Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I personally like the idea of tactical nukes better. Granted no nukes would be ideal, its not however going to be a reality.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by apechild
Regarding tactical nukes, they're designed not for urban warfare, nor for wholesale destruction, nor for shooting up some terrorists lighting farts in their pup tent. They're designed for precise, calculated strikes against heavily fortified armaments, and would be deployed under only the most desperate of circumstances. They're the sort of thing you hope you never have to use, but if you do...
|
After some reading on this issue, I read that the two warheads under consideration for modification under the new program are the B61 and the B83. Now the B61 is a 'dial-a-yield' warhead, with yields from 0.3kt to 340kt. However, the B83 has yields in the megatons. Definitely not tactical.
Considering that the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki had yields of around 10kt. NONE of these nukes would hardly be considered "tactical". Tactical yes, when you are talking about strategic nuclear war. They would not suffice to destroy hardened missile silos, but are more than good enough to level cities.
Consider also that airburst (which were what the hiroshima and nagasaki bombs were) produces MUCH less fallout than groundburst weapons.
I don't see how you could justify the equivalent of(actually several hundred times) a massacre on the scale of 9-11 to destroy a hardened bunker ( which, if they are smart... will be in a civilian area) which may or may not contain possible leadership or WMD. ( they might not even be in the COUNTRY!!!)