Tactical Nuclear Weapons

I've personally never been a fan of the idea of free-fall nukes. Never been a fan of USAF's fetishism for it, so I won't start now. Anything with a nuclear warhead should always have stand off range to avoid the launching platform from being destroyed, but that's just my personal opinion.

Reminds me of the US tactical nuclear anti tank missile... the Davy Crocket... it was just a ballistic rocket that was launched in the direction of the enemy armour.

The thing is that its blast radius was bigger than its max ballistic range so before you launched it you dug a trench to jump into just after you launched the rocket to protect you from the radiation and blast of the weapon...

GarryB wrote:Reminds me of the US tactical nuclear anti tank missile... the Davy Crocket... it was just a ballistic rocket that was launched in the direction of the enemy armour.

The thing is that its blast radius was bigger than its max ballistic range so before you launched it you dug a trench to jump into just after you launched the rocket to protect you from the radiation and blast of the weapon...

The weapon was shear stupidity...truly idiotic in design, the people who designed it probably came from inbred stock.

Well not really much different than dog mines or using Polikarpovs to ram German bombers.

Desperate situation = desperate measure...

The Soviets were battle hardened after WWII and had a lot of good tanks and knew how to use them effectively.

An anti armour weapon like a super bazooka could only do so much, so they thought they could deal with large numbers of enemy tanks at once.

On paper it makes some sense but there were factions who thought it was counter productive.

First of all it lowered the threshold for nuclear weapons use so they would start using them too and nuclear weapons in attack are actually very useful... as you move forward the enemy has to form up into a grouping to stop you.... drop a nuke in its centre... wait an hour for the smoke to clear and then drive through in your BMPs protected from radiation.

A second fear was that being such a small nuke the radiation range was much bigger than the blast range which was actually quite small for enemy forces inside armoured vehicles. If they were in soft vehicles like cars etc they would be killed with shattered glass and their vehicles being crumpled and crushed, but in a tank you are well protected from blast waves.

The problem is that even if the armour protects you from the blast wave you probably just got enough radiation to kill you in a couple of days or weeks time, which means you have enemy soldiers on the front line in tanks knowing they are already dead armed with tanks and weapons... the potential for them to turn into fanatics and fight to die a quicker death became a potential problem... they would all have Geiger counters and know how to use them... because they would be trained to remain inside their vehicles as they drove through areas their own forces had nuked...

When you stir people up into an anti red frenzy or anti Russian or anti Chinese or anti Muslim or anti anything else frenzy it is sad how seriously stupid ideas will be taken.

Well new doomsday weapons from Russia reflect that, like unlimited range nuclear powered cruise missiles and nuclear armed underwater drones.

I would say with all the threats from HATO that is a sensible precaution for Russia... but I am sure America will protect Europe from the radiation... that the US is nowhere near...

Norway knows its energy assets are living on borrowed time. Even odds Russia or US does the torching.

There is an expression in Russian that goes: "the hat burns on a thief". Norway is paranoid because it pulled the activator on the
bombs that destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines. Expect more victimhood posturing from these sick c*nts in the near future.