Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday April 12 2017, @11:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-under-six-inches dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:16PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:16PM (#493347)

    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

    by Immerman (3985) on Thursday April 13 2017, @02:49PM (#493411)

    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

    by kaszz (4211) on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:44PM (#493511) Journal

    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

    by Kromagv0 (1825) on Friday April 14 2017, @01:28PM (#493947) Homepage

    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