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 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.