SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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?