"Ivy King" nuclear test,, 1952. Courtesy Los Alamos National Laboratory.

AI FORCE ASSOCIATION HQ: For more than 60 years, most Americans have thought of nuclear weapons as an all-or-nothing game. The only way to win is not to play at all, we believed, because any use of nukes will lead to Armageddon. That may no longer be the game our opposition is playing. As nuclear weapons proliferate to places that might not share our reluctance to use them in small numbers, however, the US military may face a “second nuclear age” of retail Armageddon for which it is utterly unprepared.

Outside the US, both established and emerging nuclear powers increasingly see nuclear weapons as weapons that can be used in a controlled, limited, and strategically useful fashion, said Barry Watts, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, arguably the Pentagon’s favorite thinktank. The Cold War “firebreaks” between conventional and nuclear conflict are breaking down, he wrote in a recent report. Russia has not only developed new, relatively low-yield tactical nukes but also routinely wargamed their use to stop both NATO and Chinese conventional forces should they overrun Moscow’s feeble post-Soviet military, Watts said this morning at the headquarters of the Air Force Association. Pakistan is likewise developing tactical nukes to stop India’s much larger military. Iran seeks nuclear weapons not only to offset Israel’s but to deter and, in the last resort, fend off an American attempt to perform “regime change” in Tehran the way we did in Baghdad. The US Air Force and Navy concept of “AirSea Battle” in the Western Pacific could entail strikes on the Chinese mainland that might provoke a nuclear response.

It’s precisely because US conventional power is so overwhelming that the temptation to turn to nuclear weapons to redress the balance is so irresistible. Ten years ago, the Iraqis sidestepped American dominance in the middle of the spectrum of conflict – regular warfare with tanks, planes, and precision-guided non-nuclear weapons – by going low and waging guerrilla warfare, for which the US proved painfully unprepared. In the future, nuclear proliferation means more and more countries will have the option to sidestep US conventional power by going high and staging a “limited” nuclear attack, for which we aren’t really prepared either. Indeed, some countries, notably a nuclear Iran with its terrorist proxies and North Korea with its criminal ties and special operations forces, could outflank America’s conventional military from both sides at once.


  • TerryTee

    If we don’t consider the possibilities of just such an action, then we are only fooling our selves. Many countries like the Russians already War Game the limited use of “Tactical Nukes” and If anyone thinks the middle east can’t escalate very quickly into a limited Nuclear confrontation better think again. Israel has an estimated arsenal of over 200+ Nuclear Weapons. Also if Iran got a nuke and sent into space and exploded it about 200 miles above Kansas or Nebraska, that would black out 80% of the US for years. Does any remember when Iran shot their rabbit into space a few years ago and everyone thought it was all so funny, maybe not so funny?

    • JimmyPete

      You don’t think we war-gamed tactical nukes, we were doing it in 1971 when I was in, I remember training exercises, believe me if they were doing it at my podunk post ROTC commission training the big boys have studied it.

      • cohara1103

        we trained that also when i was in the army in 1993

    • Bob

      Fortunately if just such an occurrence happened, under USC, we would give a complete and total nuclear response to all our enemies, just to make sure we got the right one. That is providing our pretendsident didn’t start going on another as kissing tour prior to following Federal Law.

      • cohara1103

        we can track where nukes have come from even if it land based and detonated so we wouldnt have to nuke everyone we could just nuke the right one

        • keith

          nuke yourselves idiots

          • lee

            no stop talking your children that way kieth

        • Galileo2

          So, if some fishing ship is rigged to fire a missile from the middle of the Atlantic that does the 200 mile high EMP explosion, we’d know who to nuke back?

      • keith

        The enemies of america are the ignorance of its people and its billionaire rulers.

    • Horhai1

      we still have nuke subs stationed around the Globe dufuss….. we will retaliate……

      • keith

        you are mad.

        • crower

          he is not mad. he is strangeglove

          • jammi

            Have you ever seen a commi drink water, Mandrake?

          • CiCi Hayes

            Its inevitable

          • positivethinker

            Case of the mundayz early? Maybe it’s inevitable but maybe 500 years. 5000 years. 1999 was one too.

          • rw

            He is Strelkov and he is mad.

    • Sealift67

      We had similar battlefield nukes such as the Little John in
      West Germany during the cold war as the Soviets had superior(numbers)

      ground armor and it was feared they could over-run our trip

    • Muddywood

      One scud missile in a shipping container fired from a freighter off our coastand then and detonated in the atmosphere over the US and we are screwed. We wouldn’t know who to retaliate against.

      • lee


        • Muddywood


        • see


    • bob jones

      I hope you are feeling better after the 25 year coma. Unless Jay Leno said it was funny, I missed that remark. When I need a laugh I go right to the arms stockpiles.

  • Hammer6

    None of these issues are new. We’ve had the luxury of not having to deal with them since ODS/S. Seems to me that, after twenty-plus years, we might want to pay more attention.

  • UH34D

    Sorry but, this is all speculation and war mongering. Whether a strike is a limited one of low kiloton, medium, meant to disrupt eletrical grids, the US would employ its arsenal of nuclear warheads in an attempt to eliminate the threat no matter where it’s based. Don’t think there will be any second guessing about a possible limited intent of an adversary for containment to a small geographical area of conflict. Once a bomb is detonated, events will overtake the situation and escalation is a foregone conclusion. The political and military landscape of America would have to change dramatically for it to not be so.

    • ycplum

      Actually, this is war gaming (as in game theory). A thought exercise to rationally think out possible actions and outcomes and hopefully deter unwanted actions.

  • Jefe’ von Q

    So, can we have a reasonable nuclear policy now? We maintain M.A.D. for the larger nations, For the smaller &%$#-pots, we could actually try and stay out of it. That is with the understanding that if someone uses a nuc, the offending party gets pounded hard. Perhaps by losing a major city to strategic strike. The number of strikes depends on what was done.
    Most of all, let’s try not being involved with every little darned thing that pops up on the news.
    Somewhere in this disjointed rambling is a Teddy Roosevelt quote.

  • Tholzel

    ” For more than 60 years, most Americans have thought of nuclear weapons as an
    all-or-nothing game.”

    Except inEurope at the height of the cold war. There we had stationed nuclear artillery shells–so-called “neutron bombs”–to halt a Soviet rush to the sea.

    The world Leftwinger community–openly aided by the Soviets–pulled out all the stops and caused us to remove them.

    After the collapse of the USSR, it was revealed that that was exactly their own plan.

    • DrAtomic

      Not really, Tholzel.

      The United States deployed thousands of nuclear weapons to Europe during the Cold War, beginning in 1954. Peak deployment occurred in 1971 when about 7,300 weapons were on the continent. These included short- and medium-range missiles, land mines (atomic demolition muntions), depth charges, air defense weapons, gravity bombs, and artillery shells. Enhanced radiation weapons (“neutron bombs”) were developed and produced in the 1970s for the Lance missile, the 8-inch howitzer, and the 155-mm howitzer, but after multiple European leaders raised political objections they were never deployed and were stored at depots in the United States.

      The drawdown in US nuclear weapons in Europe began in 1972 and was gradual. By 1990, there were still 4,000 US nuclear weapons allocated to NATO forces. Until the late 1980s, these weapons were not covered by any arms control agreement; they were withdrawn because military leaders eliminated their missions and as targeting plans were updated. The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed by President Ronald Reagan, led to the removal and dismantlement of all Ground-Launched Cruise Missiles and Pershing II missiles. (For their part, the Soviets removed and dismantled the SS-4 Sandal, SS-5 Skean, SS-12 Scaleboard, SS-20 Saber, SS-22 Scaleboard B, and the SS-23 Spider.)

      It was President George H.W. Bush, not “leftwingers,” who was responsible for the biggest change. On September 27, 1991, in recognition of the collapse of communist control in eastern Europe and out of concern for the Kremlin’s ability to maintain security over its nuclear weapons there as the Soviet Union dissolved, President Bush announced that the United States was unilaterally withdrawing and destroying all ground-based nuclear weapons in Europe (as well as South Korea). In addition, all tactical nuclear weapons deployed aboard US naval surface vessels would be retired.

      Today, there are approximately 200 B61 gravity bombs (Mods 3 and 4) deployed at six bases in five countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey).

    • interventor

      The US tactical nukes, such as the Pershing missile, were instrumental in convincing the Soviets to negotiate the removal of their own tactical nukes. During the late seventies, my office was next door to the Pershing missile repair facility in Frankfurt am Main. We were subject to inspection by Soviet weapon inspectors we were so close. We did the same in their facilities.

    • ycplum

      Just adding a bit to DrAtomic’s thorough reply, much of the short range nukes was intended to deter Russia’s percieve conventional superiority. With its superior conventional forces, Russia made a “No First USe” pledge. The US never made that pledge because the conventional weakness meant we may need to go nuclear to defend Europe. The “tac nukes” effectively pushed the stakes in Europe into an all or nothing regime. There were no plans to actual “fight” a tactical nuclear war because Russia could not successfully win a conventional war if the other side used tac nukes.

  • richrdnlsn

    Hey, this sounds like one of those weapon’s companies Gen. Ike was talking about- part of the military complex. Who is ever prepared for war- really? We always play catch-up and so far so good. I guess we’ll just have to drop a Big Bomb on a small country who starts strafing us with small nuclear bombs, at first. Unfortunately for us and them, there won’t be many of them left to celebrate.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000203627125 Wayne Thomas

    Well, as far as I’m concerned if Russia or Iran or North Korea did launch a “small nuke” and our only alternative is a large nuke, use the large nuke. It’s their fault for launching in the first place. Are we to just sit there while small nukes rain down? NO! The first hint of a nuke DEMANDS retaliation. And if we don’t have small nukes, what does that mean? Large ones of course.

    • http://www.facebook.com/allan.ferdyn Allan Ferdyn

      The bigger the better!

      • karl sosa

        you bet

        • Salt

          Drop that F’er, twice!

