The case against tactical nuclear weapons

In nuclear war tactics and strategy there's a principle. It's called USE IT or LOSE IT. When an enemy nuclear strikes is incoming towards your nuclear deterrant, the response is to launch immediately before your deterrant is hit by enemy missiles. That means All nuclear deterrance has a predefined target that can be set into the warhead in a matter of seconds by a computer during launch preparation. Following that, there are other procedures for preparation and finally the launch itself.

Let' now depict a scenario. The "ABM" system in Romania/Poland vs SS-18 Satan silos in Teykovo launch site ...
Surveillance and intelilgence through multiple means can detect and classify IRBMs or MRBMs within about 40 seconds of their launch. Flight time from Poland to Teykovo AFB will take just about 10 minutes. At detection, personnel in the Silos at Teykovo has about 9 minutes to launch. With a properly trained manpower and proper automation for the fueling system, plus a little help from intelligence (of any kind) can guarantee that the Satan is launched before the MRBMs or IRBMs reach Teykovo AFB.

Now the question for people smarter than me is: What and Satan's targets and where are they?

Sarmat preparation and countdown is even quicker than the SS-18's and it is just about ready to enter service to replace the old SS-18.

On the even slightest idea that there's a vague chance that such scenario might happen, here's a remarkable testimony from someone who stared at those nukes in his face, and was smart enough not to push the button, so he could tell the story on youtube!

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Nickn3probably but the trouble is the true masterminds and finacial planners for 9/11 attacks were based out of riyadh capital of saudi arabia and our so called allies but i think a dozen non nuke vtomahawks aimed at saudi royal palaces and head mosques would have took wind out of there sails.

The only use now for tactical nuclear weapons are for very deep harden bunkers.

Tactical nuclear weapon were good for hardened bunkers but now with GPS guided weapons that can fly into windows they ar no longer needed.

But North Korea in well known for hiding guns and missile systems in deep underground tunnels beyond the reach of GPS guided weapons.

Likely the only time the US would use a tactical nuclear weapons would be in a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator,
and likely at .5 to 3 KTs
And low yield these nukes would not likely cause a mushroom cloud

a reply to: JBurns

Not a good example. A country whose goal is to conquer land with the future prospect of that land being productive is not going to nuke said land.

Make a realistic example so I can then dissect it properly.

I'm against them ,we DON'T need them. AND YES I am including DU ammo here.

ilcentro.gelocal.it... ili-diverse-vittime-1.9567019

Jul 9th 2014, Italian armed forces, in the face of the NPT treaty and nuclear test ban treaty!

They claim it was a fireworks factory

I'll now list a few myths regarding tactical nuclear weapons. These myths are common among media noisemakers and among those who still don't understand they aren't as smart as they want us to believe!

Myth 1) Tactical nuclear warheads have lower yield than strategic nuclear warheads.

The yield of nuclear warheads is independent from its purpose (Strategic/Tactical). There are tactical nukes with 2Mt yields and Strategic nukes with "only" 100Kt yields.
This means the difference between tactical and strategic nuke is not in the yield, it's something else.
In fact the difference lies in the Communication Command and Control of the deployed warheads, its delivery platform/mechanism and finally its target.

Regarding the delivery platform, strategic nukes can be delivered only by ICBMs, SLBMs and bombers with sufficient operational range. Tactical nukes can be employed in the battlefield using fighter jets with limited operational range, short range rockets, torpedoes cannon shells (It is highly probable that T-14 Armata has nuclear tipped 125mm shells) or "any other possible way"
So the difference in this case lies mostly in the range of the weapon.

Regarding CCC, strategic nukes require presidential authorization and are connected with their authorization system using a reliable and secure channel. For tactical nukes the authorization comes from a battlefield general or officer. This can be a General or Colonel, but the authority can be delegated as down as a Warrant Officer, very quickly if needed. Their usage does not require a secure activation channel, because it does not require any channel. Activation is manual and direct, on the weapon itself.

Finally, strategic nukes' targets are mainly Industrial complexes, communication, power grid, command, control, transport hubs, scientific centers, large cities and strategic underground facilities. Tactical nukes are mainly used in battlefield against significant advancing grouped forces, but their retaliatory capabilities against infrastructures or cities of any kind can be as powerful as a strategic warhead.

Myth 2) Limited nuclear war is impossible because it would immediately escalate further

Ask the Iraqis about shock and awe. How many nukes were dropped by the US on Iraq and Afghanistan?

Myth 3) Russia will some day agree to reduce its tactical nuclear arsenal

Russian stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons depends on NATO/EU deployment of tactical forces in eastern Europe. That includes the so-called ABM in Poland-Romania. The amount of these weapons is exclusively based on how much nuclear firepower is needed to stop any EU attack dead on its tracks, and quickly retaliate against European cities and infrastructures while not using any strategic nuclear potential.
The strategic nuclear warheads, are and will always be exclusively targeted against US cities, US infrastructure and US forces located beyond the range of tactical nukes.

But these are, widely known facts and potentials of deterrance, already known since many decades. Nothing new.