Russia is reportedly developing sub-kiloton yield tactical nuclear weapons that can be shot from the upgraded guns of its future T-14 tanks. According to Defense One:
"The Russians ... maintain their tactical nuclear stockpile in ways that we have not," Hix said. Potomac Institute head Philip Karber, who helped write the Pentagon's Russia New Generation Warfare Study, offered a bit more explanation when Defense One spoke to him in January. While the United States retains just a few of its once-large arsenal of tactical nukes, Karber estimates that Russia currently has anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000 of the weapons. "Look at what the Russians have been doing in low-fission, high-fusion, sub-kiloton tactical nuclear technology," he said. "It appears that they are putting a big effort...in both miniaturizing the warheads and using sub-kiloton low-yield warheads."
Why is that significant? By shrinking the warhead, you can shoot it out of a wider variety of guns, including, potentially, 152-millimeter tank cannons. "They've announced that the follow-on tank to the Armata will have a 152-millimeter gun missile launcher. They're talking about it having a nuclear capability. And you go, 'You're talking about building a nuclear tank, a tank that fires a nuke?' Well, that's the implication," said Karber.
The U.S. developed their own tactical nuclear weapons, such as 127, 155, 200, and 280 mm nuclear artillery shells, during the Cold War. The U.S. withdrew nuclear artillery from service in 1991, and Russia followed suit in 1992.
(Score: 1) by its_gonna_be_yuge! on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:38PM (24 children)
Putin with new Nukes, Trump with old Nukes, KimUn with bad hair Nukes.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:05AM (21 children)
The environmental destruction is going to be horrendous. Any place where these ones are allowed to blow up will be inhabitable and poison water and farmland etc.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:18AM (12 children)
Although most of the tactical nuclear weapons were fission weapons, it seems that a boosted [wikipedia.org] or fusion weapon with lower fallout is possible.
The threat of nuclear fallout is overstated as it is.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:48AM (11 children)
Is it though?
2,000 to 5,000 of these weapons is not a prototype design, but a production weapon. If those things are fired they still devastate the environment, albeit, in a much smaller area. How many of them are there?
The biggest concern is that Russia is what again? It's a failed country multiple times over that is now in contentious parts, some filled with Islamic bullshit. It could be a regime change away, a corruption filled night, and those weapons are in the hands of "bad hombres".
How stupid was it to even build these weapons in the first place? The first thing you do when building a weapon is to consider what happens when you fire it. Continually building weapons that can never be fired, but designed to be fired easily, will not end well for our species. Not that our ending isn't coming soon and brutally for other reasons.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:53AM (5 children)
Putin will keep the Fatherland together and prosperous and earn Russia the respect it deserves!
An ordinary night in Russia?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:52AM (4 children)
Russia is usually referred to as a motherland, not a fatherland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Russia [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:07AM (3 children)
Not always.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:35PM
Russia is usually referred to as a motherland, not a fatherland.
Mother Russia [wikipedia.org]
Not always.
Father of All Bombs [wikipedia.org]
I fail to see how Russians naming a bomb "father" precludes them calling their nation "mother".
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:29PM (1 child)
Coincidence?
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/u-s-targets-isis-afghanistan-large-non-nuclear-bomb-n746106 [nbcnews.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:30PM
Wew, I feel dizzy.
Now I'm just waiting for the first instance of Trump bragging about dropping the MOAB. Maybe at a reelection rally in 2020, but I'm not sure that he can hold it in that long.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by KiloByte on Thursday April 13 2017, @11:51AM (1 child)
Those weapons already are in the hands of bad hombres.
Unless you somehow classify as "good" a regime which keeps everyone who dares to say a word against the Dear Leader beaten, arrested and/or killed, invades countries left and right, and so on.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Geotti on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:40PM
Unless you somehow classify as "good" a regime which keeps everyone who dares to say a word against the Dear Leader beaten, arrested and/or killed, invades countries left and right, and so on.
Wait, I'm confused as to which country you're referring to right now?
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:23PM (1 child)
These small nukes were never meant to be main battle weapons. Given their small range you will likely be in the fallout zone and die for radiation poisoning if the wind isn't blowing the right direction. These nuclear artillery shells and other things like the Davy Crockett Weapon System [wikipedia.org] were/are weapons of last resort. These were the weapons that you use as the last man is retreating from the battle field as that guy is fucked anyway so it was to make taking ground by an advancing army as painful as possible for them. Also given their small size they produce substantially more fallout in the small area they affect since the fuel blows apart before most of it can undergo fission so they are like a giant dirty bomb.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:55PM
Almost every main battle tank has NBC systems to protect the crew. A tank can also easily strike at a target over 1km away. Tanks typically fight by pulling up in defilade, firing, and backing down into an even more protected position.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:51PM
The biggest concern is that Russia is what again?
