Pentagon deploys low-yield nuclear weapon for first time: report

Discussion in 'Security & Defenses' started by Mrlucky, Feb 5, 2020.

  1. Mrlucky

    Mrlucky Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    4,929
    Likes Received:
    3,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is what I'm talking about!

    We may need this sub based nuke as a deterrent to Russia but it is also perfect for first strike capability in NK and hope never needed in Iran. It's bigger than the tactical W54 (10 or 20 ton yield) at about one-third the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Maybe 5-6 Kilo-tons? It's explosive output is classified.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/pentagon-deploys-low-yield-nuclear-weapin-for-first-time
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2020
  2. Junkieturtle

    Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,724
    Likes Received:
    1,316
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It does not seem to provide a battlefield advantage. It's only point of interest is that it is low yield. I think the distinction will be lost immediately if one of these weapons, no matter what it's yield, is ever used. Granted, the missile might have other capabilities outside of blast yield that are classified, and make this missile a logical choice. I don't think yield alone makes a difference though, as far as being a deterrent. Once a country attacks another with a nuke, that's it. We're not going to be less mad if Russia uses one because it was low yield.

    That's like if I came to your house and shot you and then told you to calm down, it was just a .22. You're still going to grab your gun, whatever it is, and shoot me back.
     
    Gatewood likes this.
  3. Mrlucky

    Mrlucky Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    4,929
    Likes Received:
    3,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is supposed to keep the playing field even in Europe since Russia is or already has developed a low yield nuke of a similar size. It would not be a weapon any country would want to have to use. The long term radiation effects would be far worse than the initial blast. It would render a city useless for many years.

    Where I could see it being effective is along the NK boarder where they have a lot of rocket assisted artillery aimed a SK. We would need to take out a lot of long range artillery very fast. It wouldn't be pretty but using tactical nukes there has often been considered over the years.

    Your analogy about shooting someone with "just a .22" made me chuckle. I was visiting Tucson several years ago. I was watching the news in a hotel room. There had been a shooting between some guy and a county sheriff. They were interviewing the sheriff who had been shot. I remember him remarking to the interviewer something like, "Oh, I'm fine. He only had a little .22. He didn't hut me much at all."
     

Share This Page