3 ms·
You might be interested in reading more about "Davy Crockett" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da
by jballanc 8y ago
You might be interested in reading more about "Davy Crockett" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_devic...) and the Fulda Gap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap).
In short, for much of the Cold War the USSR had such a numbers advantage over NATO when it came to tank forces that the only chance NATO had to hold off a full-scale tank invasion by the USSR would have been the use of tactical nukes.
As you rightly point out, MAD strategy doesn't quite apply here. Yes, the Davy Crockett is a nuclear weapon. However, the fact that it only would've leveled the playing field probably means that the USSR wouldn't have immediately responded in kind. That said, a world of tactical nukes is definitely a scary one (Frank Herbert was rather prescient in this regard), and I'm glad we've never had to find out what it would look like.
- flukus 8y ago> In short, for much of the Cold War the USSR had such a numbers advantage over NATO when it came to tank forces that the only chance NATO had to hold off a full-scale tank invasion by the USSR would have been the use of tactical nukes. Would it be effective against a tank invasion? I would have thought tanks were solid enough that you'd almost need a direct strike to destroy them, if the tanks were spread out it wouldn't be more effective than conventional weapons. I'm not sure about the soviet era one's but the current Russian ones are designed to operate on an irradiated battlefield.
- jballanc 8y agoThe Davy Crockett was deployed from 1961 to 1971, so we're talking '60s era tanks. There's a reason that modern tanks are radiation shielded, and similarly why tactical nukes are no longer considered part of tank warfare.
- gonzo 8y agohttps://www.quora.com/How-effective-would-a-tactical-nuclear-weapon-be-against-tanks https://www.quora.com/How-effective-would-a-tactical-nuclear...
- flukus 8y agoThanks, I didn't know about these ones: > The second category, no longer in use, were low-yield weapons that produced high doses of radiation that would incapacitate the crews of the tanks. The Enhanced Radiation (ER) warheads, commonly referred to as ‘neutron bombs’ were a sub-category. Four 1 kt ER warheads would incapacitate the crews of the battalion. It's scary that humanity ever actually produced devices like that.