Discussion: Concievable roles of Tactical/Non strategic Nuclear Weapons

[illusion8]

Can you be a little more specific?

@Alpha1, I get your OP about using a battle field nuke on advancing troops and there's no denying that usage of a nuke will wipe out the troops, that much is certain and there is no point in discussing it. I would go beyond that and would estimate the "actual" fallout that would happen when some country uses a nuke.

 

[Jungibaaz]

@Alpha1

Great job mate, I have to admit, I am very impressed, you've educated me. And I'm glad to see you referencing properly, never forget to, in fact, I'll be personally keeping an eye on all TT articles and if they've been referenced properly.

Cheers.

I would go beyond that and would estimate the "actual" fallout that would happen when some country uses a nuke.

That would require more digging, you could find some rather obvious, some more subtle rules of thumb for any given region, but asking for what would happen in 'some country' is a big ask, this sort of thing would vary from region to region, from time to time and situation let alone any given country at any given time.

 

[illusion8]

@Alpha1

Great job mate, I have to admit, I am very impressed, you've educated me. And I'm glad to see you referencing properly, never forget to, in fact, I'll be personally keeping an eye on all TT articles and if they've been referenced properly.

Cheers.



That would require more digging, you could find some rather obvious, some more subtle rules of thumb for any given region, but asking for what would happen in 'some country' is a big ask, this sort of thing would vary from region to region, from time to time and situation let alone any given country at any given time.

Going by the what the thread is about, let me narrow it down.

which are the nuclear armed countries that deploy battle field nukes?

Which are the nuclear armed countries that do not have a NFU? - I assume here that the battle field nuke is used as a first strike against forward moving armour and infantry.

 

[Alpha1]

It is very well possible but i dont think it will be used that way.

In your opinion how else can they be used , we can explore that too

 

[T-123456]

In your opinion how else can they be used , we can explore that too

In Hiroshima and Nagasaki they were used as ''psychological'' weapons,Japan would never have given up otherwise.
I know nukes are weapons of mass destruction,but a small one used in a mountainess area where no people live with all the taliban hide outs would be tactical or not?
It would save alot of lives and destroy all the taliban in that area or am i wrong?
In our case,we cant find the PKK terrorists in the mountains of Northern-Iraq because of the many caves they hide in.
Wouldnt a small nuke destroy all of them at once?

 

[Alpha1]

In Hiroshima and Nagasaki they were used as ''psychological'' weapons,Japan would never have given up otherwise.
I know nukes are weapons of mass destruction,but a small one used in a mountainess area where no people live with all the taliban hide outs would be tactical or not?

This is what i want to explain, If a nuclear detonation happens in such a way that the long term effects are minimised they will have the same impression as of A conventional explosion just many times powerfull.
The problem while dealing with hardened military targets and as you have said ''Caves'' is that they have have to be targeted by suface bursts which would produce immense local fallout making it impractical

Incase of a land or water surface burst, large amounts of earth or water will be vaporized by the heat of the initial fireball and drawn up into the radioactive mushroom cloud. all this material will become radioactive when it condenses with fission products and other radiocontaminants or if it has become neutron-activated. There will be large amounts of particles of less than 0.1 um to several millimeters in diameter generated in a surface burst
The larger/heaviour particles will not rise into the stratosphere and consequently will settle to earth within about 24 hours called local fallout. Severe local fallout contamination can extend far beyond the blast and thermal effects, particularly in the case of high yield (multi-magaton) surface detonations.
People in the radiologically contaminated area, will have radiation exposure as well as a possible later internal hazard due to inhalation and ingestion of many radiocontaminants.
Some radiation would contaminante large amounts of land and drinking water causing formal mutations throughout animal and human life.

The Son of Cold Start. | Page 27

 

[T-123456]

This is what i want to explain, If a nuclear detonation happens in such a way that the long term effects are minimised they will have the same impression as of A conventional explosion just many times powerfull.
The problem while dealing with hardened military targets and as you have said ''Caves'' is that they have have to be targeted by suface bursts which would produce immense local fallout making it impractical

The Son of Cold Start. | Page 27

This is what i want to explain, If a nuclear detonation happens in such a way that the long term effects are minimised they will have the same impression as of A conventional explosion just many times powerfull.
The problem while dealing with hardened military targets and as you have said ''Caves'' is that they have have to be targeted by suface bursts which would produce immense local fallout making it impractical

The Son of Cold Start. | Page 27

But with an Airburst,the damage to the caves and all in it will be the same?
If done directly above the caves?

 

[Alpha1]

But with an Airburst,the damage to the caves and all in it will be the same?
If done directly above the caves?

Directly above? above the entrance? Yes the explosion can be powerfull enough to make the entrance collapse... but It is better to use conventional explosives for this purpose.
Airbursts don't have good cratering effects, so they won't destroy a tunnel network

 

[T-123456]

Directly above? above the entrance? Yes the explosion can be powerfull enough to make the entrance collapse... but It is better to use conventional explosives for this purpose.
Airbursts don't have good cratering effects, so they won't destroy a tunnel network

Do you have any knowledge of Kinetic Energy weapons?

 

[Alpha1]

Do you have any knowledge about Kinetic Energy weapons?

something related to this?
KINECTIC BOMBARDEMENT

 

[T-123456]

something related to this?
KINECTIC BOMBARDEMENT

We should develope these weapons

 

[Alpha1]

We should develope these weapons

the cost and resources required might outweigh its potential benefits

 

[T-123456]

the cost and resources required might outweigh its potential benefits

Laser weapons?

 

[Alpha1]

Laser weapons?

Directed energy weapons , hmm
A lot of benifits and as it is a conventional weapon, Hence not banned by OST .
will be cheaper than kinetic bombardment but the technology is yet to advance to that point where Directed energy weapons can be sent into space. they will prove to be quite cheaper than kincetic bombardement, infact.