    • Maverick

      I imagine it is something a kin to pride that makes you say such things. I assure you, after a nuclear war with the likes of Russia or China there will be no such things as pride on earth, or anything else for that matter except barren radioactive rock. This is why no sane government has ever used them in the modern world. The bigger problem now is the insane that would actually use them for foolish things such as pride over all else. Ever met a suicide bomber driving a truck with a nuke in the back? Lets prey none of us ever do. But I fear the worst…

      • Tony Reynolds

        All the more reason for constant and meaningful diplomacy. The patriotic wing-nuts IN EVERY COUNTRY are part of the problem. Maverick is correct – after a nuclear war there will be a barren planet. Nuclear war is not just a big flash – it is plume drift and radioactive contamination that will last a century. No sane government would start it and that is another reason to stop electing xenophobic, guano-psychotic politicians who strangle sane governments.

        • bobjimflys

          If it lasts a century then explain Hiroshima…

          I am not saying it does not kill populations but Hiroshima is a bustling City, it looks like the bomb was dropped on Detroit.

          • Edward Campbell

            The Hiroshima bomb was a pop gun A-bomb and it was only one. H-bomb whole different story. Detroit doesn’t look like a nuke was dropped on it. People still live their and in surrounding berb’s But I will give you this, parts of the city are destroyed, sad.

          • Brad Gilbert

            Of COURSE it does! Ever hear the old joke that ends with the punchline, “DAMN! ‘Burnt ANOTHER one!”?

          • IstvanIN

            Detroit would be better off if an A-bomb were dropped on it. That being said, why don’t we continue to utilize atomic bombs since, it appears, they destroy but don’t have as longlasting affects?

          • bobjimflys

            We have nuclear weapons that have the capabilities of being adjusted, a dial a yield weapon.

            Make it big or miake it small, air delivered bomb


            Smallest nuclear weapon that we use to have


          • City Sharkk

            There where two Abombs dropped on Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Radiation levels are higher then average there and theres still above average birth defects.The Nuclear weapons we have now could turn Japan into an atoll.Theres a big difference in yield and radiation with modern nuclear weapons. even spent nuclear fuel from power plants will be radioactive for centuries..Chernobyl still sets of Geiger counters.Detroit looks like urban blight not nuclear armageddon

          • bobjimflys

            From what I have read there is no residual radiation left over from the bombs, it dimished very rapidly. There is no difference residual radiation levels between Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and any other city in the world.


            Chernobyl was a meltdown bad design and human error caused the meltdown of reactor #4… it was a RBMK reactor.
            RBMK stands for “heterogeneous water-graphic channel type reactor… There are still a few of those reactors in Russia.

          • Andrew Patton

            Actually, it’s “High-Powered Channel Reactor.”

          • bobjimflys

            99% of our weapons will be detonated in the air, maybe the M61 would be sent deep underground. As far as I can see Detroit looks far worse than Hiroshima TODAY. You have zero supporting data on birth defects in Hiroshima, do not shoot from the hip until you do just a little more RESEARCH!

          • James Scott

            Hiroshima was a crude, tiny device compared to the weapons we’ve developed, and was not designed to deliver a strategic EMP.

          • bobjimflys
          • rw

            LOL so what. The big ones will be used

          • Gunner

            Detroit was the Republican’t attack on the car industry.

          • bobjimflys

            Of course that is not true, It was not the Republicans but the Democrats who have held Mayor’s office for the last 52 years. The downfall of Detroit did not happen over night, and of course NAFTA has nothing to do with it either, wrong, thank you slick willie. Once in Mexico city of Mazatlan, there were Chevy Suburbans, Chevy SUV’s, Chevy Trucks, sitting on the dock waiting to be shipped to Hong Kong, the number of vehicles was in excess of 2,000, made in Mexico.

            “On a completely unrelated note, the last time Detroit didn’t have a Democratic mayor was in 1961. Quite interesting”.

          • keith

            The enemy of the american people is capitalism, Wall street and its billionaire bankers. Don’t you see that you are all just expendable slaves to them and they would rather replace you with 70X cheaper chinese labour anyway. What is the point. america is not land of the free. It is land of the imbecile, ignorant, superstitious and exploitative, psycopathic rich.

          • John Holloway

            You should see the documentary titled:
            “Who killed the electric car!”

          • Hope33

            AS IN WAR ONLY THE VICTOR WILL UNDERSTAND HE WON NOTHING. ……and many families cry in grief

          • rw

            Take a look a Dresden Germany after ww2. all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. If Russia launches. We launch. And then it’s mostly over. Until the next wave comes in. And then the third wave. And so on. Until nobody has nuclear weapons left.

          • David Payton

            And people are still born with mutations. People are sterile and cancer there is way WAY over average.

          • David Payton

            Not to mention the fallout and the dust that would blot out the sky and usher in another ice age.

          • bobjimflys

            Show me the data

          • David Payton

            Are u living under a rock??? Even discovery channel has reported on this fact… It’s a dirty dirty place!

          • bobjimflys

            No data, just good ole bs

          • David Payton

            Well crap. .. I have to retract what I said… after years of reading about, seeing on tv, and learning in school that the mass casualties continued today, I have just read a scientific brief refuting all of that “knowledge”. I apologize bobjimflys. You have my ear…

          • David Payton

            Did u not read my retraction?

          • bobjimflys

            after I posted, should have answered in order, I did put a like on your comment!!

          • David Payton

            Well crap. .. I have to retract what I said… after years of reading about, seeing on tv, and learning in school that the mass casualties continued today, I have just read a scientific brief refuting all of that “knowledge”. I apologize bobjimflys. You have my ear…

          • bobjimflys

            I use to believe the stuff too, I thought the same thing. It really changes my outlook on Tactical Nuclear War./

          • Andrew Patton

            No one can be sterilized by fallout from nuclear weapons because the doses needed for sterilization are more than enough to kill the patient with certainty. It takes 3000 rads to the gonads to sterilize a person, but 1500 rads to the whole body is guaranteed to inflict gastroinstestinal syndrome radiation sickness, which is invariably fatal within days. That means the only way to sterilize someone with radiation without killing him is to aim a large amount of radiation directly at the gonads, as with a particle beam.

          • rw

            First, Hiroshima was a firecracker compared to what will happen.
            Second, nulcear power plants will be hit. Think Fukushima Daiichi, or Chernobyl X’s 200. Think of the fires around the world. Think nuclear winter and no food production and little useful transportation. Think no hospitals, and millions of people with severe burns and blindness. Collapsed buildings and no fire departments. The effects will last for a hundred years. Hiroshima was 20kt. Nuclear war today would be about 1000 megatons of nuclear weapons.
            One megaton = 1000 kt.

          • lee

            wrong the major effects of those not in the immediate blast area will be over in the first 48 hours, after that slowly decreasing in a bell curve toward none in a short time. the major problems would be avoiding radio active acid rains, and you would definitely want to avoid those. As they would be lethal, but after ten years everywhere on earth would be perfectly safe to live, except the immediate blast zones.

          • strato man

            The nuclear weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were detonated in the air, well above ground level, partly to cause the maximum blast effect, but this also caused minimal fallout (since the blast picked up no heavy dirt that would have caused the fallout to come down quickly). As others have said, the bombs used against Japan were also very small by modern standards. The trinity site, where the first atomic bomb was detonated, is still radioactive 70 years later, and that explosion was detonated on a 100 foot tower.

            The radiation, ozone damage, and atmospheric debris from a large nuclear exchange would do almost unimaginable environmental damage to the earth. Of course we could survive a very limited nuclear exchange, say a few small bombs passed between Iran and Israel, but in anything other than a few space based explosions (for emp) there would be serious fallout over a large area.

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            1st, modern bombs are many times larger than the Hiroshima / Nagasaki bombs.
            2nd: There is mo guarantee that an enemy would use an “air burst” as we did on Japan. If the nuke detonates upon impact you can bet your sweet ass that there will be radioactive fallout. And it won’t go away in our or our grandkids’ lifetimes.

        • Cory Thompson

          Go ahead, tell us, when did diplomacy stop a war? Ever educate yourself on how “diplomacy” worked on Hitler? Chamberlain really thought he was getting somewhere and the naive buffoon actually believed every word out of Hitler’s mouth.

          • John Holloway

            But it’s worth trying–no!?
            Or we could all just go in with guns ablazing!!

          • Cory Thompson

            Not necessarily is it worth trying. To use Hitler as an example. While they dilly dallied around with their “diplomacy”, Hitler was building his military to immense proportions and annexing land and resources. Had they skipped the “diplomacy” and went in with guns blazing before he had a chance to build his military to immense proportions and annex land and resources, the number of deaths and amount of destruction ultimately incurred from World War II may not have ever even have come to fruition.

          • keith

            Hitler was financed by the USA capitalists, politicians and bankers who were making $100,000 a day out of the war, fooled soldiers with blown off limbs and murdered European children.

          • lee

            you cock sucking liar.

          • John Holloway

            Point well taken.
            This is some 50 or so years later. We now know the value of diplomacy and it’s disadvantages. We have more resources handy. The whole world—with advances in tech.—is watching and listening. The whole world can now chime in on the diplomatic process! That is still no guarantee of a favorable outcome, so as a precaution, we still keep the weapons at the ready. So, unlike the 1940’s, we are better prepared to at least try diplomacy as a first tactic.

          • keith

            Hitler was funded by the same wall street that runs america today.

          • lee


        • qcubed

          It’s not so much the devastated city or nuclear fallout, it is the destruction of the electronics in the surrounding area. AN EMP will have a very wide effect..rendering all computers, most cars, cell phones, atms…USELESS. Chaos would ensue. In fact, they wouldn’t even have to hit the city, just detonate it far above to wipe out the electronic infrastructure. No lights, electricity…NOTHING. It would take years to rebuild just ONE CITY’S infrastructure.

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were “air blasts” that exploded above the city, so the radiation was comparatively low compared to what a ground blast would do. Ground blasts would have left the terrain uninhabitable for centuries.

          • Indian Citizen

            so…is that ok to bomb 100 nukes above US cities which you can “air blasts” with low radiation…would you accept and justify Bob????

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            I never said I accepted it, or fully agreed with it. Several people were talking about how could Hiroshima and Nagasaki be occupied so soon after the bombs of August 1945. I merely gave an explanation as to why the radiation was “Tolerable” (not really) so soon after the blasts.

            Keep in mind that we were fighting a war that was started by a surprise, sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, in “peacetime,” by the Japanese, who were, at the same time holding peace treaty negotiations with our nation in Washington D.C.. Both our military strategists and those of our military allies agreed that to take the mainland of Japan would have taken more than a year and would have cost more than a million lives on both sides. Truman was bothered by the decision for the rest of his life. He had to endure the criticism for even considering the attacks. But the action ended the war, and saved countless American, allied and Japanese lives. Besides, as Truman said later about feeling guilty about the bombs, “I have been waiting, very patiently, for someone to apologize for Pearl Harbor.”

