What the hell is a "tactical nuclear weapon?"

[Cyrano]

Is it one that kills only evil doers?

Is it one that blows up one house without scratching the paint on the one next door?

Is it an invented BushCo term to make us all think that we're not really using a nuclear bomb?

Is it something guaranteed not to kill any Halliburton employee in the area?

Is it one that screams in Arabic as it's falling, "Clear the streets. Clear the streets."

Is it one capable of demolishing anything except oil?

Is an inventory of them kept at the Crawford ranch to ward off mobs of rabid protesters?

Is Dick Cheney the only person who can authorize their use?

Is there anyone out there who can enlighten me and answer my stupid questions?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. A mistake. n/t

[ixion]

7. that was my first thought

:nuke:

[originalpckelly]

18. Wasn't that the nickname his Mom and Dad gave him? (n/t)

[Lisa]

45. best definition I've seen (n/t)

[billybob537]

2. How con anyone

be against Iran having Nukes when we're inventing new USABLE nukes?

[bryant69]

3. Tactical Nukes have been around for a long time

They aren't a new developement.

I don't really know how to respond to your question without being insulting or inviting you to insult me. Suffice it to say the existence of one madman with a gun doesn't justify giving another madman a gun.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Bridget Burke]

6. So--how do they work?

What are the testing results?

I don't have a good background in nuclear weaponry & would not be insulted by clear, documented information from an expert.

But I do have a good background in English & am not impressed by lame figures of speech.

[unblock]

11. actually one of the key ingredients is altitude

nuke at elevation and you get city-wide damage, as we all know from history.

nuke at ground level and the direct damage can be limited to a radius of a small numbers of city blocks. the idea is to take out the concrete reinforced missle silo but not the entire city (not that many cities have missle silos, but that's the general idea).

of course, there's still the radiation fallout issue, so the ultimate damage is still far from surgical....

[hootinholler]

34. Hmmm,

As I understand it a ground strike will be limited somewhat, however the shock-wave damage would not be limited to a small number of blocks. The damage caused by a nuke is primarily in the shock wave strength which is a product of the yield. An air strike is cleaner in that it reduces the alpha/beta fallout because less irradiated material is ejected into the atmosphere. Most radiation sickness comes from the ingestion (oral and respiratory) of irradiated particulate rather than the EMP (x-rays, etc) yield during ignition.

-Hoot

[bryant69]

14. So if I am not an expert in nuclear weaponry I should keep my mouth shut?

Do you think that Iran should get the bomb?

At any rate, I might advise checking out the book "By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age" by Paul S. Boyer (mostly cultural, but there is a good chapter on military thinking about how to use the bomb, and the film "The Atomic Cafe."

A Tactical Nuke is not a special kind of Nuke necessarily, it's a Nuke used in a specific way. Nukes are generally terror weapons, akin to fire bombs. They are indiscriminate used to take out civilian targets (areas with war plants and the like, presumably). The idea of a tactical nuke is using a nuke in a situation where two armies are squaring off - using it as part of a tactical plan. "Well send these helicopters here, and the fourth tank calvery over here, and we'll drop a tactical nuke here, forcing them out to face our infantry here." That sort of thing. There's a mordent scene in The Atomic Cafe showing soldiers training to march into a nuclear bomb to take care of any surviving troops.

And the American Military has been considering ways to use Nukes in a tactical way since Hiroshima.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Hobarticus]

20. "Wizards of Armageddon" is an excellent read, too..

Basically, once the genie was out of the bottle after WW2, strategists had to figure out a whole new way to use this weapon, and under what circumstances. Everything they had learned about waging war was out the window, now. That's when they really got a snootful of the capabilities of nuclear weapons. Either they all became alcoholics or quit.

[Bridget Burke]

26. Thanks for the information.

We don't have an army in Iran yet. So your descripton of "Tactical Nuke" does not seem to apply.

I'd prefer that Iran not get the Bomb. But that remote threat is NOT worth another war.

[bryant69]

29. I'd agree with you there

100%

But I think there is a lot short of war we can do to discourage Iran from getting the war.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Zynx]

47. A tactical nuke is a nuke dropped on a military target.

A strategic nuke is a nuke dropped on a city/manufacturing target. The Soviets routinely designed nukes for tactical use that were more than large enough to take out cities.

[zulchzulu]

4. It's a very, very big Daisy Cutter

Lots of collateral damage....

[Cyrano]

13. Another really harmless term from our benevolent leaders. "Daisy Cutter."

No snippers needed. Just get your hands on a "Daisy Cutter" and poof, the daisy's are ready for the vase.

