Tactical Nuclear Weapons

[uk 75]

One of the more frightening aspects of the Cold War, especially in Europe was the range and quantity of nuclear weapons deployed for use on the battlefield or against targets involved in the fighting.
As NATO developed more effective and accurate alternatives it was able to reduce the range and quantity of its tactical nuclear weapons. Since the 1990s these have been confined to US B61 bombs stored at various airfields in Europe.
Russia meanwhile continued to develop and deploy battlefield nuclear missiles. These have also been used with conventional payloads.
The US still uses the ATACMS missile designed originally to replace Lance and using MLRS launchers. A nuclear warhead for ATACMS could be made available if events warranted.
After numerous military exercises to try and cope with a "nuclear" battlefield soldiers and their commanders in NATO realised that using the weapons caused more problems than they solved, even if their use could be confined (doubtful).

 

[Hanz2k]

It’s time to make ATACMS nuclear and base them in East Flank that have HIMARS. When Russia start preparations US should make it clear that they already give codes to host countries and now they decide about use in self defense. This should give Mr Putin second thought.
20 nuclear ATACMS per country should be enough.

 

[sferrin]

It’s time to make ATACMS nuclear and base them in East Flank that have HIMARS. When Russia start preparations US should make it clear that they already give codes to host countries and now they decide about use in self defense. This should give Mr Putin second thought.
20 nuclear ATACMS per country should be enough.

"Back in the day" even Little John had a nuke.

Emerson Electric MGR-3 Little John

Hell, a W48 (or W74) would fit in a GMLRS just fine.

W48 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Desertfox]

Ive heard bad ideas but handing out nuke ATACMS like candy on Halloween takes the cake.

 

[edwest4]

During the Cold War, I read every military journal I could. Scenario after scenario about how the West would respond to Russian efforts to attack Western Europe. President Putin was born in 1952 so he has seen all of it. All of the communications and threats were delivered in the 1960s, with minor adjustments in the 1980s. When the Soviet Union fell in the early 1990s, he was there. Now, the Russian Federation lashes out however it can. Once Poland became independent, the Americans convinced them to house tanks in old bunkers and buy Patriot missiles.

Tactical nuclear? I doubt it. Nothing tactical anymore. Escalation can happen at a moment's notice. And both sides know they will lose. They've known that since 1953.

 

[Hanz2k]

Major problem we facing - is NATO going to use tac nuke on East Flank in response to tac nuke from Russia?. Handing control over tactical ATACMS at least send clear message - just fuc... try.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Ive heard bad ideas but handing out nuke ATACMS like candy on Halloween takes the cake.

A nuclear ATACMS was one of the tenders to Follow-On-To-Lance, I believe. The other was a ground-launched SRAM-II.

 

[Scott Kenny]

During the Cold War, I read every military journal I could. Scenario after scenario about how the West would respond to Russian efforts to attack Western Europe. President Putin was born in 1952 so he has seen all of it. All of the communications and threats were delivered in the 1960s, with minor adjustments in the 1980s. When the Soviet Union fell in the early 1990s, he was there. Now, the Russian Federation lashes out however it can. Once Poland became independent, the Americans convinced them to house tanks in old bunkers and buy Patriot missiles.

Point of order: Poland approached NATO first. Knowing that if the Russians invaded after they became part of NATO, they'd probably be a glass crater.

Every former Soviet client slave state has chosen to be nuked into a wasteland rather than becoming a NeoSoviet slave state again.

Tactical nuclear? I doubt it. Nothing tactical anymore. Escalation can happen at a moment's notice. And both sides know they will lose. They've known that since 1953.

The Russian Military has been willing to lose Moscow along with their entire political leadership while the US has generally not been willing to lose NYC/DC/etc.