aimed at their targets with compassion

:sarcasm:

Didn't Rumsfeld say something similar when it came to targets in Baghdad during the air campaign?

[mikeytherat]

23. No, those would be Strategic Weapons

Tactical Weapons means, "Close enough."

mikey_the_rat

[Dudley_DUright]

3. Here is a "Physics Today" article dealing with the many and manifest

problems with these so called bunker buster nukes. Bottom line is that you get huge amounts of radioactive fallout, i.e. the explosion is NOT contained.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-11/p32.html

[laruemtt]

4. therefore,

we are supposed to somehow accept our using as it is "tactical" even though the radiation is not contained (couldn't imagine how it COULD be)? the effects would still be the same only "smaller"?

[blm]

11. Exactly - and another HUGE mistake made by the "no difference" crowd is

that Kerry has always been against tactical nukes and would have cancelled the whole program as president.

[TexasLawyer]

21. great article

thanks

[TahitiNut]

26. When the targets themselves are nuclear facilities, the fallout increases.

After all, nothing can be a 'dirtier' bomb than one hitting a stockpile of enriched uranium or reactor fuel rods. The fallout would be horrendous - making Chernobyl look like a minor leak in comparison.

[maine_raptor]

5. Tactical Nukes

Are smaller in yield, 10 Kilotons and under. Some can be as small as .1 Kilotons.

1 Kiloton = 1,000 tons TnT.

What really makes them "tactical" is how they are used, i.e. Battlefield weapons.

They have been developed as Air-to-Air missiles, Depth Charges, Torpedo's, Land mines, Demolition Charges, etc.

Back during the Cold War, when US and Soviet tank forces faced off in the Fulda Gap in West Germany, the towns there were said to be "1 Kiloton apart".

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

6. Supposedly, it implies that the nukes are lower-yield and more acceptable

The Bushco people are trying to make a distinction between "traditional" nukes-- which are so universally reviled around the world that they pretty much can't be used under any circumstances without drawing the very harshest condemnation-- and the newer "tactical" nukes which are supposedly smarter, more focused on a target and don't spread as much fallout. Problem is, the tactical nukes may be lower yield but their blast radius and fallout area are still quite significant, and would effectively kill tens of thousands of civilians (at least) within an inhabited area while making entire large regions of a country uninhabitable. The damage to the local environment is difficult to adequately estimate, and since such "tactical" nukes would likely be used in greater quantities than "traditional" nukes, their net damage and mass murder would likely be far worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many times worse in fact.

[laruemtt]

7. They've got to be stopped. n/t

[gordianot]

8. They are usually smaller warheads.

Both the United States and former Soviet Union developed what was called "Non contaminating nuclear warheads" some have suggested they are like "Ultra light Cigarettes" no such thing as a safe cigarette or nuclear weapon.

[HamdenRice]

9. During the Cold War, "strategic" weapons were

the most powerful nuclear weapons designed to give one side or another a strategic advantage in a scenario of all out war. They were designed mainly to target cities and the nuclear weapon installations of the other side.

Then the military came up with the repugnant notion that smaller nuclear weapons could be "tactical" weapons -- that is battlefield weapons. For example if 5,000 Russian tanks were headed toward Germany, NATO could fire short range "tactical" nuclear missiles at the Russian forces, or even (ugghh), nuclear artillary.

Tactical weapons are a tactic. They can be used in a war that is not all out nuclear war.

[pocket]

12. artillery-fired nukes are a good example

http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-artillery

We've had those for over 50 years.

They are just smaller, and have short-range delivery devices.

[laruemtt]

14. looks like we'll have to get one of the major networks

to air "The Day After" again to wake people up.

[maine_raptor]

15. One of the problems is

Where do you draw the line between tactical and strategic?

As myself and other posters have said it is where they are used that makes them tactical.

Give you an example:

During the Cold War nuclear depth charges were carried on US navel ships as an ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare)weapon. In case of a purely conventional war with the Soviets, say over West Germany, it was felt that they could be used in the open ocean against Soviet subs without taking that ongoing land conflict nuclear. However, by the same token, it was felt that use of a nuclear weapon against Soviet sub pens on the shore would be considered "strategic" even if the same size weapon was used there that had been used against those subs in open water.

Edit for typo

[Ganja Ninja]

17. In this case the term "tactical" is probably being used as a PR

gimmick. He'll probably use something at the higher yield end of the spectrum of tactical nukes and that will be around 10 kiloton which is equal to 10,000 tons of TNT or 1/4 of the size of the Hiroshima bomb. But don't be surprised if he uses something larger and still calls it "tactical". You know how these guys are.

[maine_raptor]

18. Hiroshima was 13 Kt device.....13,000 tons TnT....n/t

[ShortnFiery]

19. It goes deep below the surface, therefore the area HIT is restricted

... However, If you and yours are in that bunker you're buying the farm. :(

*Not to mention widespread fires and the effects of radiation, i.e., glow all night and glow all day. :puke:

[Dudley_DUright]

22. If you read the fine print on that figure it says

Comparison of the areas ... by surface blast effects only (NOT INCLUDING WIDESPREAD FIRE AND RADIATION EFFECTS)

Duh! The fallout effects would be very very bad.

[ShortnFiery]

27. Thank the Lord!

Instead of burning up in a "fireball" one could look forward to death from radiateion poisoning. :puke:

[Ready4Change]

20. Basically, they are a smaller nuke.

How much smaller?: Usually their explosion is half, or less, of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki explosions.

How limited is the radiation?: Not greatly limited. There is less, since the explosions are technically smaller. Plus, modern understanding of these reactions allows the conversion of a larger percentage of the reactive material. Kind of like less unburnt gas coming out the exhaust pipe of a more efficient car. However, it is still very potent, and just as susceptable to being carried by winds, etc... (Because the blast will still break to the surface.)

"Tactical" supposed to be less shocking?: Yah, that's pretty much the idea.

The first notion of their use was to take out large masses of Soviet Tanks swarming over the borders during imagined Cold War era battles. Since NATO forces weren't arrayed for defense in depth, the only way to halt an envisaged Soviet breakout and advance was nuke them. Tactical nukes were to be artillery fired, or with battlefield rockets and later missiles.

The danger in the concept was that it was a stepping stone, an escalation of conflict which could easily advance to totally unrestrained nuclear war. And even if it didn't escalate, the radioactive fallout from using "just" tactical nukes in the developed lands of Eastern Europe would have been pretty devastating.

The current idea of using them to bust bunkers is interesting in concept, but not very practical, imo. We can currently build conventional penetrating weapons that can dive deeper into the earth than we can deliver a nuclear payload, and with no fallout or escallation risks.

The only advantage, again imo, that nukes would have in this area is if you don't have very good intelligence about the bunker. You just want to blindly swat at a hill and kill what's in it. Lots of inherent problems with that approach, such as limited intelligence means you may not be hitting the right target in the first place; it's hard to know if/when you've succeeded; and you still have fallout/world outrage issues.

To my mind tactical nukes had a role in the Cold War era (if nukes have any place at all), but they don't fit our current situation. Their use would create far more problems than they can solve.

[berni_mccoy]

24. Here ========>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x895502

[Beelzebud]

25. In the old days they called them Low Yield warheads.

But in our doublespeak times, they thought Tactical Nuke sounded more "friendly" to your average American idiot.