Talk:Tactical nuclear weapon

Estimates of tactical weapons

From Federation of American Scientists

Source: www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/03/russia-2.php

Russia has an estimated 2,050 tactical nuclear weapons.

The United States retains a small inventory of perhaps 500 active tactical nuclear weapons. This includes an estimated 400 bombs (including 200 in Europe) and 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles (all on land). Others, perhaps 700, are in inactive storage.

France also has 60 tactical-range cruise missiles, including some on its aircraft carrier, although it calls them strategic weapons.

The United Kingdom has completely eliminated its tactical nuclear weapons, although it said until a couple of years ago that some of its strategic Trident missiles had a “sub-strategic” mission.

Information about possible Chinese tactical nuclear weapons is vague and contradictory, but might include some gravity bombs.

India, Pakistan, and Israel have some nuclear weapons that could be considered tactical (gravity bombs for fighter-bombers and, in the case of India and Pakistan, short-range ballistic missiles), but all are normally considered strategic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.171.229 (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy section

The criticism and controversy section needs either to be heavily edited or to be removed from the article. It is details converse opinions on the efficacy of tactical nuclear weapons. It's written essentially as personal opinions. ask123 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole article is in need of a rewrite. The use of dubious online sources, for one thing, is a major problem. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Graph

Does the chart on this page seem strange to anyone? This article is about Tactical Nuclear Weapons, but the graph seems to refer to all nuclear weapons. I think it should be removed. DannyJohansson (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing.  Xihr  00:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

lost torpedoes in bay of naples

I can't seem to find any other stories about these lost torpedoes other than the short article in the Independant. I think this should be removed.

84.83.237.103 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing else I can find, either, but even that article in the Independant - all based on "unnamed sources" - states that the likelihood is dubious and that the Italian military would have detected and removed them by now. I agree - this sounds highly unlikely. The use of this source needs to be adjusted in the article to reflect EVERYTHING that was said in it. Right now, it's been cherry-picked. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Types: Neutron bombs

The final words of this section regarding neutron bombs, "while reducing blast effects", should be removed. Neutron bombs are not intended to reduce blast effects though they are of lower blast yield than a comparable non- enhanced radiation nuke. It is a common misconseption that Neutron Bombs are designed to leave buildings and infrastructure intact while killing with radiation. Rather... They are designed to additionally kill with radiation, those that would otherwise be protected from the blast effects, troops in armored vehicles and bunker and the like. The lower blast yield is not by intention, but rather is a result of enhancing the radiation output. Removing the neutron reflectors allows more fast neutrons to escape the reaction mass and increasing the initial radiation pulse. But the cost of doing so is reducing the number of doublings of the chain reaction and a lower overall yield. 205.197.242.154 (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

With recent talk of such weapons actually being contemplated for use now, this article must be expanded. Just tonight on TV, it was mentioned the radiation may not be dangerous, but there is little discussion of that in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Statement makes no sense and is unsupported by the link provided

The statement in question (in the last paragraph of the article) says that an upgrade to the B61 bomb will "make them equivalent to strategic weapons in effects against hardened targets". This seems to be a misunderstanding of the difference between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. The statement/ argument also finds no support in the FAS article provided as a cite. I suggest that that the statement could usefully be deleted. The final part of the same sentence is factually correct and supported by the source given. Theeurocrat (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Missing Sections + Structure Recommendations

Hello Wikipedians!

I looked up this page after reading some news about Russia transferring some tactical nukes to Belarus.

From the perspective of someone who doesn't know much about tactical nukes, this page is missing the following:

- Introduction is too long, the first two paragraphs do the job.

- History (When was the first tactical nuke manufactured? Theorized? Who, what, where, when, why?)

- Design (What are the most popular designs?)

- Controversy (What are some of public objections to them?)

- In Popular Culture/ media (Are there any notable books, movies, or art concerning tactical nukes? i.e. "tactical nuke!" killstreak in COD Modern Warfare

Recommended Structure:

1. Introduction
2. History (when was it designed, how, who, what, where, when, why)
3. Popular designs and their yields
4. In Politics (could maybe include controversy section)
5. Controversy/ opposition
6. In Popular Culture

I assume this page will experience an uptick in traffic due to the news, so let me know any thoughts!

~~~~ Wcom317 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)