Tactical nukes

[Sandman]

Given the following; The US is far inferior in numbers to Russia in tactical nuclear weapons. Russia and the US have not had any agreements regarding tac nukes. And given the Tomahawk cruise missile tactical nuclear weapons the US has had in the Navy, but stored ashore, those weapons will soon be retired. And Russia has an impressive variety of tactical nuclear weapons on SAMs, ASW weapons, SRAMS for it's Tu-22M, and surface to surface weapons...

And given, the US will end up with only the B-61 as a sole tactical nuclear weapon, a few hundred of which are dedicated to NATO, and those weapons being simple gravity bombs are vulnerable to SAMs and first strikes on their air bases, and that the aircraft has to overfly it's target to deliver the weapon. And that anything NATO wanted to nuke that Russia has would likely be defended by S-300/400 SAMs, isn't a gravity bomb an obsolete weapon in that environment?

And for the main question I am leading to; Given the strategic nuclear weapons on both sides are equal, does not this decided advantage in tactical nukes for the Russians give them an unacceptable advantage in not only the political realm but also the war fighting capabilities against our allies? And will not that undermine our relationships with our allies?

[Officer of Engineers]

Tac nukes are near useless on the battlefield now. A nuke requires a NCA release, regardless if it's a strategic nuke or a tac one. By the time such a release is given or deligated, even then, the release command procedure is such that the battle picture would have changed before the nuke could be released.

Compare that to the variety of cluster and thermobaric munitions that have equivlent effect without the release bureaucracy involved.

[andrew]

Unlike the US, Russia with its relatively small population has to defend very long land borders with many historical adversaries .
Several thousands tactical nukes are the best and cost effective way to fulfill that task.

[Chogy]

Tac nukes are near useless on the battlefield now. A nuke requires a NCA release, regardless if it's a strategic nuke or a tac one. By the time such a release is given or deligated, even then, the release command procedure is such that the battle picture would have changed before the nuke could be released.

Compare that to the variety of cluster and thermobaric munitions that have equivlent effect without the release bureaucracy involved.

Would this scenario be possible...

Major air/land/sea war between nuclear club members. Not going so well for country "A", who then elects to salvage the situation by spanking a densely-packed enemy staging area using a 10kt nuke. The "line" has been crossed. Country "B" is understandably quite hacked.

With most nuclear nations, there is a stated retaliatory policy that says "You nuke us, we WILL nuke you." So country "B" may very well liberalize its release down to theater level, and as the nukes fly, both nations ease the release authority. Soon it goes strategic, and the mutant survivors are down to sticks and stones when they aren't too busy cannibalizing. ;)

In other words, that first nuke takes a complex process to release, but once done, I'm thinking subsequent use will be much simplified.

[Sandman]

Escalation theory has been around for a while, and where I suspect the diminished emphasis on Tac Nukes for the US originated, as well as the aforementioned NCA release requirements. The problem is that everyone involved on both sides of the conflct has to buy into that fact, and the Russians seem to equip themselves as though there might be a breakwater between the tactical and strategic, otherwise why waste all that money and security requirements for widely dispersed tactical nuclear weapons that could get lost and hijacked by terrorists?

Thank you for the responses.

One scenario during the Cold War that justified a large article in Proceedings was the tactical nuclear war at sea. A carrier gets nuked by then USSR. Or several for that matter. Only military combatants are killed and no civilian cities or civilians are killed; Would the US then risk escalation by nuking a Backfire airbase or sub pen on the USSR homeland, killing civilians?
The USSR armed every naval weapon worth mentioning with nuclear warheads like there was a real purpose behind it other than that dictated by escalation theory which by definition makes them moot.

[Officer of Engineers]

In other words, that first nuke takes a complex process to release, but once done, I'm thinking subsequent use will be much simplified.

I don't think so. Nukes would be in the hands of the theatre commander. 4 Brigade had HONEST JOHNS but I am uncertain that the Bde Col had the authority to use them without an ok from VII Corp. After all, these are in short supply and there is a desire to husband them instead of letting them be used willy nilly at the Bde level.

[USSWisconsin]

Escalation theory has been around for a while, and where I suspect the diminished emphasis on Tac Nukes for the US originated, as well as the aforementioned NCA release requirements. The problem is that everyone involved on both sides of the conflict has to buy into that fact, and the Russians seem to equip themselves as though there might be a breakwater between the tactical and strategic, otherwise why waste all that money and security requirements for widely dispersed tactical nuclear weapons that could get lost and hijacked by terrorists?

Thank you for the responses.

One scenario during the Cold War that justified a large article in Proceedings was the tactical nuclear war at sea. A carrier gets nuked by then USSR. Or several for that matter. Only military combatants are killed and no civilian cities or civilians are killed; Would the US then risk escalation by nuking a Backfire airbase or sub pen on the USSR homeland, killing civilians?
The USSR armed every naval weapon worth mentioning with nuclear warheads like there was a real purpose behind it other than that dictated by escalation theory which by definition makes them moot.

Another possible response is the NATO use of nuclear ASW weapons and nuke AShM's used against surface combatants at sea. Nukes could have been used to battle for control of the sea, without resorting to nuking shore installations. Thankfully these terrible scenarios are now historical, and it does not seem that these scenarios are currently likely to play out.

