• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here's Why U.S. Tactical Nukes Are a Bad Idea.

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,372
Reaction score
82,755
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's Why U.S. Tactical Nukes Are a Bad Idea.


US/Russia nuclear weapons aren't going to magically disappear and there are no plans to scale back further on inventories. On the contrary, both nations are in the midst of modernizing their nuclear arsenals. From my point of view, Russia's Novator missile system is in material breach of the INF and has been so since at least 2010. Besides range-violation issues, the Novator mobile launch vehicle is also in INF material breach because it can accommodate the nuclear capable Iskander-M missile. This situation makes verification impossible. Putin's military excursions into Europe since 2008 makes it clear that [forced] territorial expansion is a tenet of current Kremlin geopolitical doctrine. Thus I have few meaningful reservations concerning US tactical nukes. They could very well be that great 'unknown' that alters Putin's current calculus regarding future Russian expansionism on the European continent.
 
It should be as obvious as the nose on your face that nuclear wrapons are too large to use. Russia recognizes this and developes and has fielded low yield tactical nuclear weapons. These are designed to destroy square kilometers and operate below the theoretical threshold that could cause the use of stragetic nukes.

Note: lets not let Russia conflate the existence of the former Soviet Union with existance of russia.
 
Last edited:
Bullets are bad if you’re in the wrong place .......:shock:
 
Wow, how to even begin to explain.

The US really does not have any tactical nuclear weapons. Yes, we do still have many of the warheads in storage, but what we lack is their delivery systems.

And we also have to specifically exclude weapons like the B-61 and others are "variable yield" and can be scaled down from their strategic to a tactical size, that is not likely.

Our entire "tactical nuclear arsenal" was based primarily on 4 different systems. The Pershing missile, the land based TOMAHAWK cruise missile, the W48 atomic artillery shell, and the M29 Davy Crockett Atomic Recoilless Rifle. And none of those systems are in use anymore, and have not been in decades. Half of them were destroyed due to treaty agreements.

Of all of those systems, the only one we are even capable of bringing back again would be the W48, or an updated version (like the cancelled W82). A nuclear 155mm artillery shell. Which only produced a 72 ton explosion (not mt, not kt, literally 72 tons). It was also a very dirty weapon, and was possibly as hazardous to those that used it as it was to those it was used against.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if some on the leftwing don't start ranting about Hilary Clinton only giving Russia 20% of our uranium instead of 100% plus giving Putin all our nuclear weapons too.
 
joko104 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if some on the leftwing don't start ranting about Hilary Clinton only giving Russia 20% of our uranium instead of 100% plus giving Putin all our nuclear weapons too.
Click to expand...

Now why am I not surprised that you actually believed that bull**** 20% right wing spewing point.
 

I think that there is good reason for maintaining inventories of nuclear weapons. And we should increase their numbers and effectiveness. Reading the second part of your post here (as bourne out by the nose on my face,) that Putin's military excursions into Europe since 2008 makes it clear that [forced] territortial expansion is a tenet of current Kremlin geopolitical doctrine. Thus I have few meaningful reservations concerning US tactical nukes. They could very well be that great 'unknown' that alters putins current calculus regarding future Rushian expansion on the European continent.

and that is why we need a very powerful set of US tactical weapons.
 
Last edited:
I don't really draw a distinction between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.... once one side or the other crosses the Rubicon and uses a tactical nuke, then it's a very short fuse until the other launches their strategic force and pretty much ends civilization (if not humanity) as we know it.

So I don't really see what tactical nuclear weapons add to the equation.... it seems to me that they're a relatively cheap way of purchasing deterrence that comes with the added risk premium of increasing instability.
 

Veterans Today is an American propaganda and conspiracy theory website. It describes itself as a "military veterans and foreign affairs journal", but the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) had said "the anti-Israel bent on VT can slide pretty quickly into overt anti-Semitism."[SUP][1][/SUP]

Veterans Today - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Today



Veterans Today is an American propaganda and conspiracy theory website. It describes itself as a "military veterans and foreign affairs journal", but the Southern ...
 
:lamo

From the article he cited....according to Al Jazeera, in their intereview with an Iraqi military leader...

