why cant you use tactical nuclear weapons?




 
--
 
August 11th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 

Topic: why cant you use tactical nuclear weapons?


Seems to me that they were made..yet in all the conflicts where they could have been used (Korea, Viet Nam, and yes even the Persian Gulf) not one nation has dared to use them.

Why? tactical nukes are just little big explosive devices. Seems to me they would be awful practical. Who would know in the heat of battle?

What are some of the reasons why they havent been used?

August 11th, 2004  
J.Hawk
 
The US policy since WW2 has been to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons, for self-evident reasons. This was done in part through self-restraint, in order to promote a nuclear weapons use taboo. If we started treating them as just another battlefield weapon, the number of countries owning such weapons would instantly multiply, until nearly every industrialized country had them. If every country felt that a conflict with the US meant it would be attacked by nuclear weapons, it would promptly take necessary measures to avert this possibility, including acquisition of its own nuclear arsenal.

Incidentally, the Nonproliferation Treaty to which the US is a party prohibits the use of nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states. This is part of the NPT bargain: countries forswear the acquisition of nuclear weapons in return for guarantees they themselves will not be targeted by such weapons, assistance in developing civil uses of nuclear energy, and a pledge by nuclear weapons states to work toward eventual elimination of their own weapons. You mess with one or more of the three, and you'll see more nuclear weapons states.

This is the paradox: the US is one of the few countries to have nukes mostly because these few countries have taken pains to act as if they did not have them.

Mod edit: I love this answer. its great, shows thought. thanks for posting it.
August 11th, 2004  
Lil Hulk 1988
 

Topic: Tac Nucs


Mark,

Remember that even a tactical nuc creates a large amount of fallout, especially when using a ground or air burst weapon. The fallout has a half life 10,000 years plus, so the environment is poisoned for a long time.

Semper Fi...
--
August 11th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
oh...that thought had occured to me...but what the hell. if we can live with a stream that is so polluted that it catches on fire, i suppose the amount of fall-out shouldnt be that noticable...

incidently, that paragraph above lil hulk is nothing but sarcasm...your point is well taken lil hulk.


did this for lil hulk....sheesh what a grouch
August 11th, 2004  
Sooners1
 
 
Yes the fallout is the major thing because of environmental effects. It contanimates everything outside the blast are itself. The fallout alone is unpredictable.
August 11th, 2004  
FlyingFrog
 
When MUST, you MUST use mini-nukes.

But it is only effective if you can assure the MAD.

If you can assure MAD, then you can use mini-nuke at any time you want.

It was never used before because it was not necessary or not possible to use (like in Korea War) or not effective and with too much political consequence (like in Vietnam War).
August 11th, 2004  
silent driller
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Hawk
The US policy since WW2 has been to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons, for self-evident reasons. This was done in part through self-restraint, in order to promote a nuclear weapons use taboo. If we started treating them as just another battlefield weapon, the number of countries owning such weapons would instantly multiply, until nearly every industrialized country had them. If every country felt that a conflict with the US meant it would be attacked by nuclear weapons, it would promptly take necessary measures to avert this possibility, including acquisition of its own nuclear arsenal.

Incidentally, the Nonproliferation Treaty to which the US is a party prohibits the use of nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states. This is part of the NPT bargain: countries forswear the acquisition of nuclear weapons in return for guarantees they themselves will not be targeted by such weapons, assistance in developing civil uses of nuclear energy, and a pledge by nuclear weapons states to work toward eventual elimination of their own weapons. You mess with one or more of the three, and you'll see more nuclear weapons states.

This is the paradox: the US is one of the few countries to have nukes mostly because these few countries have taken pains to act as if they did not have them.

Mod edit: I love this answer. its great, shows thought. thanks for posting it.
And I thought it was just that vorboden word "nuke"
August 11th, 2004  
Lil Hulk 1988
 

Topic: Not sarcasm....


It wasn't really supposed to be sarcasm. The use of even a tactical nuke can be set to be either ground burst or air burst (meaning just above the ground to expand the effective range of the blast, not anti air)
August 12th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
i think you misunderstood me lil hulk...the first part of my reply was the sarcasm..the rest is a tribute to your post.

BTW folks..i was a NBC officer for 20 years..i defitnetly know what nukes are all about. no more pms about my intelligence please.

August 12th, 2004  
Lil Hulk 1988
 

Topic: Remember the fallout prediction charts?


I took a good amount of NBC training, when I went in I was tagged due to my chemistry and physic education ending up having to take the "NBC Lite" course (mostly Decon and fallout/drift charts), but never served directly in NBC. What I remember most is the charts for the drift/fallout prediction and immediate action procedures for unit survivability. ( I love the little litmus paper and other papers in the test kit the lasted about ten minutes in a humid environment....)