3 ms·

I don't think this is a good definition. The US military to my knowledge hasn't used a tactical nuke in live battle conditions ever, and has used 2 "strategic"

I don't think this is a good definition. The US military to my knowledge hasn't used a tactical nuke in live battle conditions ever, and has used 2 "strategic" class nukes in live battle conditions. In my opinion, all nukes today are strategic nukes in that they intend to make your enemy think twice before launching their own nukes. Even tactical sized nukes, if used today, will ignite a severe counter-reaction that is highly likely to escalate to full blown intercontinental nuclear war.

vonmoltke 11y ago
At the time they were first developed, tactical nuclear weapons were intended to be used in a full-scale war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. There was an opinion in the military establishment that chemical and low-yield nuclear weapons would be used to a limited degree on the battlefields of an otherwise conventional war. I don't think this view is as crazy at it sounds on the surface. I don't think the US and UK would launch a general nuclear strike if, say, Soviet Frontal Aviation put a nuclear-tipped cruise missile into the USS Eisenhower or Seventh Army engineers blew strategic bridges with nuclear demolition charges. It's a dangerous line to flirt, though.