It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The case against tactical nuclear weapons

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 05:21 AM
In nuclear war tactics and strategy there's a principle. It's called USE IT or LOSE IT. When an enemy nuclear strikes is incoming towards your nuclear deterrant, the response is to launch immediately before your deterrant is hit by enemy missiles. That means All nuclear deterrance has a predefined target that can be set into the warhead in a matter of seconds by a computer during launch preparation. Following that, there are other procedures for preparation and finally the launch itself.

Let' now depict a scenario. The "ABM" system in Romania/Poland vs SS-18 Satan silos in Teykovo launch site ...
Surveillance and intelilgence through multiple means can detect and classify IRBMs or MRBMs within about 40 seconds of their launch. Flight time from Poland to Teykovo AFB will take just about 10 minutes. At detection, personnel in the Silos at Teykovo has about 9 minutes to launch. With a properly trained manpower and proper automation for the fueling system, plus a little help from intelligence (of any kind) can guarantee that the Satan is launched before the MRBMs or IRBMs reach Teykovo AFB.

Now the question for people smarter than me is: What and Satan's targets and where are they?

Sarmat preparation and countdown is even quicker than the SS-18's and it is just about ready to enter service to replace the old SS-18.

On the even slightest idea that there's a vague chance that such scenario might happen, here's a remarkable testimony from someone who stared at those nukes in his face, and was smart enough not to push the button, so he could tell the story on youtube!

edit on 29-7-2016 by Flanker86 because: typo

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 04:54 PM
a reply to: Nickn3probably but the trouble is the true masterminds and finacial planners for 9/11 attacks were based out of riyadh capital of saudi arabia and our so called allies but i think a dozen non nuke vtomahawks aimed at saudi royal palaces and head mosques would have took wind out of there sails.

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 07:31 PM
The only use now for tactical nuclear weapons are for very deep harden bunkers.

Tactical nuclear weapon were good for hardened bunkers but now with GPS guided weapons that can fly into windows they ar no longer needed.

But North Korea in well known for hiding guns and missile systems in deep underground tunnels beyond the reach of GPS guided weapons.

Likely the only time the US would use a tactical nuclear weapons would be in a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator,
and likely at .5 to 3 KTs
And low yield these nukes would not likely cause a mushroom cloud

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 07:43 PM
a reply to: JBurns

Not a good example. A country whose goal is to conquer land with the future prospect of that land being productive is not going to nuke said land.

Make a realistic example so I can then dissect it properly.

posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 08:56 PM
I'm against them ,we DON'T need them. AND YES I am including DU ammo here.

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link ili-diverse-vittime-1.9567019

Jul 9th 2014, Italian armed forces, in the face of the NPT treaty and nuclear test ban treaty!

They claim it was a fireworks factory

new topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in