          • Andrew Patton

            The radiation levels in the cities were tolerable. All the radiation sickness was caused by prompt radiation (i.e. gamma rays and neutrons from the blast itself), rather than fallout.

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            I agree

          • Gunner

            You have to lear to crawl before you can learn to walk.
            Truman was selling Hirohito’s surrender, vice the death toll of an invasion. It Worked. If it hadn’t, we would have been in deep trouble, as our nuclear pipeline was empty.

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            Yes, it was probably the biggest bluff in world history, but fortunately it worked.

          • bobjimflys

            Are weapons are air blast based…except for the one designed to penetrate deep bunkers.

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            Air blast mean just that, they explode above the ground, giving the widest area of destruction, because there is nothing to slow down the blast. Their explosive force releases radiation into the air, where is disburses over a large area. If a nuke is detonated on the ground, the surrounding area becomes radio-active, and uninhabitable. Basically a loss for the enemy and the victor.

            A “Bunker Buster” would probably not be nuclear. They are specifically designed to penetrate the concrete (or whatever) reinforcement of the structure and detonate within the structure itself, usually killing just about anything inside. This is because the reinforcement also contains the blast, increasing the concussive force within. Think of the difference between setting off a firecracker inside or outside. In a small room the sound seems much louder because it is contained. the same is true for the force of a Bunker bomb.

          • bobjimflys

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb, another dial a yield puppy for you…

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            Ok, so there is one that can penetrate a bunker. My question in using it woulds be Why – Why use a weapon designed for widespread mass destruction in a space that will severely limit it’s destructive abilities?

          • bobjimflys

            Purpose of design. I am sure there are newer models that are above my zero pay grade….

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            I suppose it’s like the truck-mounted nuclear cannons they tried to come up with. They could fire a nuclear shell over a mile. The one setback was that the kill radius was two miles.

          • bobjimflys

            They had nuclear artillery shells in Germany. The Germans had the Artillery piece, the Americans kept the warheads… http://www.usarmygermany.com/Sont.htm?http&&&www.usarmygermany.com/units/FieldArtillery/USAREUR_FieldArty.htm..

          • Oregon_Blizzard


          • Andrew Patton

            To destroy enemy nuclear weapons, which are generally stored in underground facilities armored with steel-reinforced concrete and/or depleted uranium. If it was genocide we were after with our nuclear weapons, we’d build the tampers out of cobalt, rather than depleted uranium or lead. Activated cobalt would create radiation levels that would render the land uninhabitable for decades, since Co-60’s half-life is 5.27 years, but it produces very energetic gamma rays. We build our nuclear weapons to counter enemy weapon systems while minimizing civilian casualties.

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            Nice load of scientific-right wing BS you’re throwing there. Still, using a “bunker Buster” type of device would essentially be the same as a “Dirty Bomb” Why bring a nuke when something less lethal will do? We detonated Nukes in(under) the desert in Nevada for years. We placed them many times deeper than any of these bunkers would be. Have you seen the films of what those nukes, a mile or more down, did to the desert floor? Using a nuke a few dozen feet down would be like placing a tin can over a hand grenade. the protection would be negligible.

          • Andrew Patton

            Because we don’t have something less lethal that can reliably destroy heavily armored targets. Fuel-air bombs are three orders of magnitude weaker than our smallest nuclear weapons. We cannot rely on fuel-air bombs to be able to penetrate a silo’s armor and destroy the nuclear missile inside.

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            The The GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) is a U.S. Air Force, precision-guided, 30,000-pound (13,608 kg) “bunker buster” bomb that can penetrate 200 ft. And you think we really need a nuke?

          • seniorcrown1

            In the middle 1980s, the Defense Communications Agency, as part of the Defense Satellite Communications System deployed as an enhancement to the AN-USC-28v Satellite Communications Set, what is called “mitigation”. What this enhancement did was mitigate the effects of a high altitude nuclear blast upon “strategic communications” to 4 minutes for voice and data, with 1 value loss [that is 1 letter in voice communications and 1 digit in data communications].

            Effectively rendering high altitude nuclear detonations as ineffective as a prelude to first strike scenarios.
            As mentioned, deployed in the middle 1980s. [this is 2013]
            A dozen neutron bombs, detonated at wide spread & moderate to low altitude, would effectively kill everyone and everything throughout the effective range of neutron radiation. While effective against a large, overwhelming forces, in today’s guerilla warfare, use of neutron bombs would have high civilian casualties .
            I doubt any political leader would use a weapon that could effectively wipe out an entire country’s population, leaving the infrastructure intact simply to eliminate terrorist’s threat.

          • qcubed

            That system is for MILITARY use only and does little good when it comes to the complete destruction of civilian communications.

            As for neutron weapons, I doubt countries like NK and Iran will have those any time soon and terrorist groups will certainly not have them. But I do agree with the bulk of your comment.

      • firemac

        Never show fear. Makes you look weak. Why do you even think you have what you have now. It wasnt because of weak soldiers but heros.

        • Hammer6

          Don’t assume that the honor and courage of our fighting soldiers supports your agenda. All the bravery and courage ever known to man will be irrelevant in an escalated nuclear exchange. Civilization as we know it will be set back hundreds of years amid untold suffering. We can posture and deter, but lets be clear – everyone loses big in a nuclear war. Wrapping this will to suicide in the American flag is a dangerous distraction – and a disservice to everyone.

        • James Scott

          You are idiotically brave with the lives of billions. Our purpose is not machismo; it’s to preserve life.

      • Cory Thompson

        No, it’s something a kin to defending one’s self. If they launch a nuke against us, whether it’s small and supposedly tactical and low yield, they get wiped off the face of the earth. Has nothing to do with pride no more so than our getting involved in World War II, World War I or any other war was a matter of pride.

        • Indian Citizen

          what happen if all the countries throw nukes on you…you think you still perish???

          • Cory Thompson

            Perhaps. But, at least we wouldn’t perish without a fight. Because, they’re going to perish as well. Perhaps you’ve heard of mutually assured destruction? For every one nuke you throw at us, we’ll throw ten at you. It isn’t going to take long before you’re no longer capable of throwing one nuke at us.

          • masmanz

            As an American General once said if we have only two people left in the end and USSR has only one person left then we would be the winner.

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            Oh goodie!

          • crower

            stupid human

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            Mutually assured destruction? So that World War IV will be fought with spears and wooden shields IF that many humans survive? To quote “War Games” – ,”The only way to win (a nuclear war) is not to play.”

        • keith

          No. Itsall about the rich staying rich in their Billionaire wall street mansions and getting one half of the poor to kill the other half with the hypnotic trick of the flag. Works every time, thats why they keep you all ignorant and superstitious.

      • John L Myers IV

        Russia is not longer the USSR and China has no Navy and many fewer nukes than us. I don’t want a nuclear war, no sane person does, but “if” they nuke us first I agree with Wayne; we wipe them off the face of the earth.

        • Indian Citizen

          the only to save yourself is you have to stop intruding or encroaching other country affairs which is not your duty at all and no one is given rights for you to do that….so decide yourself…

          • keith

            The USA has troops in 150 other peoples countries. IT is the Evil Empire. Everyone hates the USA, (Why would anyone like it?) even most of its own population hate the USA. (Red indians, blacks, mexicans, southerners) The USA is a myth spun by the wealthy plutocrats to herd its uneducated people any way that expands and preserves their wealth. No matter what the cost or who gets crushed. America Rid Yourself of your psycopathic Wall Street rulers!

          • Robert G. Vandagriff Sr.

            And how exactly would we go about doing that my friend , and we are all , or most all , already familiar with our own countries disgust, but hears the problem Keith are you going to help us in this rebellion and new age civil war you are contemplating, Your name states your a citizen Indian, will that be your hook not to get involved in getting your peoples land back, Oh and last time i checked friend,america is full of immigrants. They say that’s what formed america. But i slightly disagree,most of america has been stolen,looted,killed for and bought bye all rich and powerful ugly greedy ass evil people. Now and since the beginning of time ,it has been that way.Its far too late for affirmative action now my friend.Best pray alot,and gather your strengths just to protect your family for whats coming,and i can assure you , its a whole lot more of hell. Peace (: and God Bless.

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            If the United States is so Hated – why do we have people risking their lives to come here? (And not just across our southern border.)

        • Bob Shuttleworth

          to quote/paraphrase Carl Sagan on nuclear war:
          “Imagine a room awash with gasoline. Locked in this room are two sworn enemies. One has five matches, the other has three.”
          In this scenario who has the most power? who will win the conflict after the first match is lit?

      • Dpsasso

        Pride has nothing to do
        with this problem. Hatred is the only motivator. To believe otherwise is a
        mistake. When we assumed the mantle of world protector we accepted the
        risks. You speak as a naive person. If all we have in are arsenal is larger
        bombs the answer is obvious. It is not only ourselves we are protecting but a
        large portion of the planet’s population who have come under under our
        umbrella of protection

      • rw

        ISIL is working on a nuclear bomb right now. They’re going to hold a draw to see who the lucky bomber will be. News is, there are a lot of eager contestants.

    • Augie

      I agree, it is kind of like if you shoot at me with your 22 LR, don’t feel bad at me if I brake out the 44 mag ! Just makes sense =/

      • Bob Shuttleworth

        Unless the .22 long hits you directly in the heart or brain, then you’ll understand the warning of my first rifle instructor, “A .22 can kill you just as dead as a .45.”

    • oddlyeven

      everyone pays for their decisions



    • John Cooper

      Our President believes in “Lines in the sand”, and talk, not retaliation. Don’t be surprised if his response to a bomb dropped on US soil is to send John Kerry to the aggressor to discuss a peaceful solution.

      • Merle Dickey

        Thank you John Cooper!

      • Horhai1

        he will send kerry to clean up after he nukes the sh*t out them first. don’t be so gullible to think he wouldn not retaliate,

      • Dianne

        JohnCooper, u r soooooooo right, then The sorry president can give another speech-even if there is no one else left to listen.

      • stlbrz

        Our President would take all necessary action. He certainly would not get us into a war we did not need to enter like the shrub did.