I can't wait to see their version of Weed-Be-Gone. (Or perhaps that's just one more practical use of their "tactical nuclear weapons.")

[Hobarticus]

19. "Daisy cutter" harkens back to Vietnam...

Originally, it was ordnance intended to clear brush and trees for landing zones, until someone figured out that it can be used to horrifying effect on people, too.

"Two thousand years of mass, and we've gotten as far as poison gas."

[Bridget Burke]

5. Nobody really knows yet....

There may have been tests, the USA hasn't Tactically-Nuked any "enemy" targets, yet.

Just as the Big-Nuke tests in the desert weren't as informative as hitting Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

[BIgJohn83]

8. Are these Tactical Nukes just another "Red Harriet"?

Is this just some crazed sabre rattling so when the Admin sends troops into Iran we'll all be releived and say, "Whew, at least we didn't use any nukes!"

BTW "Red Harriet" refers to the appearance of doing something so politically stupid or inadvisable that an alternative is offered afterward that seems less out of left-field, but is still not the best option for the country...

Ref: Harriet Myers/John Roberts
Nuke Iran/Invade Iran

[Hobarticus]

21. That's very clever, and very fitting...

Offer the carrot and the stick, and after the stick, well, the moldy rotten carrot doesn't taste so bad.

[lapislzi]

25. It was my first thought too

I like your new term.

[BIgJohn83]

40. Okay so I can spell Red Harriet, but not relieved..sorry n/t

[baldguy]

9. It's a bomb that's targeted at an enemy's Ministry of Defense building

and not the city that it resides in.

[La Coliniere]

10. tactical nukes =

totally nuts
The horror, the horror, the horror, the horror............................................

[oneighty]

12. Google

United States Nuclear Weapons.

Learn many interesting things about U.S. Nuclear Weapons.

A tactical weapon is a low yield nuke supposedly useful on a battle field. The 'Davy Crockett' is an example of a tactical nuclear weapon.

180

[bmcatt]

15. Just for the record...

Tactical nuclear weapons have been around for quite a while (since Cold War-ish times). They are low-yield weapons that were intended to be used on the battlefield (non-cruise missile or ICBM launched) by theater commanders. The intent (such as it was) was that an invasion of the West by Warsaw Pact forces could potentially be countered by use of tactical nukes to significantly damage attacking forces. The existence of tac nukes is one of the reasons that Army forces learned the "N" portion of NBC ("Nuclear, Biological, Chemical") warfare training.

Caveat: IANAG (I am not a general), nor do I play one on TV.

[Kansas Wyatt]

16. I would assume it means

Smaller nukes, that allegedly, really don't count as full blown nuclear weapons. So whoever uses a tactical nuke, allegedly doesn't appear to be batshit loony nuclear nuts.

However, with this kind of batshit loony nuclear nuts mentality, the nutjob fails to comprehend that once the line is crossed, size is irrelevant.

[Hobarticus]

17. Low yields, meant for smaller targets

Specifically, troop concentrations, ports, airports, road and rail junctions, and other forward tactical targets. Designed specifically to thwart a foreseen rapid Russian advance across Europe. You can hit targets while minimizing damage to the surrounding area...or so the theory goes.

Pretty much useless after the Cold War ended,and it was obvious that the Russians were never coming.

And quite possibly the biggest mistake that mankind would make, if Bush goes through with this.

[_testify_]

22. Good explanation

I always thought of them in terms of the difference between 'tactical' and 'strategic'.

A tactical nuke would be used as a battlefield tactic, i.e., a way to destroy a specific target.

A strategic nuke would be used as a strategy for winning, i.e., turn the the enemy capital into rubble and then some.

[Hobarticus]

23. Zactly...

Strategic bombing affects your enemy's ability to wage war, like a factory or a city, that has long-term effects.

Tactical bombing destroys targets in the field, like a tank or a bridge, that has immediate effects.

Technically, this would be using a tactical nuke in a strategic deployment. Still, a mistake.

[JohnyCanuck]

24. Link to Union of Concerned Scientists flash animation

shows why nukes as bunker busters won't work as advertised and they'll create lots of fallout pollution.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

[Hobarticus]

27. That was very disturbing...

Try explaining to everyone east of Iran why we gave them cancer and poisoned their natural resources. If they don't hate us now, already, they sure will.

[haab]

30. The Radioactive Fallout pollution is far from Home and Israel

.... Any Nuclear Bomb regardless of the new terms used to describe them, will cause fallout will be devastation to the whole region.

Didn't we learn anything from the last time we dropped the bomb?? Why is this on the agenda??!! :scared:

[newyawker99]

38. Hi haab!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[haab]

41. thanks newyawker99

Thanks ;) ... this place is amazing.. where have I been all these years!!