I don't know. Maybe we should ask the citizens of Ukraine.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:29PM (5 children)
Not really, look at the Chernobyl exclusion zone. The most severe fallout ever seen until Fukushima (which strictly speaking is more ocean water contamination than fallout), and life is mostly doing okay. The microbes seem to be having a bit of trouble, but are getting by. Everything else seems to be doing fine aside from higher rates of cancer and mutation. Hardly uninhabitable, living there just comes at a price.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:18PM (4 children)
I don't think cancer and mutations are ingredients for quality of life.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:34PM (3 children)
They are however unavoidable - *every* child has mutations, and *every* adult has tumors and probably short-lived cancers (the body usually kills them off on it's own). Increasing the incidence is likely to be unpleasant for some, but not nearly so much as, say, having malaria and mumps running rampant through your country. And only a small percentage of the population is likely to be severely afflicted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @10:34PM (1 child)
> They are however unavoidable - *every* child has mutations, and *every* adult has tumors and probably short-lived cancers
Sure. Every human also loses water constantly, from evaporation in breath. But if you take all the water out of a human, it's bad news. And if you irradiate pell-mell it's also bad news.
Don't conflate "omnipresent in small amounts" with "totally safe at all levels," it's foolish.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday April 14 2017, @02:43PM
Who said anything about "all levels"? I gave a specific example of one of the currently most heavily contaminated areas on the planet, the Chernobyl exclusion zone. In which life is doing more-or-less okay.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 14 2017, @01:07AM
It's a risk I have not benefit of taking on. So there's no reason to accept anything at all of it or any risk of exposure.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Sunday April 16 2017, @12:24PM (1 child)
The truly scary thing is how this changes nuclear brinksmanship. We don't want any use of nuclear weapons to be normalised in warfare. Far better to keep the current MAD situation (I nuke you, you nuke me) than to mess around with small-scale nuclear weapons (I use small-scale nukes on 'insurgents' you are allied with, then insist this doesn't count as an MAD event).
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 16 2017, @09:00PM
Perhaps it can viewed as on par with chemical warfare?
I think what it boils down to is if anyone is willing to respond to small scale nuclear with a large scale strike. If a big nuke hits then the limits are clearly violated but if it's ambiguous. Do the counterpart have guts to risk a "one up" ?
And of course if one got one small nuke that is harder to control from theft. What prevents someone from boosting it with more fissile material or better reflector. Better containment for longer nucleoid conversion time. Or plainly using it as a match light for a hydrogen bomb?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:18AM
Can they make a nuclear enema for Donald?
(Score: 2) by hamsterdan on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:44PM
Yes, I know, USofA has an impressive military that got it's ass handed back to them during Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Irak, ongoing Syria war, Can't wait to see the results when Russia gets in the game. I'm Canadian and I don't think we could last more than about 10 minutes in an all out war :)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:41PM (1 child)
Bad Russians with scary (useless) weapons!
Bad Russians with scary (useless) weapons!
Be afraid, be afraid!
Gimme MOAR MONEY to protect you from Bad Comrads!
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:32AM
When you put an international arrest warrant out on George Soros, "dead or alive," Soros puts out one backatcha.
Soros doesn't appreciate nations meddling in the elections he's meddling with.
Good thing Blacks and Muslims are obnoxious and unlikeable and cannot refrain from extreme violence, otherwise, Soros' evil organized protests might have actually be taken seriously in Western nations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:43PM (9 children)
I though there was an minimum mass of plutonium to make a fission reaction.
Does this say you can make do with much less if you have the right pyrotechnics?
Or is 'low-fission' not really that low.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:59PM
Check the Wikipedia article (though that won't directly answer your question). 190 tons is a real gentlemen's yield.
The W54 "backpack nuke" [wikipedia.org] looks like the smallest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday April 13 2017, @08:20AM (1 child)
With a steel neutron reflector, a 4.5 kg sphere of plutonium-239 can form a critical mass.
https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/criticalmass.htm [euronuclear.org]
That's under "fixed conditions" meaning without compression. In a nuclear weapon, a sub-critical plutonium mass is compressed by explosives, whereupon it attains criticality. Hence less than 4.5 kg is needed, if a similar reflector is used.
By one estimate, a sphere of 63 mm radius (126 mm diameter) is sufficient. That's without a reflector and without compression, with which a smaller sphere will suffice.
https://wws.princeton.edu/system/files/research/documents/Chyba_Simple%20Calculation%20of%20the%20Critical%20Mass.pdf [princeton.edu]
So you can see that forming such a sphere within a 152 mm shell is plausible.
