4 ms·

I'm familiar with the distinction in the abstract, but didn't really understand how it applied to nuclear weapons. I guess I had a sort of "all or nothing" ment

I'm familiar with the distinction in the abstract, but didn't really understand how it applied to nuclear weapons. I guess I had a sort of "all or nothing" mentality where if a nuclear weapon gets used, there is necessarily some strategic aspect to its deployment because its impact would be so devastating. But that is not necessarily the case.

notacoward 11y ago
It's a valid concern. Even a "tactical" nuke is likely to have strategic repercussions. I guess what matters is that somebody thinks/hopes the scope will be limited to the tactical, even if that turns out not to be the case. It's like using "Peacekeeper" as the name for an ICBM.
phkahler 11y ago
Perhaps you're not aware that there are "small" nuclear weapons? These are only a few kilotons in yield but can be very portable for battlefield use. Think of a nuclear mortar that shoots a few miles out with a half mile blast radius. This is the kind of thing that would keep people up at night if they went missing. It probably keeps someone up just making sure they don't go missing.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  For example, the M388 "Davy Crockett". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiM-RzPHyGs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiM-RzPHyGs (test footage) While that test was successful, as far as I know, the project was stopped before it was ever a "production" device. I suspect his was because of the risk to the operator, as small mortar and similar nuclear devices could jam or otherwise fail to move away form the launch site. The whole concept of a nuclear mortar seems like an idea that sounds good on paper, but probably has all kinds of problem and subtle risks in implementation.
  - caf 11y ago
    They produced 2,100 warheads for it and it was actively deployed from 1961 to 1971 (I believe it was deployed to the Korean peninsula among other places). http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/07/20/king-of-the-wild-frontier/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/07/20/king-of-the-wild-f...

notacoward 11y ago

It's a valid concern. Even a "tactical" nuke is likely to have strategic repercussions. I guess what matters is that somebody thinks/hopes the scope will be limited to the tactical, even if that turns out not to be the case. It's like using "Peacekeeper" as the name for an ICBM.

phkahler 11y ago

Perhaps you're not aware that there are "small" nuclear weapons? These are only a few kilotons in yield but can be very portable for battlefield use. Think of a nuclear mortar that shoots a few miles out with a half mile blast radius. This is the kind of thing that would keep people up at night if they went missing. It probably keeps someone up just making sure they don't go missing.

pdkl95 11y ago
For example, the M388 "Davy Crockett". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiM-RzPHyGs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiM-RzPHyGs (test footage) While that test was successful, as far as I know, the project was stopped before it was ever a "production" device. I suspect his was because of the risk to the operator, as small mortar and similar nuclear devices could jam or otherwise fail to move away form the launch site. The whole concept of a nuclear mortar seems like an idea that sounds good on paper, but probably has all kinds of problem and subtle risks in implementation.
- caf 11y ago
  They produced 2,100 warheads for it and it was actively deployed from 1961 to 1971 (I believe it was deployed to the Korean peninsula among other places). http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/07/20/king-of-the-wild-frontier/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/07/20/king-of-the-wild-f...