      • qcubed

        By all means, yes, we should have elected MITT, who would have rained down “God’s” wrath upon his enemies and, as a result, ended our civilization. Good call maggot.

        • Bob Shuttleworth

          and bankrupted the country in the process.

          • Anonymous 1

            He didn’t even win his own state, did he? Shows all the good he did for them.

          • qcubed

            If the November election is a referendum on anything, I hope it indicated the growing number of people who disdain the incorporation of religion into their lawmaking. The right loves to complain about “sharia law” while doing everything it can to insert “christian values” into its lawmaking decisions.

            This frightens me.

        • John Cooper

          You need to seek professional help.

          • Anonymous 1

            I was thinking the same thing about you, and many other war-happy commenters on here. People do not seem to understand the consequences of nuclear warfare. We could all be living in 3rd world countries overnight…then you would be wishing for peaceful negotiations. Hasn’t anyone ever heard of being the “better man”? Just because one crazy leader attacks with nukes, does not make it morally justified to retaliate with bigger ones. It actually sounds like some of the guys on here are suffering from “small pee-pee syndrome”.

          • seniorcrown1

            I believe that if America was “attacked” with a nuclear weapon, which eventually is going to happen if countries like Iran obtain them, those who’s diplomatic options or non retaliation option might reconsider. Even a tactical nuclear weapon creates wide spread and long lasting destruction.
            Countries like Iran who’s religious leaders believe “destruction” is the only course of action, not negotiation, use of a nuclear weapon against what they believe is their enemy, to destroy the enemy, so the enemy is eliminated, will use them. Large cities along with their entire population [millions] would be destroyed. Radiation fallout would kill millions more. The area would be uninhabitable for years.
            Without a form of government, local, state and federal level, society breaks down. As society breaks down, a prevalence of lawlessness is created.
            This is the effects desired by those who would use them to stop what they perceive as their enemy from being an enemy and effects of a nuclear weapon being used in or on Washington and East Coast areas where the country’s government resides.

          • John Cooper

            The last thing I resemble is “war happy”, and the size of my “Pee Pee” is irrelevant. My concern is we are not dealing with rational foes anymore. The religious finatics who strap bombs to their children are not interested in peaceful negotiations. They have stated their ultimate goal is destroying all of Western society. I support eliminating their ability to make nuclear war, not attacking population centers. It’s time to be realistic. Our government hasn’t even demanded that Russia and China stop supplying weapons and technology to North Korea and Iran. Hillary flew around the world and all she did was burn jet fuel. John Kerry is apparently doing the same. No more speeches about “red lines in the sand”, because they are laughable.

          • Andrew Patton

            As a President or Prime Minister, refusing to destroy the military capability of an enemy that has attacked you with nuclear weapons does not make you the better man; it makes you derelict in your duty to protect your citizens, inviting further attacks against them. When attacked by an unjust aggressor, you are justified in using whatever means are appropriate to neutralize that aggressor.

    • Fran Schuler

      wow..you three read OLD NEWS about weapons of the 1970s (when small tactical nukes were developed for artillery and short range missiles) and you think Russia is planning to attack US soil? With short range missiles? No wonder it was so easy for G.W. Bush to mislead most of Americans about WMD… there is just no logic, no independent thinking, no ability to measure facts … any spin convinces you.

      • Bobby LoMax

        Really people the U.S has tactical battlefield nukes. We can play any game they want to play. The President tried to get approval to use Tactical Battlefield Nukes in the sand.. Not to many years ago. He was shut down

      • Bob Shuttleworth

        The problem with the “nuke cannons” was that their yield could devastate an area larger than the distance they might be able to shoot. That’s primarily why the program was scrapped early on.

    • Cyman Smith

      Agree, don’t understand what the author is on about. Besides we DO have tactical cruse missiles and such, so does many NATO nations, some of whom are ex Warsaw pact nations.

    • City Sharkk

      LOL any why would anyone Nuke the US other then some Gov contrived terrorist org. 911 was an inside job bin laden was made up like the manderin. No one has anything to gain from war with the US Mainland invasion is impossible and the same goes for China and Russia…American corporations are firmly in bed with China and dont want the supply of cheap Wallmart goods to stop..there will be no wars..just skirmishes in third world countries over oil

      • Bob Shuttleworth

        that is a load of B——T. Bin Laden was a maniac, and so actually believed that he could win a war with the west.

        • Indian Citizen

          bob, remember, Bin Laden brought up and nourished by US only to disintegrate USSR and US succeeded in their game…so SHAME ON US!!!! …it’s their own finger tear their eyes!!! LOL

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            Bin Laden was supported by the billions of dollars that US oil companies paid to his family to gain access to Arabian oil supplies. He was, to use a weak western expression, the black sheep of his family. Willing to take the millions he received as his share of the family fortune. In return he studied architecture and engineering, and somewhere along the line developed a hatred for anything associated with the US/European (Western) way of life. We did little to support him individually, the money went first to his parents (who disowned him after 9/11) but he had a cash reserve of over 300,000,000 dollars from his family with which to vent his anger. The World Trade Center was not just a target it was a symbol to him of western society in general, and so he struck out at the “World” first and then at other US targets, because he felt (perhaps rightly so) that the US was the ultimate symbol of the west.

            Yes, shame on us, for being less self sufficient than we’d ever been before. We pumped billions upon billions of barrels of oil out of Mid-east wells while productive wells in our own country remained capped. Shame on us for allowing our own nation’s oil billionaires to sell out our safety.

          • Andrew Patton

            Bin Laden’s father was a real-estate tycoon, not an oil tycoon. The Saudi Royal Family’s money is mostly derived from oil, but that has little to do with the Bin Laden Group.

          • Bob Shuttleworth

            Yes Real Estate, Where do you think the Oil Was? Under that Real Estate.

          • Dman

            Saddam Hussein

    • vodoo135

      so create a massive scale nuclear war are so a nuclear winter is created because you know it only takes 5-10 of our nukes to cause a world wide nuclear winter where millions would die and even we would to reconsider your ideas friend

      • Andrew Patton

        Modern nukes are much smaller than the ones from the 50’s and 60’s. Back then, we built really large nukes to compensate for the fact that the guidance systems sucked, so the only way to guarantee you’d destroy the target was to make the nuke so big that you’d destroy the target even if you missed by five miles. Now we have much better guidance systems, so we scaled down the warheads to minimize collateral damage. For this reason, 10 Trident missiles still would not have the same combined yield as the Tsar Bomba test.

    • keith

      the world and UN should boycott and sanction the USA on a massive scale. they are maniacs run by the insane wealthy.

    • Mike

      Are you crazy? We want to go after the people that set off the weapon, not the kids, ma, and pa. If the U.S. did this, we have the whole world on our rears. The President will not be President next term. The U.S. citizen will make sure on this. I will be the first guy to pull the trigger of my gun to the persons head that authorized the nukealar attack on a citizens of the U.S.

    • Shawn Stipe

      You know what, it must be easy to think that way if you have no friends or family living in those countries. Imagine how Americans with relatives in Russia, Iran, and North Korea feel. We are not separate from them, there is no America vs them, America is a global melting pot, and if we nuke them, there will be repercussion in America.

    • Erik Anton Seastead
  • GenMinion

    Get rid of religion, then over 90% of these pointless wars will end.

    • abby

      Good luck on that one.

    • bjreg3

      Really? You that closed minded ? Hate much?

    • Shane Bean

      They will come up with another reason

    • DC75

      Based on what facts? Your hate-filled atheist pre-disposition. History doesn’t agree with you. Neither major conflict in the last 100 or so years, World Wars I and II, were motivated by religion. Get off your high horse, Mr. Bigot.

  • William Mullin

    I guess the author never heard of Tactical Nuclear War? This was planned for by NATO forces to defeat Warsaw Pact forces back in the 50’s. A tactical nuclear plan was actually the only conceivable way that NATO could have stopped Warsaw Pact forces had a conventional war broken out. What the author is talking about is not new.

  • Al Schrader

    Nuclear weapons went obsolete decades ago. The Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are a closed-loop. If you detonate a nuclear device anywhere on the Earth, you get part of the radiation from it besides everyone else on the planet – It’s the Chernobl effect.

    • Paddy O’Furniture

      Those that make the decisions may not think like you do!
      Cogitate on that awhile.

    • RLABruce

      What makes you think Iran, for one example, cares about residual fallout? They obviously don’t or they wouldn’t be trying so hard to get nukes.

      • masmanz

        Iran is not trying to get nukes, it is just a propaganda by warmongers. Iran is just trying to get nuclear energy like the other 44 countries of the world.

        • RLABruce

          You are a fool. So you do not believe also that Iran’s government has as their stated goal to “wipe Israel from the map”? They are the “Little Satan” and we are the “Big Satan;” how do you think they plan to wipe out Israel if not with nukes? Iran has enough oil to supply themselves with energy for the next thousand years if all they want is energy. The isotopes and the purity of the nuclear material they are creating can’t be used in nuclear power plants; they can only be used in weapons. Get informed next time before you show the world your ignorance!

          • masmanz

            You just listen to Israeli propaganda. Iran’s nuclear facilities are under international surveillance, their enriched uranium is not weapon-grade. Iran government and even the religious leaders have declared that they are against building the nuclear weapon. So if they really want to wipe Israel from the map they will have to do it using conventional weapon.

          • RLABruce

            The link below is from the UN (not exactly a pro-Israel group) and says Iran is developing nuclear weapons, not nuclear power. There are many other similar bits of evidence of what Iran is up to. But have you thought of the consequences if your lame-brain idea is WRONG?

          • masmanz

            Just read the news item carefully and you will see that the report is just saying what is being fed to the UN agency by other countries. UN itself has surveillance equipment at all Iranian nuclear sites, there is no indication of any weapon-grade material.

    • ycplum

      True about the radiation, but the level of radiation half way around the world may be at an “acceptable” level for the accomplishment of goal.

    • ahorvath

      You are nuts.

    • No Way Out

      The Kremlin and the Pentagon gave up trying to win or even survive Armageddon decades ago.

      The nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States are doomsday devices. They are meant to be used in the face of an existential threat; as a means to deter ethnocide, democide, and genocide. There’s nothing obsolete about threatening the human race with extinction as retaliation for the destruction of ones nation. The slow radiation poisoning of survivors is actually a “feature” of these arsenals, not a disadvantage.