I speculate that, rather than starting with a sphere and compressing it isotropically, they may be starting with an elongated shape--ellipsoidal or biconical perhaps--and compressing the ends more vigourously than the middle. Or if they are doing isotropic compression they've developed peculiarly powerful conventional explosives for that--because the casing doesn't leave much space for a spherical charge. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject can offer more authoritative information here.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday April 13 2017, @11:03AM
Yes, I've read the same thing. However I happened upon a page about a series of tests in the USSR in 1953. "Tellurium-120" is said to be a code word for plutonium:
An RDS-5 device with the main charge from tellurium-120 with the weight of 0.8 kg with a normal neutron background with the purpose of validating the possibility of obtaining an explosion of the main charge of a hollow design containing 0.8 kg of tellurium-120 and determining the full TNT equivalent.
-- http://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/interesting_document_on_soviet.shtml [russianforces.org] (emphasis removed and my own emphasis added)
Don't follow the atomhistory.ru link, for it has become porn.
(Score: 2) by fnj on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:15AM
Yes, there is a critical mass. A sphere of uncompressed, unreflected plutonium with a mass of 10 kg is the minimum critical size. Plutonium is Real Heavy. Such a sphere is only 9.9 cm (about 4 inches) in diameter. Also, you can reduce the amount required by explosively compressing it strongly, and employing reflector structures.
OTOH, the high explosive trigger adds mass and bulk; not to mention the casing.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:35PM (4 children)
These weapons are about as small as one can go as others have pointed out. They are also weapons of last resort since they guy using them is likely fucked anyways. Even the summary mentions that the US made ones in 127mm artillery shells previously and we were making them that sized in the early 1960s. So while small there isn't anything incredible about them other than they are close to as small as physically possible and have been for a long time.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:16PM (3 children)
Two really scary things here.
As yields get lower, a test explosion looks more like a mining explosion.
So how do you enforce the test ban treaty.
The growing network of gravity wave detectors come to mind.
The concept of a gentleman's nuke is just wrong.
There is no acceptable time to use one first.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:49PM
I'd rank them at least as bad as the most atrocious chemical weapons, but not as bad as biological weapons which have potentially civilization-ending consequences (anthrax and other minimally-contagious agents not included)
And, frighteningly, I can see tactical nukes being far more useful. Their explosions are radically smaller than traditional nukes, meaning that the fallout will not be thrown nearly as high into the atmosphere, and thus cause fairly localized contamination. Can you say salting the earth? Use a few to attack a military base, especially on a rainy day, and you're going to go a long way toward taking it out of commission permanently without contaminating much of the surrounding countryside.
Or if you're a less ethical nation, such as the US, you could bomb civilian targets like strategically important cities. Had Hiroshima been scatter-bombed by dozens of tactical nukes rather than one big one, the damage and contamination might have been sufficientl to severely discourage rebuilding
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:44PM
Specific gases are released when a nuclear detonation occurs. That's how North Korea have a really hard time hiding their business. I think xenon of some isotope is one of them.
Another possibility is to assume Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution of radioactive emissions where it can be assumed most radioactive emissions will only reach a short distance. While some really very few will reach very far. By detecting these a nuclear site ought to be possible to detect really far away. In the same way fluids should remain a fluid. But some of the molecules gets enough energy to jump away and become a gas instead.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday April 14 2017, @01:28PM
At the 10 to 20 ton yield you are basically at the upper end of conventional [wikipedia.org] bombs [wikipedia.org]. Also I believe that any large mine is probably detonating a larger quantities of explosives given that one of the ones in my state sets off about 8200 cubic feet [hutchk12.org] of explosives (I think that is correct 120 16" bore holes each filled to a depth of 49' with ANFO) every Wednesday.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:01AM (10 children)
Yeah, your tank can make a bigger bang. But you use nukes, no matter how small, and you are Assad, and the world is against you.
The only way this pencils out is in an all out war, which would be stupid as the US would launch enough nukes to make nuclear winter, not to mention what the russkies are shooting back.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:09AM (2 children)
Russia fires tactical nukes at Ukraine. Let's assume there is almost zero fallout (though there could be depending on the design). It is just very destructive, and you could achieve the same sub-kiloton result with enough conventional explosives.
Ukraine is not in NATO, so there is no obligation to attack Russia. Russia will certainly face some tough sanctions, but they can do better for themselves than other countries that face isolation and they may have China on their side. Are you willing to face annihilation to counter bullying within the Russian sphere of influence?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:25AM (1 child)
Anybody uses ABC they sign their own death warrant, Assad probably won't survive and we aren't even 100% sure he even did it this time, although there isn't much doubt he did it the first time.
