Tactical Nuclear weapons - still relevant?
- Thread starter StingrayOZ
- Start date
Well first you need to consider a few things about the atmospheric test, first and I think most importantly, none of the test happened over major urban centers with millions of people in it. That alone would cause mass casualties of persons in varying degrees of duress. Burns, people trapped in building, people impaled by debris, people flash blinded, etc...then the following the initial blasts wave you'd see massive fires, fires that release huge amounts of radioactive material into ionosphere,-that effects you, and me- followed by fallout from the huge amounts of ash and soot falling back down to earth or rain.Compared to how many surface tests in the past?
Doubt it'd be a huge deal globally. Pretty horrible for the people at ground zero but the rest of the world?
Doubt it'd be much of an issue.
Second, the atmospheric test weren't done in a manner where one would see the United States detonating 50 devices in a single day. The test were also separated sometimes but great distance but not always.
Consider too politically, how such an exchange would alter world affairs. Would China be neutral in a India-Pakistan nuclear exchange? India has the Agni 4 Ballistic missile capable of reaching Beijing, and the also new Brahmos cruise missile. You see how the conflicts in the Ukraine, in Syria, and elsewhere including territorial disputes are putting the Superpowers seemingly on some type of collision course. Do you think a nuclear war in South Asia say tomorrow morning would decrease the levels of international tensions?
Then lastly, how would things like the cost of food and energy be effected? How would the worlds economies fair? Think small too in terms of devices used, let's say each side fires about two dozen apiece, that's a lot of cities gone. Former SecDef Robert McNamara had the idea of fighting a nuclear war by attacking only military and political targets. Even with all these factors considered, such an event would be unprecedented in recorded history.
If say, it'd be an issue.
I'd recommend watching "Trinity & Beyond" narrated by William Shatner. The part about how strontium-90 and how it gets into our food and water I found most interesting.
dragonfire
New Member
A War where multiple nuclear devices are used on population centers would definitely have a large scale global impact. However the danger from the fall out probably is not as life threatening to population centers 1000s of miles away. Precautions would definitely need to be taken.Well first you need to consider a few things about the atmospheric test, first and I think most importantly, none of the test happened over major urban centers with millions of people in it. That alone would cause mass casualties of persons in varying degrees of duress. Burns, people trapped in building, people impaled by debris, people flash blinded, etc...then the following the initial blasts wave you'd see massive fires, fires that release huge amounts of radioactive material into ionosphere,-that effects you, and me- followed by fallout from the huge amounts of ash and soot falling back down to earth or rain.
Second, the atmospheric test weren't done in a manner where one would see the United States detonating 50 devices in a single day. The test were also separated sometimes but great distance but not always.
Consider too politically, how such an exchange would alter world affairs. Would China be neutral in a India-Pakistan nuclear exchange? India has the Agni 4 Ballistic missile capable of reaching Beijing, and the also new Brahmos cruise missile. You see how the conflicts in the Ukraine, in Syria, and elsewhere including territorial disputes are putting the Superpowers seemingly on some type of collision course. Do you think a nuclear war in South Asia say tomorrow morning would decrease the levels of international tensions?
Then lastly, how would things like the cost of food and energy be effected? How would the worlds economies fair? Think small too in terms of devices used, let's say each side fires about two dozen apiece, that's a lot of cities gone. Former SecDef Robert McNamara had the idea of fighting a nuclear war by attacking only military and political targets. Even with all these factors considered, such an event would be unprecedented in recorded history.
If say, it'd be an issue.
I'd recommend watching "Trinity & Beyond" narrated by William Shatner. The part about how strontium-90 and how it gets into our food and water I found most interesting.
Like the two nuclear explosions on Japan in WWII did it directly affect Indian population ? Obviously the scale would be different with larger number of weapons and warhead sizes being used. Also the world economy is much more inter-dependent these days so there would be the relevant impact, but again the life threatening effects would not be as direct or evident.
BrahMos is at best a Supersonic Anti-ship; and Land Attack Cruise missile with a range of 290 kms and does not carry a nuclear load out.
That being said its upto both countries and leaders world over to ensure a war does not break out between India and Pakistan; it could be slippery slope risking world peace at large.
I'm sure it's to the world's advantage, but you cannot place responsibility around the necks of foreign leaders and their nations to ensure this war doesn't happen. I do agree with you that the world's leaders should as a matter of their duty do everything they can to discourage any such conflict from happening anywhere, not just for the good of two nations, but for the good of all people in the world. However it should also be accepted that India and Pakistan are the ultimate bearers of that responsibility.That being said its upto both countries and leaders world over to ensure a war does not break out between India and Pakistan; it could be slippery slope risking world peace at large.
dragonfire
New Member
Absolutley, its upto the Indian and Pakistani Leadership to ensure that there is peace, infact Indian policy so far has been to keep the issue a bilateral one without any overt influence from any third party to mediate. However, if the past is anything to learn from we are aware how the international community especially the American leadership influenced both sides to ensure peace was retained during times of conflict when things started to heat up fast.I'm sure it's to the world's advantage, but you cannot place responsibility around the necks of foreign leaders and their nations to ensure this war doesn't happen. I do agree with you that the world's leaders should as a matter of their duty do everything they can to discourage any such conflict from happening anywhere, not just for the good of two nations, but for the good of all people in the world. However it should also be accepted that India and Pakistan are the ultimate bearers of that responsibility.
Tactical is hard to define. US still stores B-61s in NATO countries which in the event of a war will be used--you can call them tactical since they have variable yield yet they are also dropped by B-52s and B-2s.Does anyone know of any countries that are still actively developing tactical nuclear weapons or would still conceivably use them if stock piled?
I think I would exclude north Korea from this for the time being because any tactical use would be part of a very large scale use, so really more of a form of strategic use of a tactical device.
But to answer your Q, no, no WMD can win a war.