[1979]

Would this scenario be possible...

Major air/land/sea war between nuclear club members. Not going so well for country "A", who then elects to salvage the situation by spanking a densely-packed enemy staging area using a 10kt nuke. The "line" has been crossed. Country "B" is understandably quite hacked.

With most nuclear nations, there is a stated retaliatory policy that says "You nuke us, we WILL nuke you." So country "B" may very well liberalize its release down to theater level, and as the nukes fly, both nations ease the release authority. Soon it goes strategic, and the mutant survivors are down to sticks and stones when they aren't too busy cannibalizing. ;)

In other words, that first nuke takes a complex process to release, but once done, I'm thinking subsequent use will be much simplified.

I think the Western gunfighters rule aplies.
You do not reach for the gun, if you no not intend to use it.

[H Nelson]

Not just that! an imbalance of tactical nuclear weapons can create an imbalance following a small scale nuclear attack by a rogue group. TACNUCs give us that flexible option. There is certainly a "right" amount of TACNUCs that provide us with stability, without the risks of proliferation.

[Officer of Engineers]

What? Who are you? And give us your background because your statement makes no sense! A rogue group with one single nuke makes a strategic statement, not a tactical one!

[USSWisconsin]

Not just that! an imbalance of tactical nuclear weapons can create an imbalance following a small scale nuclear attack by a rogue group. TACNUCs give us that flexible option. There is certainly a "right" amount of TACNUCs that provide us with stability, without the risks of proliferation.

H Nelson,
Please go to the New Members forum and start a thread to introduce yourself, the WAB asks all new members to do this before joining in the discussions.

[zraver]

Unlike the US, Russia with its relatively small population has to defend very long land borders with many historical adversaries .
Several thousands tactical nukes are the best and cost effective way to fulfill that task.

Not really, excepting China the Russian military dwarfs its neighbors. It would take everything NATO has to invade Russia and that would be a strategic not tactical problem.

About the only "justified" use of a battlefeild nuke in a non-full exchange scenario is the use of a nuke as retaliation for another's use of some other sort of WMD in a super mas/cas event. Say Ghadafi gassed Benghazi and killed tens of thounsands- a limted strike on a core military asset would be warranted, effective and legal.

Sandman,

And given, the US will end up with only the B-61 as a sole tactical nuclear weapon, a few hundred of which are dedicated to NATO, and those weapons being simple gravity bombs are vulnerable to SAMs and first strikes on their air bases, and that the aircraft has to overfly it's target to deliver the weapon. And that anything NATO wanted to nuke that Russia has would likely be defended by S-300/400 SAMs, isn't a gravity bomb an obsolete weapon in that environment?

Your forgot about the Tridents and Minutemen platforms.

The value of the freefall bomb is the ability attack with surprise and the ability to call off the attack. More importantly when coupled with stealth the free fall bomb creates a nasty strategic problem for any foe.

[andrew]

Anytime when the issue of tactical nukes disparity between Russia and the USA is risen, the discussion is usually confined to the European theater and the disparity here with the 200 American tactical nukes opposing the thousands of Russian nukes. It's right that from a historical point of view that is highly unusual situation in Europe.
But the world has changed since the Cold war. For Russia the confrontation with the US/NATO is increasingly a thing of the past.
Now, the giant rising star is China, and the debate in Russia is increasingly oriented towards the Russia-China relations: the demographical and economic disparities and potential problems these disparities could provoke in the future, especially considering the long and largely undefended border between our countries.
Hundreds of strategic nukes are good for long-term containment strategy, but perhaps would be not enough for a MAD type of containment, given giant Chinese population.
For mutually assured destruction hundreds of nukes would be too small a force.
So, I think it would be too naive to expect that Russia gives up its tactical nukes force in the foreseeable future.
And it has nothing to do with the US/NATO.
China is the key word.

[Sandman]

Sandman,
Your forgot about the Tridents and Minutemen platforms.

The value of the freefall bomb is the ability attack with surprise and the ability to call off the attack. More importantly when coupled with stealth the free fall bomb creates a nasty strategic problem for any foe.

Nope, didn't forget about the Trident or Minutemen, or B-52 launched cruise missiles. The strategic weapons on both sides with the latest agreement cancel eachother out in the 'tactical' discussion. My assumption is that in the nuclear balance the tactical weapons are where the problem is for the US and allies we promise our nuclear umbrella. You are absolutely correct about stealth, and perhaps that is where the US catches up but isn't putting too many eggs in the stealth basket unwise? I am suspect of a technological breakthrough in detection there eventually, and Russians claim some detection of stealth with the S-400, and if you look at the tactical nuke balance without stealth it is quite lob sided. The US would seem to be in need of a tactical nuclear standoff weapon as the Russians have in the hundreds, but then again I am no expert.

One weapon combination that stands out is the Backfire TU-22M and the KH-15 Kickback SRAM. Not counted in the strategic numbers.

[1979]

One weapon combination that stands out is the Backfire TU-22M and the KH-15 Kickback SRAM. Not counted in the strategic numbers.

out of curiosity, how many nuclear capable KH-15 Kickback's do they have ?