Right now the game of International Relations has rules, countries skirt them, break them in minor ways when they think they get away with it or deny they did it. In the main though everybody stays inside the rules because they understand the alternative is worse. We might not go all splody and drop a few hundred fusion bombs on Russia if they used tactical nukes but ALL of the limits would come off. Things like assassination go on the table. Everybody has a gentleman's agreement that directly killing leaders is counter productive in that it goes downhill really fast. But once the game goes to unlimited rules, that sensible rule goes too. How long would Putin keep breathing if ALL of the best spies were unleashed with orders to KILL HIM AT ANY COST. Kill him and not care if everyone knows who did it, not care about collateral damage, if nothing else worked to kill him with nasty stuff normally forbidden like WMD. A suitcase nuke in Red Square would send an unmistakable message. And not just CIA and NSA, imagine what Mossad could do if completely taken off the chain, and now throw in the Brits, Germans, etc.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:54PM
>Things like assassination go on the table
Unlikely among the major powers. Puppets get assassinated, but once you start assassinating figures among major powers you invite reprisals in kind - and nobody with power wants open warfare among the elite. Why put yourself in the line of fire when 10,000 civilians could die instead?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:24AM
A robust defense policy will consider any nuclear-capable platform to be nuclear-armed and react accordingly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:47AM (2 children)
Psst: the world is actually against America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:57AM (1 child)
They forgave us for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We didn't even have to apologize.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:00PM
Yeah, but now our complete disregard for human nature and the complexities of Middle-Eastern politics has gone and created large, organized, international terrorist organizations that are causing problems for all our allies, while we've simultaneously resoundingly demonstrated our willingness to completely ignore those allies in order to start wars for corporate profit.
And *then* we went and put a completely unpredictable authoritarian with a military hardon in charge.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:52AM
> the US would launch enough nukes to make nuclear winter
That's part of the plan: Who's the best at winter wars?
Global warming is a plot from the Ruskies to offset the global thermonuclear apocalypse by just enough margin to make it through nuclear winter essentially unharmed (craters also provide great cover from polar winds).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:16AM (1 child)
You use nukes, you're telling the world 'STFU! or die', which isn't a bad idea. The only impediment at this point is public relations. But good old fear can still make the world go 'round.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:02AM
You use nukes, you're telling the world 'STFU! or die', which isn't a bad idea.
Actually it's a MAD [wikipedia.org] idea.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:29AM (1 child)
There's still hope for a Metal Gear Solid 6!
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday April 13 2017, @12:41AM
That'll probably be a post-apocalyptic iron-age version of MGS3, and in the true MGS tradition will reference previous situations like the bad stereotype of the indigenous tribesman and eating and weaponizing insects. Probably be cool to weaponize people and catapult or trebuchet diseased dead bodies over your enemy's walls.
Maybe even throw in a few huge lizards to ride. "They came from the radiation," the plot could say.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:34AM (2 children)
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-depleted-uranium-in-syria/ [foreignpolicy.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by mhajicek on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:54AM
More toxic than radioactive, but very nasty for local residents.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Informative) by fnj on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:29AM
Utter know-nothing bullshit. Depleted uranium has extremely low radioactivity; even lower than naturally occurring uranium. That's why they call it "depleted", genius. It has already had all the U-235 "good stuff" laboriously REMOVED from it.
The purpose is simply to have a very dense projectile so it will penetrate. FYI, depleted uranium is used as radiation SHIELDING in radiotherapy and radiographic medical equipment (and as simple in aircraft).
If there is harmful aftereffect due to the use of depleted uranium munitions, it arises because the projectile literally turns partially to uranium dust when it strikes armor plate. These particulates are bad news if inhaled or swallowed even in tiny amounts.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:47AM (1 child)
I have a friend who was in the US Army. His job was to drive a backpack nuke around in a jeep. In the event of war, he was to drive out into the middle of a bridge, emplace the bomb, back off to a safe distance then detonate it by remote control.
Yes: his job was to take out a bridge with a nuclear weapon.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:36AM
I have been told that an acquaintance I knew as a child managed to get a nuclear blasting ticket. Must have been prior to 1986.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:43PM (1 child)
In case you are not familiar, even without this larger gun and ammunition the T-14 claims to be the first next generation tank. There is probably a lot of embellishment in the Russian reports, but it would still be a real challenge against current NATO tanks. It is also designed so that the Armata Universal Combat Platform covers a main battle tank, heavy infantry fighting vehicle, combat engineering vehicle, armoured recovery vehicle, heavy armoured personnel carrier, tank support combat vehicle, and self propelled artillery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armata_Universal_Combat_Platform [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by leftover on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:57PM
But how would it fare against a Warthog's Brrrrrrrt?
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.