      It’s not called M.A.D. for nothing.

  • Robert G. Vandagriff Sr.

    And why would be airing, our whats and what nots to any and all domestic are foreign powers on media web and basic journalism , its because of this intel leaking constantly

    I believe that puts America, and Americans more and more at risk. you know whats funny is that i never ever here of other countries war tactics being published on the air waves like we tell everyone our every move we make, what is up with our intel community damn, shut up and get ready, dumb ass (:

    • James Hasik

      This is a completely incomprehensible comment on what is a very fine article.

      • Brtutal

        You’re whacked … his comment is every bit the truth and needed to be said.

      • Robert G. Vandagriff Sr.

        articles are for all peoples different opinions, and this is still america last time i checked friend. How about commenting on the article like we do, and don’t be attacking my opinion. peace (: and you even replying to me with your absurd comment is incomprehensible.

    • Brtutal

      Hear-Hear … well said Robert. That has been my sentiments for years.

    • Robert Breen

      You probably don’t hear about other countries tactics, etc. because you are not reading their news. You are reading/listening to the American media. doooooiiiiii….

    • omnimax

      you don’t hear about other countries war tactics because they are not important.

    • sandman7733

      Odds are VERY, VERY good that they already know this stuff. China and Russia’s intelligence operations are such that they are extremely aware of what military actions the U.S. would probably resort to in such a situation, and vice verse. There are those in our military, as well as Russia’s and China’s, whose job it is to try and figure out the most likely scenarios in many, many different types of confrontations. If a journalist can find out, it is no problem what so ever for those who are trained for such work to be able to obtain the same information. Truth is, the U.S. probably doesn’t even know at the moment just exactly what kind of response they would resort to if such a situation came to fruition. What is being told here is more than likely just speculation, at best.

    • DrAtomic

      First, there’s no classified information in the article. It’s largely relating the comments, recommendations, and speculation of _one guy_ at a nongovernmental organization. No security breach or threat here. (And if you’ve got a problem with this, then by all means stay away from the established journals in the security field, not to mention those published by the Air Force and the Navy, which are–and have long been–chock full of such analysis. That’s also, by the way, where you’ll read about what other states are planning or thinking about.)

      Second, every country with a major military presence (except perhaps North Korea) regularly publishes reports and white papers detailing its overall policies, strategies, and budget, as well as details about the various weapons and capabilities they possess. Press releases are issued trumpeting the latest missile flight test or the purchase of a new submarine. And these are not difficult to find online (though you may sometimes need to be fluent in other languages to read them). Of course, specific battle plans and some specific weapons capabilities and locations are usually not publicly available. But, again, that’s not what you read in the article above.

      • sandman7733

        VERY well said DrAtomic!!! A very well informed response. Thank you!!!

        • John Holloway

          But are these published white paper reports the ACTUAL TRUTH!??
          I kind of doubt it!

          • sandman7733

            No countries military is going to let out exactly what they would do if attacked, or what their plans would be to initiate any kind of attack. They are not that, for lack of a better term, stupid. Years ago, during the Cold War, some people used to claim that such and such a city (Denver, Philadelphia, Houston, Minneapolis, etc.) was number 2, or number 3, or number 4 or whatever, on the Soviets list of cities to nuke. They would say, for example: “Minneapolis is the number 3 city to be hit by the Soviets because of the large number of universities, high tech and health related companies and an overall highly educated populace.” Well, just HOW would these normal, everyday working stiffs know this?? They didn’t know it. No one but the Soviets and maybe a few high ranking American military brass knew. Truth is, it probably changed everyday based on different scenarios. No one knows EXACTLY what the other side will do. That is the bottom line.

          • John Holloway

            Totally agree!

            After all, what does ANY of us know that the high brass already know better!??

  • PJ

    Hmmm, “speak softly and carry a big stick”…you use a little nuke, I use a big one….a la Dirty Harry. “Go ahead, make my day.” Obama really doesn’t want us to have an advantage over his Muslim brothers.

  • Josh

    Most of your comments are taken from “conventional wisdom” of mankind. None of you looked at the Bible. There is little doubt that nuclear war is just ahead of us. Every Bible prophecy in that past has come true exactly as stated. The prophecies labeled “last days” are due to come into play at any time now. Don’t be fooled by the left leaning unbelievers. IT WILL HAPPEN. You can make fun of me if you like, but remember what I say here, when it happens.

    • gmack

      I am a Believer Josh , so I won’t make fun of you , we are in End Times , and it is now moving at warp speed , There are Super Natural things at Play Here .The Fight Between Good and Evil has been going on since Time Began ..

    • CUSACitizen

      The Bible says the end WILL come, not maybe, will surely come. When? That is a different story. I assure you that people being burned at the stake during the inquisition thought the last days were at hand. I am not saying they are not anymore than I am saying they are. But they will surely come like a thief in the night, when we least expect it. So, no, I do not make fun of you as I am a born again Christian and fully believe in my heart every word in the Bible. Have a blessed weekend.

      • rancidskull

        You 3 are nothing but lambs going to the slaughter,following a book written by men to control men. There is no god! Most of the problems in the world are because my god is better than your god. If we got rid of religion that would solve 99% of the worlds problems.

        • CUSACitizen

          Yup, you are right, mankind is doing a very good job. And it is very evident. Rapes, wars, drug addiction, child pornography and sexual abuse, mass murderers, adultery, etc. All committed by people without God. And before you say anything about children abused by priests, they are not true believers, but wolves in sheep clothing, that would be hypocrites. I am not advocating that you should believe, you do with your life what you want, I do with my life what I want.

          • J

            He said 99%.Those are nothing compared to the extremists atrocities. Go tell them they are not true believers.

        • Andrew Patton

          The thing about the Bible is that it requires leaders to lead by example. Leaders are expected to die for those they lead, if push comes to shove, and the greatest men must be the servants of all. That’s not something anybody would write merely to control people. A King who dies for His people and expects His officers to go and do likewise if called upon to do so is not something that those who are interested only in power have any use for. This same King demands loyalty unto death from prince, priest, and peasant alike. Cowards need not apply.


    First, there are some misconceptions stated in this piece with which the author is misinformed. The US Air Force in cooperation with NASA does, factually, have contingency plans that take these precise issues into serious consideration. The developmental direction for the US Military has turned more toward precise interception and elimination of enemy launched vessels containing chemical or nuclear warheads using some very highly classified, highly technical methods. Lasers and intricate frequency waves disturbing air speeds and guidance systems of launched missiles have proven to be very, very effective. Similar to, but not exactly the same as GM’s “ON-STAR” capabilities to disrupt fuel flow and disable electrical guidance systems of launched weapons. This all began with Ronald Reagan”s star wars plans…and has continued to be researched and engaged with some very amazingly effective results.

    • KallMeDoc

      Serious question here CM Sgt. What would the capability be of interceptors be from a sub launched missile just off of a coast? What comes to mind is what looked like a missile launch over California a few years ago..

      • Matt

        I remember that, it was a test launch from Vandenburg AFB. It was publisized weeks in advance so people wouldn’t freak out when it happened, you must not have remembered that part.

    • ycplum

      Actually, Reagan did not have any “Star War Plans”. He simply organized defense spending and research under one umbrella and boosted research funding a bit. Early studies indicated that we simply did not have the means to feasibly defend against ballistic missiles with the current technology, but it did point out avenues for research that would enable such defenses at a later date. One such area for research was computer processing power. The other significant area was generating higher concentrated energy beams. It was more of conceptual plans if we had teh technology ready.

  • StevenRobert

    I think, after reading the WSJ today, the plan of the Obama administration is a drawdown on nuclear weapon stock pile to “zero”, meaning none, or doing away with nuclear weapons all together. That would be unilateral disarmament. That is just the opposite of what the article is saying, rather than preparing for nuclear war, we are opting out all together. Doesn’t seem like a good idea when everyone else in the world is sharpening their knives.

    What if there is some kind of invasion of the US, perhaps as in WWII, the Aleutians, or Guam, or even some other Pacific islands or take your choice, wherever, and then the invaders set up their nukes or shoot a few demonstration nukes. The US is essentially helpless.

    What are we going to do, enact the draft, send a few million draftees into the territory. Doesn’t look like they would last long in a nuclear confrontation.

    Even super soldiers armed with high tech conventional weapons couldn’t operate in the nuclear environment if EMP comes into play, or radiation, and the neutron bomb was developed as a weapon to fry tank crews and depopulate cities without tearing down the houses. Want to bet they won’t be used, especially in a world characterized by global warming where food resources mean survival and your homeland has turned into a desert.

    Maybe something like Water World, at least for some low lying coastal countries.

    Will changing climate make some countries uninhabitable and others breadbaskets that the survivors will be fighting over.

    I hope we never have to use nuclear weapons, since they are weapons of mass destruction, meaning mass casualties, likely in the millions, including millions of soldiers and possibly their families back home, if there is a home left. The technology has developed so nuclear weapons might be tuned down to the dozens of tons, and suitcase bombs have probably been developed as well, so an infantry squad might have a nuclear bomb if it needs it bad enough.

    I wouldn’t expect a regular army infantry platoon to have a suit case nuclear bomb in its weapons squad, but a specialized unit such as a seal time might have one for specialized operations.

    • gmack

      So what you are saying is the Muslim in Chief is Disarming this Country , I don’t think Our Military will let Him .. We will be destroyed from within by the Muslims that are already here and have infiltrated our Government . Keep your Guns and make sure you have plenty of Ammo ..

  • Jack

    Russia needs to shut up for one thing and stop funding assholes. China should stick to making rice and cheap goods. All Muzzie countries should remain in the desert sucking up to pedophile prophets so that the rest of the world can get on with capitalism. Canada is the only common sense country in the world.

  • ajarianne

    Well Putin already said he’d deploy tactical nukes after G.W.Bush proposed the missile shield in Europe. I’m surprised we don’t have tactical nukes of our own given the systems many nations of the World seem hellbent on setting up. It’d be a real kick in the head if some small nation – not otherwise known to be aggressive – set off HEMP’s over sites and took over a large swath of the World.

  • pitbullstew

    as though tactical nuclear weapons have not been in the inventory of the nuke club already?

