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 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?