3 ms·

The only scenarios where using a low yield nuke make sense are the deliberate and calculated scenarios (with the Soviet example again being unique is the sense

The only scenarios where using a low yield nuke make sense are the deliberate and calculated scenarios (with the Soviet example again being unique is the sense that the submarine had no contact with outside command, and with the submarine being the only option for using a tactical nuke should the rules of engagement warrant it). As there are always superior tactical options to a low yield nuke, and it will always be a incredibly terrible strategic option, there is essentially no basis for speculating this will ever happen, outside of having a nuclear war already taking place. Even in such a scenario, it’s hard to imagine how low yield devices fit into a MAD strategy. The MOAB has an equivalent yield to some tactical nukes, it’s only been used once, and was arguably chosen as a show of force (and in a very particular scenario where collateral damage was minimized). A strategy that makes no sense with a nuke. There’s clearly no basis for thinking anybody is likely to want to use one, and the hypothetical examples of where use would be most plausible are frankly still very, very implausible.

notahacker 7y ago
I agree entirely that the strategic benefits of using a low yield nuclear weapon are dubious at best. Then again, that didn't stop them being manufactured, hasn't stopped other military actions dubious strategic benefit have been carried out or advocated by senior military personnel, and you yourself cited the example where the only thing stopping a low yield nuclear attack during a moment of incredible geopolitical tension was that their particular rules of engagement allowed an officer to veto what the other two wanted.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  Looking at the Soviet instance more closely, they were sent with a nuclear weapon into conditions where they had no communication with the outside world, and almost no information about the conditions above them or the status of the conflict, with orders to use a nuke if certain conditions were met, knowing they were being relied upon to do so. Putting aside the fact that having this kind of scenario repeated today is already very unlikely, this seems like a scenario where the use of a nuke would the least implausible. As the conditions were met, and the nuke was not used (in a scenario where it would be much more plausible than any one I’ve heard put forward today), this casts significant doubt on any speculation that military personnel would be prepared to launch nukes if ordered to do so.

notahacker 7y ago

I agree entirely that the strategic benefits of using a low yield nuclear weapon are dubious at best. Then again, that didn't stop them being manufactured, hasn't stopped other military actions dubious strategic benefit have been carried out or advocated by senior military personnel, and you yourself cited the example where the only thing stopping a low yield nuclear attack during a moment of incredible geopolitical tension was that their particular rules of engagement allowed an officer to veto what the other two wanted.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
Looking at the Soviet instance more closely, they were sent with a nuclear weapon into conditions where they had no communication with the outside world, and almost no information about the conditions above them or the status of the conflict, with orders to use a nuke if certain conditions were met, knowing they were being relied upon to do so. Putting aside the fact that having this kind of scenario repeated today is already very unlikely, this seems like a scenario where the use of a nuke would the least implausible. As the conditions were met, and the nuke was not used (in a scenario where it would be much more plausible than any one I’ve heard put forward today), this casts significant doubt on any speculation that military personnel would be prepared to launch nukes if ordered to do so.