  • coindawg666

    screw em… pull the neutron bomb back off the shelf….drop a couple of those on Beijing, and a week later U.S. troops walk through and claim China as our 51st state

  • fermiuno

    It’s been thought of, developed, and available. Just not publicized.
    “US readies limited nuke arms”—think that would draw some comments?
    And if not “thought of”, the entire military command should be fired.

  • timber

    The US has had tactical nuclear weapons for years, dating back to the late ’60s in Europe.

    • ycplum

      I always found concept of the nuclear mortar amusing.
      If we can only produce a nuclear grenade launcher a la “Starship Trooper”.

  • Hewhoknows

    The policy of MAD worked in the Cold War and we just need to teach the new players the rules of the game—you nuke-you die……simple as that……the Russians have understood that since 1948…..

    • DrAtomic

      MAD/nuclear deterrence may have worked (it’s impossible to prove the cause of a non-event). But that doesn’t mean it was logical or risk-free. Recent revelations about Soviet paranoia leading to serious misinterpretations of a high-level 1983 NATO nuclear exercise demonstrate how close we came to inadvertently triggering the very war we sought to prevent – http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/the-ussr-and-us-came-closer-to-nuclear-war-than-we-thought/276290/. And there are other examples too.

      As for teaching the “new players,” the United States and the Soviet Union had the “luxury” of being separated by oceans. In the early years, bombers would have needed eight hours or more to reach their targets, plenty of time to spot an attack and weigh the options. Once ICBMs were deployed in the early 1960s, flight times shrank to 30 minutes and warning time diminished to as little as 15 minutes. Today’s potential adversaries (India-Pakistan, India-China, North Korea-South Korea, North Korea-Japan) have no such luxuries. In most cases, the first warning they will have of a nuclear attack is a weapon exploding on or above their territory. That reality, in turn, encourages the adoption of a launch-on-warning posture or even preemptive attacks–both of which place a premium on getting the intelligence about what your adversary is doing or planning to do absolutely right–making the possession of nuclear weapons by geographical neighbors even more dangerous than the already dangerous policies adopted by the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

  • Jim Levitt


  • SS BdM Fuhress ‘Savannah

    I don’t think we will play that game. Somebody limits a Nuke on us will be too many casualties and we will respond with annihilation. The U.S. isn’t much on 1 for 1 or 1 for 10, a 100 or a 1,000. Our gov needs to make sure that is explained to all the World.

    • Trebor

      MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY. never engage in a gun fight with a knife.

      • ozzie

        its so sad people should just try to get along with each other

    • ohmaddogu

      what is it all good to let off 100, 1000 nukes overseas??? just because they are set off there does not mean we will not get hurt by it. nuclear winter to start, and radiation will spread across in entire world.
      any nuke that is shoot from the US will take roughly 30 minutes to get to it target(russia) do you think they would not fire back??
      Russia almost wiped us out back in 1982 and our goverment had no idea. by the time the US knew, it would have been to late.

      • tholzel

        “… nuclear winter to start…”
        Maybe that’s how to stop global warming!!

      • SS BdM Fuhress ‘Savannah

        You think Russia could also have taken out all the nuke armed subs sitting all over the ocean? The real threat in my view is when the elite of this country think someone is going to take away one of their ‘fork and spoon’ collections. They will hold on to those til the very end using whatever they have under their control and not give a dam about nothing else but not losing the fork and spoon. I’ve dealt with the low end of that breed of American I could only imagine the horror of the top end.

  • Kelly

    Maximum cool. I’d like to see video of the first low-yield attacks by, say, North Korea on SK or China on Russia etc., etc. I read a few years ago that the U.S. military had created a bomb that had the yield of a nuclear weapon but no fallout because it was conventional explosives not plutonium. Let the games begin!

    • gmack

      Our Military has Weapons we can’t even Imagine , and they can Fight any War sitting at their Computers and using a Joy Stick , and they will not wait for the Muslim in Chief to give the orders , not when their own Families are in Danger .

      • d135

        hate is our worst enemy and you fit the bill exactly!

  • UR2

    I don’t understand “Limited Nuclear War”. Sounds like something a lawyer would come up with. Is it Nuclear War or Not? Are nuclear weapons being used? Sounds like ” Your honary, my client didn’t mean to kill the deceased, just scare him, so my client shouldn’t go to jail.”
    Just what the world needs, more nuclear weapons, but limited. The way I see it, “War is War”. It’s not like playing a game and yelling, Retake! Where would it stop? “Oh, that limited blast, didn’t do enough damage. Let send a bigger one.” Like I said, “War is War” and Nuclear war is no differant. I hope like hell that if somebody is stupid enough to play the Limited Nuclear War game, our President, Congress and our Military will not want to play the same game, but stop it in it’s tracks with an ‘Unlimited Retaliation.” It’s time to stop changing the rules, either get rid of all Nuclear weapons, or you decide. What is next, Smart Nuclear Weapons? Their radiation will stop one mile from the blast. Yeah right!

  • theverynamestaken

    I’m more worried about the people and items other countries have already snuck through our border. Same goes with our shipping containers. If there is ever an attack on Iran, I am immediately leaving the city.

    • gmack

      You are right there are already terrorist training camps in this country , and who really knows what weapons have been smuggled across our Open Boarders and Ports the last 10 to 20 years ..remember Obama had removed all references to Islam in all F.B.I. , D.H.S., C.I.A.Training Manuals . He is setting us up for the Caliphate that has been going on for centuries and now it is here .it is not the Nukes I worry about . Muslims have infiltrated every aspect of this country from Government to Business to everything , they are just waiting for the right time and orders from Allah !

      • Joe

        sleeper cells are everywhere. do not doubt that.

      • Merle Dickey

        And opening up the borders will make it even easier for them to get here.

    • Alex Matamoros

      I find it hard to believe that America is not ready for any such attack. But then again I never thought that America would hide the murder of four Americans killed by terrorists.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Justt-Saay-Noww/100002139228978 Justt Saay Noww

    Only the mentally challenged would think nuclear war is feasible.

  • MOPR

    Couldn’t we just play a nice game of chess instead?

  • gmack

    Little O.keeps making us weaker and weaker , our military will all be carrying Flowers very soon …

  • Valid EmailAddress

    We need to be the ones to stop it before it happens. Nuke most of the middle east and every and any middle east terrorist stronghold or ally of such, FIRST. Get rid of them before they can do anything to us. PROBLEM SOLVED.

  • twistoff

    Pure entertainment news.
    What we actually have (and are prepared for) will not see daylight for several years. What this cutting edge website is feeding us is decade-old technology.
    BTW, what we get for news is far from the truth.
    And what will actually happen will be a surprise (WTC), And a cover-up after word (WT…) And possibly from within our own government (W…)
    Peace, out

    • theverynamestaken

      follow the money to who controls the world.

  • Guest

    “Limited” NUCLEAR war? I liked Carl Sagan’s analogy. Consider that you are in a sealed room awash with gasoline. On the opposite side of the room is your enemy. He has a match, you have a box of matches. Who is the most powerful?

    Any nuclear strike will be met by a strike of larger kilo-tonnage, which will be met by, etc., etc. But how do you stop in? As in Sagan’s example, once a match is lit, how do you put it out?

    Yes, the Unites States has the dubious distinction of having been the only nation in human history to use nuclear weapons on an enemy, on August 6th and 9th, 1945 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in order to end World War II. Was it the right decision? Various factions will debate the action for centuries to come. The one thing that these bombs did do, was to show the world what can happen to a population when such weapons are used. That thought has kept the major players in this end game for humanity from repeating our actions in Japan for nearly 70 years..

    But now we have players who either don’t know or don’t care about the past and are willing to destroy the world in their lust for world power. We must find a way to convince these factions that nuclear action should be the one action that we cannot take, under any circumstances. If we do not, eventually some despot will use nuclear weapons to begin,
    I once saw a program where they showed the interior wall of the house of the person being interviewed. On the wall were “the weapons of World War IV. They consisted of a primitive wooden shield and a pair of crude spears..

  • theverynamestaken

    just tip all our tech with paint and have a global paintball war.

  • ycplum

    Some, but not all, of his points are moot. The US has the capability to deliver destructive levels of damge equivalent to a low yield nuke conventionally.
    North Korea is not a good example. Simply mobilizing its entire military may economically break North Korea without firing a shot.
    If, on the other hand, you are talking about the US maintaining its ability to to project power without it escalating, that is a real problem.

  • Bob Shuttleworth

    “Limited” NUCLEAR war? I liked Carl Sagan’s analogy. Consider that you are in a sealed room awash with gasoline. On the opposite side of the room is your enemy. He has a match, you have a box of matches. Who is the most powerful?

    Any nuclear strike will be met by a strike of larger kilo-tonnage, which will be met by, etc., etc. But how do you stop in? As in Sagan’s example, once a match is lit, how do you put it out?

    Yes, the Unites States has the dubious distinction of having been the only nation in human history to use nuclear weapons on an enemy, on August 6th and 9th, 1945 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in order to end World War II. Was it the right decision? Various factions will debate the action for centuries to come. The one thing that these bombs did do, was to show the world what can happen to a population when such weapons are used. That thought has kept the major players in this end game for humanity from repeating our actions in Japan for nearly 70 years..

    But now we have players who either don’t know or don’t care about the past and are willing to destroy the world in their lust for world power. We must find a way to convince these factions that nuclear action should be the one action that we cannot take, under any circumstances. If we do not, eventually some despot will use nuclear weapons to begin a war rather than to end one.

    I once saw a program where they showed the interior wall of the house of the person being interviewed. On the wall were “the weapons of World War IV. They consisted of a primitive wooden shield and a pair of crude spears.

    • ace ventura

      Limited Nuclear War is redundant. Ever heard of Global Thermal Nuclear War or annihalation? If, on the off chance North Korea were to attck Japan, the Earth will come to an end, and probably within 5 years. North Korea is close friends with China, so then THEY get thier hands on the trigger. If China wanted to fight, thier targets would be Moscow, Kiev, Honolulu, Guam, and Midway. Then it is World War III, and the Final War

  • omnimax

    nuclear weapons ARE an end game strategy. Make no mistake-one side may shoot off some “limited” nuclear weapons. But if the other side doesn’t like it things will go all out in a heartbeat

    • Pseu_An

      Like a war without defense only offense?

  • Stephen Chock

    Interesting point of view. Nuclear weapons are “super-enhanced” bombs.

