3 ms·

Strategic nukes take out cities, tactical nukes take out tank formations, fleets, bunkers, etc.

by InclinedPlane 11y ago

arethuza 11y ago
Although worth noting that the bombs used at Nagasaki and Hiroshima were in the range of later "tactical" weapons.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  That's right, the primary distinction is to the types of targets each is intended for, though generally speaking tactical nukes are lower-yield than strategic ones. (Because if you're aiming a nuke at enemy forces on a battlefield, the odds are pretty good that there are friendly forces a short distance away on the same field that you'd rather not kill at the same time.)
draw_down 11y ago
So, "small" then :)
- Sharlin 11y ago
  "Small" does not signify scope and purpose the way "tactical" does in this context.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  Not necessarily. It's more about range and use, but generally the yields are smaller. Some tactical nuclear weapons had yields larger than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Tactical nuclear weapons were generally on shorter range (rather than intercontinental) delivery systems and generally were tasked with taking out an objective, which may or may not be mobile, than fixed infrastructure or a population/industry/control center.
VLM 11y ago
More specifically strategy has an overall large plan and tactics take care of one specific goal. So a strategic plan to prevent the use of a harbor might be a single strategic sized nuke. You could say the tactic and strategic levels merged into one. There's only one tactical move as part of that strategic plan. One call does it all. A nuclear tactical plan to prevent the use of a harbor might involve as a small part of the overall mission a nuclear torpedo to put a pesky submarine out of commission so a naval invasion can happen without being sunk by the sub. Or a nuclear artillery shell to clear a tank battalion guarding an approach to the harbor from your forces that'll take control of the harbor. Typically dropping a bridge with a nuke while retreating is rarely/never strategic, it's tactical as a tiny component of an overall retreat involving numerous tasks. Another characteristic is strategic "button pushing" rarely is authorized on the front line, but tactical "button pushing" is usually authorized at the front line. So M16s tend not to be strategic.

Strategic nukes take out cities, tactical nukes take out tank formations, fleets, bunkers, etc.

arethuza 11y ago

Although worth noting that the bombs used at Nagasaki and Hiroshima were in the range of later "tactical" weapons.

smacktoward 11y ago
That's right, the primary distinction is to the types of targets each is intended for, though generally speaking tactical nukes are lower-yield than strategic ones. (Because if you're aiming a nuke at enemy forces on a battlefield, the odds are pretty good that there are friendly forces a short distance away on the same field that you'd rather not kill at the same time.)

draw_down 11y ago

So, "small" then :)

Sharlin 11y ago
"Small" does not signify scope and purpose the way "tactical" does in this context.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
Not necessarily. It's more about range and use, but generally the yields are smaller. Some tactical nuclear weapons had yields larger than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Tactical nuclear weapons were generally on shorter range (rather than intercontinental) delivery systems and generally were tasked with taking out an objective, which may or may not be mobile, than fixed infrastructure or a population/industry/control center.

VLM 11y ago

More specifically strategy has an overall large plan and tactics take care of one specific goal. So a strategic plan to prevent the use of a harbor might be a single strategic sized nuke. You could say the tactic and strategic levels merged into one. There's only one tactical move as part of that strategic plan. One call does it all. A nuclear tactical plan to prevent the use of a harbor might involve as a small part of the overall mission a nuclear torpedo to put a pesky submarine out of commission so a naval invasion can happen without being sunk by the sub. Or a nuclear artillery shell to clear a tank battalion guarding an approach to the harbor from your forces that'll take control of the harbor. Typically dropping a bridge with a nuke while retreating is rarely/never strategic, it's tactical as a tiny component of an overall retreat involving numerous tasks. Another characteristic is strategic "button pushing" rarely is authorized on the front line, but tactical "button pushing" is usually authorized at the front line. So M16s tend not to be strategic.