[KansDem]

42. I was wondering about this...

Tactical bombing destroys targets in the field, like a tank or a bridge, that has immediate effects.

Dropping a "tactical nuke" on a tank or bridge would be, to say the least, overkill. Like going after a fly with a shotgun (Cheney should know more about this).

I wonder if the Pentagon, via the Corporate Media, is pushing for the term "tactical" in an effort to downplay the use of nuclear weapons. I mean, "tactical" sounds like it was part of a plan, right? However, using just "nuclear weapons" or even "strategic nuclear weapons" might not set too well with the American people. But "tactical?"...Wow!, the President is using tactics...he must have a plan...!!

[trof]

31. "it was obvious that the Russians were never coming"

Those sneaky, underhanded bastards!
How dare they!
Here we spend all those decades and all that money and they don't even ever show up.
Damn them.
;-)

[Hobarticus]

36. No kiddin'! Ingrates!

Funny thing is, the whole "Russian horde" mentality was based on Russia's advance through Mongolia at the end of WW2, when they declared war on Japan right around the time we had bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's in the Guinness book as the fastest advance by any modern-day army. Russia was able to take Mongolia so quickly because the Japanese forces there were very sparse and under-supplied, the majority of supplies and reinforcements being diverted against the advancing forces in the Pacific islands.

But somehow, that became our war planner's mantra. They had estimated that Russians could have reached the French channel coast in fourteen days. Fourteen days! Not even the blitzkrieg in '40 accomplished that! So the war machine got all the cash it needed. It conveniently ignored the Russians' long three-year slog, only halfway across Europe to Berlin, against a very tough and determined adversary, in the Germans.

So you see, stupidity is not a recent invention in strategic planning.

[Zynx]

48. In US thinking, yes. In Russian thinking, no. Russian tac nukes = big.

The Soviet Union deployed 300 KT warheads on anti-ship missiles.

[Norquist Nemesis]

28. At the moment, it's a red hot poker to stick in the eye of Iran

As of yesterday, the administration has moved into the next phase...a marketing strategy to separate the Iranian people from the Iranian government. Wishful thinking that the 'people' will rise up and be on the side of 'freedom and democracy'. Iran is now "The Regime".

To answer your question, a "tactical" nuclear weapon is rhetorical bombs thrown by the Bushies. Hopefully, everyone looks seriously between the lines and takes some action to stop them before they drop a nuclear weapon--of any kind.

[kentuck]

32. That's one they stuff up the ass of a gnat....

and it doesn't disturb the fly on the wall...

[porphyrian]

33. It contains the radioactive blast to a small, controlled area...

...until weather conditions disperse it everywhere, making it no better than regular nukes, or worse, considering people are more likely to use it.

[Lisa]

44. yes, and the likelihood that people were more likely to use it ...

... was in fact trumpeted as an excellent reason to start making the darned things, as in "nobody will ever imagine we're serious about dropping one of the big strategic nukes, so in order to make war LESS likely we have to make it seem MORE likely!".

Of course, they didn't (or didn't want to) consider that an arsenal stuffed to bursting with tactical "devices" including nuclear land mines and even artillery shells (!) would offer that many more chances for human error and theft -- not to mention how to dispose of the things eventually. Luckily most of the proposed designs never made it off the drawing board, but what bets BushCo is brushing the dust of those 1970s-80s era blueprints, thinking "oooh!".

[porphyrian]

46. They were trying to push that useless "missile shield" crap...

I have no idea if they've given it up yet or not, but I guarantee they still dumped billions of our tax money into it. I'm surprised they haven't tried to resurrect "star wars" yet, given their deification of everything reagan.

[carolinalady]

35. I don't know, but I bet Shrub wishes it had a different name! n/t

[Cyrano]

37. Thanks for the informative answers guys and gals. Just one more question.

Does anyone feel safe having these nuclear "toys" in the hands of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, et al.?

We're talking here about people who have zero regard for our opinions, for facts, or even for what we all call "reality."

Until these would-be, self-appointed, do-no-wrong, fuck-you-if-you don't-like-it demigods are far away from the levers of power (as well as the nuclear "football") I, for one, won't sleep well.

Someday, somehow, someway, these people must stand before the bar of justice, not just for the "nuke Iran threat" but for their virtually countless crimes against humanity.

[Hobarticus]

43. A thousand megaton-sized NO

These weapons thankfully never have been used, and whether or not you believe that they ever should have been built or had any use at all, I think everyone here can agree that these are the LAST guys we would want with their fingers on the button.

[BlooInBloo]

39. A nuke they put the word "tactical" in front of.