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: 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.