The case against tactical nuclear weapons

Wonder if they would use what is in orbit?

a reply to: Bedlam

Walking PEABODIES!

Personally I think there is room in warfare for tactical nukes without going to all out nuclear exchanges. It's all game theory war planning stuff, but from what I've read most don't believe the use of baby nukes will automatically lead to an all out exchange.

If used in an offensive manner to take territory away from a nuclear state then, yes, full nuclear response is expected. However if baby nukes are used in a defensive manner to stop an invasion then the attacker has the option to stop attacking and doesn't need to launch a full nuke exchange. Of course if baby nukes are used against a non-nuclear state then you have to decide if an ally is going to launch a full nuclear strike to defend an ally. Generally that level of support for an ally isn't expected by military planners.

So in case one the US is attacking Russia on Russian territory and using tactical nukes to wipe out whole divisions of tanks and troops. Of course Russia defends itself with a full nuclear strike.

Now say the US is attacking Russia again and driving towards Moscow. Russia lets out a few tactical nukes and stops the advance destroying 100,000 men and their equipment. The US doesn't automatically go to full nuclear exchange. They still have the option to stop attacking.

Now if the US is attacking Belarus and find a pocket of resistance and decide to tactically nuke it and move on. Does Russia decide a full nuclear exchange is required? Probably not at that point.

The fact is Russia has a mountain of tactical nukes and are much more willing to use them than people generally think. I believe Russia has about 5 times as many tactical nukes then the US but haven't checked lately. Don't believe the BS policy statements any government puts out, if they have them they will use them if better than the alternative. There is no way you would be able to mass 500 tanks and storm into Russia without a tactical nuke raining down on you.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

That's certainly a dimension of this I didn't consider!

In a way, I suppose that having the option of using these leaves one with more potential options. On one hand, its much better than a 3MT heavy hitter. On the other hand, they're much easier to use.

Although, like you said, a lot depends on the situation.

Thanks for your input very good point!

a reply to: JBurns

I believe that Colin Powell once said that he had the option to use tactical nuclear weapons in Gulf War I but it was not necessary because the accuracy of guided conventional weapons had improved so greatly since the 1960's that they were unnecessary, and the fallout would impede allied advance too much. And the political coalition would fracture.

From a military standpoint, accurate dispersed precision weapons are better. There are few use cases for tactical nuclear weapons today. One of them actually is North Korea. They have immense numbers of long-range artillery buried into mountains in range of Seoul. They would be very hard to attack individually and are well protected. In a full war, they could cause enormous casualties to Seoul (hundreds of thousands). Tactical neutron weapons would be the solution and would present little danger to Seoul.

DPRK's IRBM missile launchers could probably be destroyed by allied aircraft.

The artillery could be more of a danger than DPRK's nuclear missiles, which would be subjected to vigorous and sustained attack.

BTW: a modern torpedo against surface naval ships could be considered as destructive as many uses of tactical nukes.

Just one yeild. Very acccurate +/- 10 yeards like most artillery shells. But with a nuke - do you really have to be very close?

a reply to: JBurns

originally posted by: olbe66
But with a nuke - do you really have to be very close?

You might...it depends on how hardened the target is. If you're talking troops in the open, not much, if you're talking a missile silo, a meter or ten off might make the difference. The lower the yield, the more accurate the delivery needs to be.

originally posted by: Nickn3
a reply to: JBurns

I know I am about to be screamed at, but I think little GW Bush should have used a tactical nuc after 9/11. After identifying the location of OBL, Tora Bora or where ever, I think the President should have gone on world TV and expressed the following : If you gut an American city this is what you can expect in return. Cut to an orbital picture of the location of OBL just as the nuclear flash and issuing mushroom cloud develops. I think that would have been the end of our Muslim problems.
What do you think?

Hmmm, I thought so too at the time but, I have been glad that we didn't. The main practical argument against it is that nuclear weapons simply don't work the way people think they do unless you actually carpet bomb the entire region.

The more human argument is that we must assume that some proportion of arabs are in fact innocent.

Islam was designed to displace all human dignity and replace it with brutal obedience. That is actually the name of the religion, submission. Male adults with resources are compelled to sacrifice their wealth, property and children as they are distractions from god. That is why suicide idiots are kids, they can always have more. Multiple wives was just a turbocharge on an already suped-up death machine.

If you want to end the cycle, you have got to get to the progenitors.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
Personally I think there is room in warfare for tactical nukes without going to all out nuclear exchanges. It's all game theory war planning stuff, but from what I've read most don't believe the use of baby nukes will automatically lead to an all out exchange.

Of course China and the US would use tactical nukes in defense as well but, that doesn't constitute a first strike.

Agreed, my main concern would be their use precipitating a first strike counterforce attack. If for no other reason than to limit their ability to do it again.

I can't see the US not launching a disproportionate response. Then again, I could be mistaken!

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Nickn3
a reply to: JBurns

I know I am about to be screamed at, but I think little GW Bush should have used a tactical nuc after 9/11. After identifying the location of OBL, Tora Bora or where ever, I think the President should have gone on world TV and expressed the following : If you gut an American city this is what you can expect in return. Cut to an orbital picture of the location of OBL just as the nuclear flash and issuing mushroom cloud develops. I think that would have been the end of our Muslim problems.
What do you think?

