Hey The Deterrent,
As you might know if you recognize me, I'm more knowledgeable about naval systems then I am Army weapons, but I've wondered something about NASR - is its tactical nuclear warhead still the best choice for anti-armor roles? 5 kilotons isn't a large warhead, being 1/3 the size of the Upshot Grabble test:
With modern MBTs being designed with overpressure systems and NBC protection, the residual radiological effects aren't a major impediment to an armored thrust anymore, they've been designed with radiological and nuclear device protection in mind, especially Russian and Western designs where the threat of tactical nukes was present on the hypothetical Eastern Europe arena, thought the initial blast and radiological burst will cause damage and score kills depending on how tightly packed the armor is.
I previously did a post on a 23 kiloton blast and its effects not on armor, but NBC protection-void warships here -
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/paki...-2-cruise-missile.466682/page-19#post-9012453
Given the cost of production, maintenance and security for nuclear weapons, and the sophistication and lethality of modern anti-armor artillery rockets like the Sense and Destroy Armor round (basically a rocket launched CBU-105) for the M270 MLRS, are tactical nukes still the most effective means of countering armor?
China has its own SADARM projectile as well.
While I don't doubt the effectiveness of tactical nuclear weapons I am more skeptical of their value verse alternative counter-armor, counter-mass assault weapons like a SADARM. I suppose tacking into account the value of a potential for a nuclear counter value strike is also an important part of the analysis though.