  • William Michelson

    It’s still all or nothing. Any nation that first uses them gets turned into a mirror. Any other policy is inviting nuclear weapons usage. If N. Korea were to use a nuclear weapon, within hours it should cease to be a nation. The same with Israel, Pakistan, India, or France. Use nukes and become toast. Mutually Assured Destruction works.

  • Pseu_An

    Does this mean we all should practice hiding under our desk once again?

  • bob40wil

    Quick everyone run and hide under your beds.

    • ace ventura

      Hiding will protect you? Not a chance!

  • thegreatpacwest

    A large EMP presented over the mainland of our country would have devastating effects. No power? How long do you think American’s could get along in this day and age with no power? A day? A week? In my opinion, it would be “mob rules” within a matter of days, if not mere hours? Imagine no heat, no light, no refrigerated foods, no open stores in which to shop for life’s necessities, regardless of finances. And then imagine (especially in the larger, urban areas) robbers, looters, etc., running the streets looking for–and taking–any and all things they deem necessary to their own particular survival, including you and yours.

    In a situation such as this, the richest men in America will be those with food, shelter, and weapons. Money, bank accounts, stocks and bonds, new cars and nice houses…worthless.

    • Brian

      100% Agree. Major cities will be destroyed by the people, not any weapon.

  • Kyle4318

    It may take a little, limited, war head to start a nuke war, but it takes a BIG one to end one. I would rather the enemy think if they send a firecracker; we will toss a stick of dynamite, than think we are going to respond with a similar firecracker. when we get
    an alert one over the VLF, we know how to proceed to hover depth, spin up gimbals,
    open hatches, explode exploding bolts, and create a pocket of steam to escort a
    missile to the surface, you never forget the two clicking sound and the
    bounce the boat takes, as a ICBM leaves the ship.

  • Wayne

    First thing to do? Get rid of this Liberal/Socialist administration and get the Hawks back in power again. We need to be superior militarily. Get our nuclear arsenal back up to what it used to be. We need the ability to strike fast and to strike hard and to strike with devastating effects regardless of what country launches their nukes at whom. That is the only deterrent this world will ever have.

    • dumbblonde

      youre ‘whats wrong with the world and all the brilliant minds of the past would agree

  • ChrisBFL

    I’m not really sure what the author of this piece is talking
    about? The US
    has had a pretty complete inventory of small tactical nuclear weapons. These
    are the W-54 at 1/10th of a kiloton and fired from a bazooka-like
    device (like the small nukes in “Starship Trooper.”), the W-48, a .75 kiloton
    nuke that can be fired from a 155 mm howitzer, and the W-33, a 5 KT tactical nuke.
    In addition we have had the GAR-11 air to air nuke with a 1.5 KT yield and the
    Genie air to air nuke with a 2 KT yield. The Sprint ABM carried a 3 KT enhanced
    radiation warhead, and so on. Even if these are no longer in production, they
    could be rapidly made and used in combat.
    As far as taking out Chinese missile bases without having to resort to
    the use of ICBMs, the answer would be orbital kinetic weapons, (Rods of God). A
    satellite would maneuver over an enemy installation and release hundreds of
    steel and copper rods (think flying crowbars) which would hit the target at
    10,000 MPH or more. The kinetic energy would obliterate the target without the
    use of explosives, either conventional or nuclear. As for stopping an EMP launch,
    we should never have cancelled the airborne laser. That defensive weapon is the best way to
    shoot down a missile before it can do any damage.

    • http://defense.aol.com/ Colin Clark

      This is more about limited use of nuclear weapons, as opposed to the classic Herman Kahn ladder of escalation. Countries that cannot match our strategic nuclear or conventional capabilities might use smaller nukes to gain an advantage.
      Colin Clark
      Breaking Defense

  • Steve B

    I can’t wait for this one to happen, I hope humans go extinct and only animals and fish are left. We are as a race disgusting.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Everett/1031257371 Jack Everett

      You should move to New Hampshire where suicide is legal and make the world a better place to live.

  • Judith

    Oh, come on! Don’t you think that if the media knows enough about this to report on it that the American government is way ahead of them?


    A limited Nuclear War? Is that like a Limited Default on the National Debt? Guess what? Neither are possible and will both lead to Armaggeddon!

  • teltech544

    So what. If they hit one of our carriers with a tactical nuke then we hit their country with a thermonuclear. They wipe out a carrier and 5000 men. We wipe out a country and a few million people. Seems fair.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Everett/1031257371 Jack Everett

      Especially if your at ground zero coward.

  • Bob

    YES!!!! we are fools if we don’t and will deserve everything that comes with a nuclear event. Someone needs to pull their heads out of their backsides…….

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Everett/1031257371 Jack Everett

      Wrong we don’t deserve it the war mongering leadership deserves it but that have all covered their ass like the new bomb shelter going in under the West lawn of the white house. Obama is nothing but another Bush with different skin color. Their is hope if the public would wake up and give all the career politicians and Washington insider their walking papers but instead the public will keep playing the roll of lemmings.

  • Pete

    you bring a knife i bring a gun and so it goes take out a city we take out a country

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Everett/1031257371 Jack Everett

      Another TV hero lol. You don’t have the brains to be allowed out in public.

  • Prophet ‘Ecology’ George

    “who needs nukes when the climate will do if for you.”

    “the cellphone will lead to the demise of humanity”

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Everett/1031257371 Jack Everett

      Another paid troll that lost his way to the Yahoo children’s page.

  • Phil Bittle Sr

    One way or another … we’ll kill ourselves. It’s just a matter of time … When we do, nature will have decided that it’s just “business” … we’re no longer worth the investment.

  • LTC Ret

    Watch the TV series “Jericho” on the internet and you will see what is realistic and possible. That is why the Feds had the program taken off the air.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Everett/1031257371 Jack Everett

      Try getting out for some sunshine instead of playing Hollywood suck up. You cowards are the problem with the world always trying to start another conspiracy theory.

  • Conssuckballs

    Interesting article, but to suggest that Amerika doesn’t have some type of tactical nuke capability is nothing but pure Tom Foolery. You can bet your collective asses, that the geeks who work for groups like DARPA, Lockheed’s skunk works and other offense contractor labs are cooking up some of the most devastating weapons known to man. Secondly, there’s no one on Earth that’s as ruthless, devious and as cunning as the Amerikan Anglo-Saxon.

    • Curtis James

      We love you too. Shame we would be saving you also. Ever thought of moving elsewhere?

      • Nabil Al-Murabit

        I don’t give a damn if you do or do not love me. I don’t need it. As for moving, I have a place in Auckland (if you’re sophisticated enough to know where that is) that I’ve been prepping just in case

  • borodino

    Hmm, A tactical nuke as the Neutron bomb was hypothetically designed to do (eliminate people but to leave most of infrastructure in place) could have beneficial effects for all humankind IF the target was apt….. figure it out a la Robert Heinlein’s future history scenario in, For Us The Living

  • Jorja1234

    In the movie 2016, it was presented that Obama has already cut our nuclear missle defense by 50%, and is continuing to cut. Maybe not so smart??

    • Alex Matamoros

      Well he is not a very smart man.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Everett/1031257371 Jack Everett

      Yes by all means you just keep listening to those Hollywood experts and you will have plenty to tremble over. You cowards are disgusting.

      • Jorja1234

        Wow – hilarious. Keep making up stupid comments to excuse spending someone else’s money. Loser.

    • DrAtomic

      Like many other unsupported assertions in that movie, this claim is dead wrong. One need only go to the Missile Defense Agency website to review the historical budgets for missile defense programs going back to the mid-1980s (http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/histfunds.pdf). There you will see that President Obama’s budget requests for missile defenses are comparable too (and in some cases higher than) President Bush’s.

    • Jorja1234
  • Alex Matamoros

    There are already terrorists living among us. They may be your next door neighbor, your gardener, the clerk at the convenience store, the young man or woman carrying out your groceries at the supermarket etc. Some of them have been living in Mexico and other South American countries learning their ways then sneaking into our country among the many illegal immigrants that come across our borders everyday. Do not be fooled by our government when it tells us that the war on terror is either over or at a standstill. They are here and just waiting for the time to be right for them to attack.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Everett/1031257371 Jack Everett

      Go back to your dark ages McCarthyism or just keep hiding in your closet.

  • lucky dowwg

    some day itll probably happen humans are stubborn and destined to ruin the earth entirely these bombs make hiroshema look small their 500 times more powerfull now imagine 5000 of them going back and forth i feel humans out to make a full agreement ALLLL nukes are banned and if war and tensions breack only conventional war fare is allowed and used for the sake of allll of us

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Everett/1031257371 Jack Everett

      No war is necessary except for the corporate war profiteers. Conventional wars kill as many as a few nukes it just takes longer. America has spread more radiation around the world than any other country. We poisoned the Middle East and Afghanistan with depleted uranium that causes severe birth effects and pollutes the ground for a thousand years.

    • Andrew Patton

      A small nuclear war can be much less destructive than a large conventional war, as both World Wars demonstrated. Having a few nukes around deters conventional warfare, too. It’s hard to get people to be willing to charge into an enemy that promises to vaporize them.

  • lucky dowwg

    war games have shown no one will win so why even f with it in the 1st place ????????now its juts a tool to keep everyone in check

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Everett/1031257371 Jack Everett

      It’s not even good for that any more.


    We can only hope that the President and his cabinet are listening. He appears willing to wait for a first attack before he move on anything. The middle east is a tinder box, with nukes on the way. Time to wake up America, the next Pearl Harbor will be nuclear.

  • David A. Neder

    When, not if. The die was cast at Hiroshima, Oppenheimer wept. Deep down inside we see the handwriting on the wall. There will someday, ” a war, to end all wars,” but the price we must pay to get rid-of-it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Everett/1031257371 Jack Everett

    No such thing as a limited nuclear war. That was only possible when the U.S. was the only country with nukes. Any ass hat that can think they can get away with using nukes in any form should not be in power including American war mongers.

  • jrp1947

    bottom ,line is you throw a gernade sized nuke at me and I am going to throw a battleship sized one at you. Forget the limited nuclear war crap. They use nukes then we eliminate them as a country and or population from the face of this earth. They start it then we will finish it. We have the ability to eliminate any country within seconds and make the rest wish they had not allowed some terrorist led regime to start a nuclear war.

    • Merle Dickey

      But would our President do that? Doubtful especially in a muslim country.

