Use of tactical mini nukes acceptabl

Just trying to make sure.

A nuclear strike is such an earth shattering event, the other guy has to react, in whatever way he can, whether ot not he has nuke. He could use poison gas, a fairly easy to manufacture, and urban areas, very devastating WMD.

Agreed.

The US was using 'depleted uranium' armour piercing rounds.  It was largely about the high density, however, there was some radiation generated as a 'side effect'.  The US seems to get 'crucified' in some quarters no matter what it does, even using (relatively) high precision guided conventional munitions.  Not that people want to hear about it, but with recent weapons development, the radiation is 'minimized' relative to the size of the blast.  The early nuclear weapons were relatively inefficient and 'dirty'.  Chemical and biological weapons also have wide spread and lasting effects, as well as being much hard to 'target' narrowly.

Edited by deadkenny - 07-Jun-2008 at 02:36

No - a nuke is still a nuke, and mini-nukes are still immensely powerful and fallout can spread to other areas. When we say "tactical mini nukes" we only mean small to the comparison of the cruise missiles and ICBMs of today - they're still about the same size as little boy and fat man.

Several germs and pests can end the any country ever producing grain for centuries, in my opinion this and chemicals are far more useful since they have more fear factor. Of course it all depend, if you are willing to accept that your enemy use WMDs on you then use whatever WMD you want. But crying foul when your enemy, which by the way you chose to be its enemy not the other way round, is trying to acquire the same technology you threaten to use against him is a bit hypocritical espcially that your official stance is "no for WMD or their use".

It is not that "tactical" nukes can't be used in battlefields. They can. The small problem is that if the enemy retaliates with hydrogen bombs, nobody would complain.

Edited by pinguin - 07-Jun-2008 at 19:11

Originally posted by pinguin For people nostalgic about old war massacres, devasted cities and concentration camps,...

Define 'old war'.  Are you telling me that *new* wars don't have massacres, devastated cities and/or concentration camps?

Originally posted by Jonathan4290 ...  To apply your point to a broader context: Robert McNamara stated that he believes nuclear parity between the US and Russia existed even in 1962 when the US had 5000 nukes to Russia's 300. The reason is that no people will support a government that is willing to accept a nuclear strike on itself.