"In an April 9 interview reported by Al Jazeera, Saifeddin Fulayh Hassan Taha al-Rawi says that, “U.S. forces used neutron bombs during their assault on Baghdad airport before the April 9, 2003, capture of the Iraqi capital.”

The bombs incinerated about 2,000 elite Republican Guard troops but left the buildings and infrastructure at the airport intact, he added."
 

I call Bull**** on that one.

1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Div. was cheek-to-jowl with the Republican Guard for 2 days (3-4 Apr 2003) to capture and hold Baghdad Airport. There was plenty of air support - I'm not ruling out the use of thermobarics - but there's no way in hell they could have snuck a Neutron bomb in there without the whole world knowing about it instantly.
 

Little known tidbit... Russia puts on a good show, but it's acting out of weakness.

Did you know Saudi Arabia spends more on defense than Russia does?
 

A typical response for you Jack, but not a persuasive response. Rather than any discussion of the science or technology or record, you offer only an effective ad hom against VT. I get it.
 

I haven't read that article at VT in years, but I think it included some photos or reference to the unique differences between photos taken of a nuclear event with conventional film cameras, and photos taken with digital cameras. It turns out there is some sort of pixilation effect, and a nuclear event recorded on digital media has a distinct quality to it. People did take photos of the Battle of the Baghdad Airport, with digital cameras. By that standard a tactical nuke event was recorded.
 
Thoreau72 said:
A typical response for you Jack, but not a persuasive response. Rather than any discussion of the science or technology or record, you offer only an effective ad hom against VT. I get it.
Click to expand...

VT is not worth any honest person's time.
 

That's pretty thin gruel, Thoreau... if it were a Neutron Bomb, there'd be a crap load of radiation poisoning casualties... both fatal and non-fatal, and in both the Iraqi and US forces - and depending on which way the wind was blowing, among Iraqi civilians as well. There wouldn't be any ambiguity about it. I think the damage described is consistent with AGM-114 Hellfire II's armed with a thermobaric warheads.
 

This is why when people throw out a comment without a reference, I ask for a credible and verifiable reference. And Veterans Today is not such a reference.

It is purely a Russian influenced propaganda site, with very little credible information. In fact, I trust the information that comes from RT and PressTV (the Russian and Iranian news outlets) more than I do that which is vomited up from VT.

VT is a vile, Anti-Semitic website, and anybody who takes their vomit seriously is an individual who I question as to having more than a single digit number of functioning brain cells operating.

But here, do not take my word for it. See for yourself if any of these "articles" are even worth the digital paper they are printed on:

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/11/12/hitler-was-right-germany-was-stabbed-in-the-back/

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/10/08/apology-adolf-hitler/

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/03/25/exclusive-nuclear-explosion-in-ukriane/

The last part is particularly telling, since VT is a rabid fanboi for Russia. They have been blasting the Ukraine as "Nazis" since the skirmishes with Russia started. They talk about the Ukraine having nukes, and the Russians having gone in and destroyed them. Even though after the dissolving of the USSR the Ukraine turned over all nukes to the new Russian Federation, and all were accounted for.

The Ukraine is even a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

No, the site is pure garbage, and should never be taken seriously. In fact, if I see somebody trying to use them as a serious reference I pretty much dismiss that individual immediately.
 

Thin gruel perhaps, but factual. Very thin gruel if it threatens one's view of the world.

Nuclear technology has advanced considerably since 1944.
 
Cordelier said:
Little known tidbit... Russia puts on a good show, but it's acting out of weakness.

Did you know Saudi Arabia spends more on defense than Russia does?
Click to expand...


Oh, where have we heard this song before .......... Russia is Nigeria with Snow :roll:


Except it uniquely retains the ability to reduce the US to a pile of smouldering rubble.


Regarding tactical nuclear weapons, the alleged use in Iraq is a joke. But US doctrine is clearly interested in renewing and deploying them physically. For a long time Washington has wanted to use them flexibly, and increasingly incorporate them into offensive force scenarios.

It's not all about Russia. I think the Us would like to use them against ISIS ........ boys and toys and all that.
 

The correct reference is "India with snow." Alternatively: "a large, cold India."
 

The ability to lob nuclear missiles is no indicator for civil or military funding or stability.

And your claim of the US "wanting" to use tactical nukes is ludicrous...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…