Hmmm, I thought so too at the time but, I have been glad that we didn't. The main practical argument against it is that nuclear weapons simply don't work the way people think they do unless you actually carpet bomb the entire region.

I wondered about that too---blast Osama at Tora Bora. The problem with that is if they missed, Osama wasn't home. The political problem from Osama's "neener neener" message would just add to more humiliation.

The problem there is well known---Rumsfeld didn't want to commit significant conventional ground troops to hold and control territory because they were already getting prepared to go into Iraq, which is what Rumsfeld + Cheney really wanted to do in the first place. They were using locals, and locals were easily paid off by Osama.

I feel that using a 1KT precision guided cruise missile would've been a great message for Osama and other terrorists. Him being "home" would've been irrelevant. Also would have showed the world that were ready to respond to asymmetric warfare by NSA's as harshly as SA's.

I'd say set to air burst for minimal fallout.

The type attack i worry about is a massive EMP attack against the US.

Since no nukes actually hit the US as they go off in space over the US.

Since only 2 to 5 nukes are needed to do this type attack we may not even know for weeks who did the attack.

Likely the leadership of the country that did it would hide in a deep hardened bunker the only way and the cleanest way to respond would be a small deep penetrating tactical nuke bunker busters.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ANNED

What about the atmospheric tests? Widespread emp sounds questionable, IMO.

a tactical nuke keeps the use of chemical and biological weapons at bay theoretically. because we have stated if chem or bilogics used against us then we will respond in kind up to the use of nukes. also tacyical nukes have other battlefield uses. like they were expected to be used if russia per say tried to invade nato countries with tank divisions if you take out the roads and bridges you limit greatly the enemy armor movements . you blow up a section of railway with a bomb you slow dow enemiy supply lines but you take out a mile or so of track with a nuke you stop supplies for maybe a year. vatch enemy moving troops through a bottleneck why throw 300 spartans at them like thermouple shoot a davy crockett into bottleneck and make them sizzle.

a reply to: JBurns

In 1958 US conducted series of tests over Johnson Atoll (1000 miles south Hawaii) - using REDSTONE ballistic missiles
launched massive (3.8 MT) W39 nuclear warheads over the island and detonated them to test effects of such weapons
above the atmosphere in near space.

Tests were code named HARDTACK

First test HARDTACK TEAK - August 1, 1958

Burst height 76.8 KM

Second test - HARDTACK ORANGE August 12, 1958

Burst height 43 km

It was here that EMP effect was first noticed

a reply to: noeltrotsky

These scenarios are possible.

There is also a long-term effect: use of tactical nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state will inevitably result in that state attempting to build or acquire nuclear weapons.

There's always the "and what happens next? And after that? and after that?" to consider.

Right now the benefit to nuclear states to NOT use nuclear weapons are strong, especially given that these same states are the ones which have precision-guided non-nuclear weapons which have taken up many of the military uses for tactical nuclear weapons. I think Colin Powell said that in GW1 they looked at using tacnukes against Saddam's forces, but the numbers necessary would be so numerous and the existing power of guided weapons so good (he compared to Vietnam) there was no advantage and major disadvantage.

The only useful scenario I see today would be a major artillery barrage by North Korea on Seoul---they have enormous numbers of heavily dug in artillery aimed at civilian targets. neutron bombs would slow down a massacre.

a reply to: JBurns

During the cold war their was an estimated two thousand or more Russian tanks that would come pouring through the Fulda Gap in Germany and the only way the NATO could stop them was the use of the Pershing tactical nukes. It was NATO doctrine that if the Russians made it to the Rhine river the tactical nukes would be unleashed on them to stop them cold. From there we all know Russia would have retaliated with large nukes. NATO air power would have won the day in two days to three days time after taking heavy losses on German bases from the surprise attack and then the Soviet ground forces would have taken a beating, forcing them to retreat back through Poland to Russia, it was Soviet doctrine to unleash their nukes afraid NATO would keep coming and not stop till they conquered Russia.

Tactical nukes are army killers and if the other country does not have nukes that is one thing, If they do it will turn into Armageddon.

Bunker busting nukes are a whole different story. A German bunker Saddam had built was nuclear proof and would have had to take a bunker busting nuke to crack it. It took six conventional bunker busters and it only shook the pictures off the wall inside.

It's too late for a case against them. Ask Clinton for clarifications... And ask the Iraqis, the Syrians and Yemenis as well.

If you can find it look up Army Field manual "25-51 Battalion task force Nuclear training manual".
It dates back to the mid 80's but it will give you a more accurate picture of what a Tactical nuke can do.

The reality is they are actually pretty useless unless you need to take out hordes of screaming Chinese. There are much better options now like Thermobaric weapons etc.
The only time I could see a tactical nuke being used is against another Nuke Site. Lets say someone about to launch a Scud missile that may have a nuke or chemical weapons on it aimed at a major population center. Or a known chemical weapons production plant. If Isis clowns suddenly start cooking up anthrax with their brownies I'm pretty sure they will be on the receiving end of something big and nasty.