NationStates Jolt Archive

Can someone please explain to me the following?:

What is a "Tactical" nuke?
Why do nations stock tens of thousands of these weapons?
How can someone launch more than a few hundred of these at an enemy without damaging the whole planet?

Here's what I've been able to find.

1. From this site (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_05/millarmay02.asp)For the most part, tactical nuclear weapons have smaller explosive power than strategic nuclear weapons and are generally intended for “battlefield” use against enemy forces, rather than against enemy cities or strategic nuclear forces. Tactical nuclear weapons include a broad array of devices, from so-called nuclear landmines and nuclear artillery shells to air-dropped or missile-launched nuclear warheads. Their yields can be relatively low (0.1 kiloton), equal to those of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (15-20 kilotons), or very large (1 megaton).

So basically, they're smaller than strategic nukes and are meant to cause limited damage.

2. To the best of my knowledge, no nation stockpiles tens of thousands of these weapons. In fact, only the US and the former Soviet Union even had tens of thousands of strategic nukes, and we've been drawing them down for some time now. I don't know how much of a tactical program we have in the US, but I know it's gotten a lot of bad press in just the last couple of years and I seem to recall that it was still largely in the planning stage. I could be very wrong, however, and would welcome some proof to the opposite.

3. Quite simply, you can't.

I've run into several "respected" RPers saying that "10,000 10kt nukes" would be "Just the first wave"....

A tactical nuke is a low-yield weapon in the form of artillery shells and medium range ground-to-ground missiles, or mines. They are designed to be mobile and versatile, for use at the discretion of Generals in the field once total war has been declared, and disruption at the top of the command chain is sufficient for complete delegation of responsibility for military policy to commanders in the field to take place.

You would need at least a 180mm artillery piece or a truck-mounted missile rail to fire them, and you would not have more than a few units attached to divisional artillery. You would certainly not have large units of tactical nuclear forces, only small special units scattered through the engineer and artillery corps.

Because the yield is intentionally small, the fallout is correspondingly severe. An exchange of battlefield nukes would contaminate the whole area with dangerous levels of radiation, and leave it uninhabitable. They have the nasty side-effect of being the ultimate area denial weapon.

It is feasible for a theatre war, one covering a continental landmass, to involve the use of hundreds of such weapons on both sides. However, neither side would be able to lay claim to the contested area after the conclusion of hostilities. This bit of realism should have implications for some RPs.

capsule just doesnt understand that nukes arent as powerful as he thinks

capsule just doesnt understand that nukes arent as powerful as he thinksThus question 1... what is a tactical nuke lol

Could you please describe how powerful the average Tac Nuke is? Strategic Nuke?

Could you please describe how powerful the average Tac Nuke is? Strategic Nuke?
Tactical nuke - kiloton range

Strategic nuke - megaton range

Probably an oversimplification, but it's a reasonable guide.

Thus question 1... what is a tactical nuke lol

Could you please describe how powerful the average Tac Nuke is? Strategic Nuke?

The average Tactical nuclear device is in the neighbourhood of 1-20kT, meaning that it has the explosive power of 1000 to 20,000 tons of TNT.
The average Strategic nuclear device has several warheads, which are mostly somewhere around 100-250kT. Although most Soviet missiles had single warheads that were around 2-3mT. (2,000,000 to 3,000,000 tons of TNT) The largest test was performed by the USSR, and it had a yield of 60mT.

You would need at least a 180mm artillery piece or a truck-mounted missile rail to fire them, and you would not have more than a few units attached to divisional artillery. You would certainly not have large units of tactical nuclear forces, only small special units scattered through the engineer and artillery corps.
Actually, American 155mm artillery is nuclear compatible.

You would need at least a 180mm artillery piece or a truck-mounted missile rail to fire them, and you would not have more than a few units attached to divisional artillery. You would certainly not have large units of tactical nuclear forces, only small special units scattered through the engineer and artillery corps.
Actually, American 155mm artillery is nuclear compatible.
Hmm, I think I'd prefer to have the extra range. :)

You would need at least a 180mm artillery piece or a truck-mounted missile rail to fire them, and you would not have more than a few units attached to divisional artillery. You would certainly not have large units of tactical nuclear forces, only small special units scattered through the engineer and artillery corps.
Actually, American 155mm artillery is nuclear compatible.
Hmm, I think I'd prefer to have the extra range. :)

Well, this is true too.
But who has 180mm tube artillery?

But who has 180mm tube artillery?
Russia. It's the next size up from 152mm. Though I am not sure how much of it is still in service. It is pretty irrelevant today.

Ah, for us it's 90mm, 155mm, 203mm, then 255mm, isn't it?

Ah, for us it's 90mm, 155mm, 203mm, then 255mm, isn't it?
255mm? Wow.

Warsaw pact goes 85mm, 115mm, 122mm, 125mm, 152mm, 180mm, and I think there is something just above 200mm. But in practice, you rarely get anything other than 122mm and 152mm pieces, unless it is mounted on a tank chassis.

Yeah, we have this huge artillery piece that is mounted on a tank.
The gun is longer than the chassis is, and the gun is the entire turret.
The crew has to dismount when it fires.

Yeah, we have this huge artillery piece that is mounted on a tank.
The gun is longer than the chassis is, and the gun is the entire turret.
The crew has to dismount when it fires.
Yes, self-propelled artillery. I recall the British Army having US-designed stuff back in the 1970s / early 1980s. 175mm, massively long barrel. Totally impractical for anything, of course. Its mobility was pretty limited. Imagine going into a dip and getting the barrel stuck in the opposite side.

Ah, for us it's 90mm, 155mm, 203mm, then 255mm, isn't it?
255mm? Wow.

Warsaw pact goes 85mm, 115mm, 122mm, 125mm, 152mm, 180mm, and I think there is something just above 200mm. But in practice, you rarely get anything other than 122mm and 152mm pieces, unless it is mounted on a tank chassis.

203mm is the largest tube artillery used by the USA, and as for the extra range of the larger artillery peices, 155mm shells can be rocket assisted to enhance the range.

For a historical reference, the largest artillery piece ever fielded*edited: this was a typo. Happy TAR?* was 800mm (eight hundred. this is no typo) by the Germans in WWII.

Jim

Ah, for us it's 90mm, 155mm, 203mm, then 255mm, isn't it?
255mm? Wow.

Warsaw pact goes 85mm, 115mm, 122mm, 125mm, 152mm, 180mm, and I think there is something just above 200mm. But in practice, you rarely get anything other than 122mm and 152mm pieces, unless it is mounted on a tank chassis.

203mm is the largest tube artillery used by the USA, and as for the extra range of the larger artillery peices, 155mm shells can be rocket assisted to enhance the range.

For a historical reference, the largest artillery piece ever fielded was 800mm (eight hundred. this is no typo) by the Germans in WWII.

Jim

enter the grammar nazi :P

Funny TAR

The USA's first Nuclear capable artillery peice was Nicknamed Atomic Annie and was 280mm. Self propelled using two trucks (one on each end of the mounting), it was very unmanueverable, but being nuclear capable it didn;t need to move around much. I believe, but could be wrong, that the warhead had a 10kt yeild.

Jim