  • Disgusted With It All

    Well, I lived through the first Cold War as a terrified child, thanks to propaganda from both the US and the Soviet Union.

    I refuse to live as a terrified adult. I won’t live in terror anymore. If they’re going to kill me — oh well!

  • Cheyenne Ziegler

    Nuclear weapons are a terrible thing to have on our ONLY LIVABLE PLANET. Anyone who has studied the basics of radioactive decay understands the detrimental effects certain nuclear transformations have on living organisms. If you want to create a real weapon, create nanosystems that can be injected into the body. These nanosystems could be trained to access cell nuclei and inject restriction enzymes to destroy the DNA of the enemy. No DNA, no organism. This also helps defeat potential extraterrestrial threats as well as many other other applications.

    • Matman

      Ok…it’s time to stop watching the SciFi channel…..what makes you think we could outsmart extraterrestrial aliens with technology many factors greater than ours?……..

      • Cheyenne Ziegler

        Haha I don’t watch the sci-fi channel. I’m actually a bioengineering student. You use restriction enzymes every day in your pancreas. Bacteria use restriction enzymes as well. Also I have friends that work with nano engineering at Vanderbilt.

    • silvernotes

      ,,,,,just sit still while I give you a little something to relax you !!!!

  • itzfatcat

    It won’t be the last time stupid politicians won’t listen to our military and get/stay ready.

  • ace ventura

    We are ready for it! Remember the idiot in North Korea and his various threats against South Korea, Japan, The Phillipines, and the Aleutian Islands, AK.? We are still ready for that moron to do the wrong thing. We could annialate ALL of North Korea in a heartbeat. That kid just wants attention. Somehow, he needs to be assassinated.


    Is there anywhere
    else on the earth that war is as problematic as the Middle
    East? No. If it weren’t for these wars and squabbles the world would
    be a pretty peaceful place. Why don’t we just solve this one day. All it would
    take is one day and this crap would be over forever.

    The last time we used a bomb was Hiroshima’s “Little Boy” gravity
    bomb was about 12–15 kilo tons of TNT.
    Today’s entire Operation
    Castle nuclear test
    series are from 48,200 kilo tons of TNT.
    Arabia, all Arabia, you might want to review the pictures of Hiroshima and then think
    about how much bigger these things are today.
    Look at the pictures and just imagine. http://www.google.com/search?q=after+pics+hiroshima&hl=en&biw=893&bih=442&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=wXFTUOy-Osex0QH0ioHgBA&ved=0CB4QsAQ

    Yes what you did to our twin towers in New York city was bad, but just imagine what
    a power 4 thousand times stronger than these pictures will do to you.

  • Nessus

    There is a small detail that is omitted in this article. If Russia starts a limited nuclear war with the United States are they certain that we’re going to be nice guys and only shoot little nukes, not big ones. I do not buy into that psychology. It’s my human nature to avoid anymore nukes altogether, regardless how small they may be, and wipe the Ruskies out with everything I’ve got. LMAO
    Are terrorists going to play nice and only use smaller bombs? LMAO

  • Paul Guilfoil

    Almost as disturbing as the article itself are the comments below. People now blurt what was unthinkable to say before. I have seen war and the effects of war my entire life, from the ravages it inflicted on my father and my uncles, to the death of my brother, to the coarsening of my entire country. Let us please stop with the braggishness and tough guy talk while we are safely installed onto our couches with nothing at risk, no price to pay, and let us respect that our loose talk and silly attitudes subject men and women much better than we are to the hell of war. We owe them the courtesy of respecting at least what they are terrified of.

  • totffe@aol.com

    Do not think for a moment that the US is unprepared for engagements that involve small, tactical, theater nukes. We had thousands of them in Germany during the Cold War, with well thought out response scenarios if their use became necessary. We still have them, in more modern configurations, and we war game them constantly in anticipation of an enemy attack with their own weapons. One of our weak points is that our nukes are tightly controlled, and release of them must come from the CIC. That is a scary thought. But, there will most probably be an event horizon that we can prepare for as various tensions mount. Israel will not hesitate to use theirs, if threatened, and you can almost count on that happening, and soon.

  • mwood13

    the only sucessful defence is the strongest offense you can come up with

  • GATOR007

    To build new weapons that are NOT protected from an EMP attack is foolish and a waste of money, PERIOD! We are basically giving the enemy a play book on how to defeat us! Makes NO sense at all. What is wrong with the brains in the Pentagon?

  • Al Shumate

    That Genie came out of the bottle at the close of World War II. Chemical Weapons have been rearing its head in recent times. What I have often found interesting is that every time the United States had an accident with a Nuclear Weapon, it made worldwide headlines and every time the Soviet Union had an accident it was oh hum. The question has always been what will trigger an exchange and at what point will it stop and will others be drawn into an exchange. As for Japan, they started the dog fight and they had the opportunity to stop but they choose not to stop. This was a case of saving lives. Will Nuclear Exchanges in the future save lives of cause more death?

  • xzarterius

    I’m more worried about chemical or biological weapons that don’t cost much and can be transported almost anywhere unseen. Any country or person for that matter can release this and cause massive destruction.

  • Don

    If anyone here believes that the US has not built and stored a batch of Tac-Nukes, I have some prime swamp land to sell them in FL. We have been exploring and developing Tac-Nukes since the 70’s and playing around with Neutron bombs too. I think we are as well or better prepared to handle the Tac-Nuke senario as any country on the planet.

  • cat

    China won’t need to drop any sort of bomb–China is buying up USA’s debt so technically they nearly own our asses.

  • bannabunchesjesus

    Interesting. In the Book of Ezekiel in the Bible, it describes a war to come where me are once again fighting with horses and swords. Always wondered how that could be in our day of advanced weapons. Now it makes sense. An EMP could make these weapons unusable and we’d be back to fighting in the old ways.

    • Matman

      An EMP would not disable firearms such as guns….gunpowder will still be usable…..

  • George

    The shift in our military can only occur if the 51% liberals quit crying about the size of our military and realize we must be capable of responding to multiple missions and the use of the small nuclear weapons is a big one.
    As for the comment that the muslim king would just send Kerry as a response to a small nuke on our country might be hard to do since with any luck, if it should ever happen, it would be targeted on D.C. Then neither would be important and hopefully we would have someone in the chain of command who would response in like with a larger one.

  • ElRoz

    Its, sad that when VERY OLD news pops up, many people take it for recent, new information. Wake up! Small nuclear warheads, small enough to be shot out of an artillery piece have been around since 1970s in USA and USSR. So let’s not make crap up and mislead the gullible and misinformed American audience. 1. USA and USSR have had these for over 30 years. 2. Russian conventional forces are not feeble – as has been the case for the last 500 years, they enough to cause severe casualties and losses on the ground, sea, and air to any aggressor foolish enough to contemplate it, plus over the last years, the number of war games and other training has dramatically increased. 3. USA has been the most wanton tester of various nuclear warheads since the 1950s, conducting more tests than the rest of the world. 4. Russia has developed conventional powerful thermobaric warheads that are not nuclear but are very powerful. 5. USA need not worry about its land being attacked by very short range missile – only if it uses its armed forces for aggression should it be concerned. So just don’t meddle in areas and stay out, like you did in 2008 Georgia. 6. Russian security is not threatened by China, and Russia has no plans to use nuclear weapons on China. The two countries have a developing strategic relationship on a wide range of issues – energy, security, anti-terrorism, deterring America ambitions and meddling.

    • DrAtomic

      Actually, US tactical nuclear weapons have been deployed in Europe since 1954, not “since 1970s.” See my earlier comment above for more details.

  • Joe

    One of the issues alluded to in the article is that many countries do not take the US threat of nuclear weapons seriously. There was a point when that could have been corrected. Bush should have ordered one small nuclear ground detonation at Tora Bora when bin Laden was there. The collateral damage would have been minimal, since it was in an isolated area, but the message to would-be-agressors out there would have been unmistakeable and bin Laden would have been dead already.

    One thing not mentioned in the article is just how damaging a high altitude air burst can be to civilians. If two were detonated over the US, one in the east, and one in the west, then the economy would immediately collapse and people in the cities would run out of food within days. Nothing that depends on ordinary microchips would work: Computers, cash registers, phones, locomotives, modern automobiles, power plants, radios, gas pumps, ATMs, etc. Ironically, horses, buggies, slide rules, and antique steam engines would work just fine. People make jokes about zombie apocalypse, but what would city people do to each other without electricity, food, or water, which could not be restored for years? We are only 90 minutes away from it, if some capable country decided to make it happen.





  • Firemac

    If anyone and I mean anyone ever strikes at us with any type of nuclear device, then i hope this country has the fortitude to unleash our strength with haste and no remorse.





  • fenwick209

    I wouldn’t worry about a “limited” or tactical nuclear attack. If we or any of our allies are
    victims of such an attack, our response should be the “armageddon” full scale response. Turn the aggressors into a mud puddle.

  • bigdaddy52

    lets think of ways to get along better instead of better ways to kill each other, man what is wrong with the human race. you want to kill everyone in a foreign land, well I can assure you that there are tons of innocent people there just like you who don’t want to be incinerated in a milla second just because of the power hungry leaders. why is it always kill kill kill.

    • silvernotes

      ,,,,,,in fact most of the people, including me. But these same people put their trust in their government to protect them. It is the crazy nut cases forcing their ideology on other people….a very small minority, but nevertheless dangerous.

  • Rick

    China is smart enough to know that it has too much invested in the U.S. and would collapse economically if it blew up their biggest trading partner. Iran is run by the most dangerous kind of extreme fanatical religious idealogs who value death more than life. If Iran launches a “tactical” nuke on Israel or U.S., we should use the 450 KT on Tehran. That would be that. North Korea? Boom! Make Kim Jong very IL!

  • Cdelairre

    For a nuclear weapon to be a deterrent to war, there can be no thought of surviveability. Once it becomes a matter of acceptable vs unacceptable losses within a given theater of operations, its eventual use is almost certain. This is particularly true for lower yielding weapons. Unless we want to participate in yet another arms race, our position must be unequivocal: if you use nuclear weapons against us in any form, (except depleted uranium projectiles), the consequences will be total annihilation. Annihilation may not be from our nuclear weapons, or it might. But saying this is one thing, having the conviction to actually “place the codes” with the knowledge you are about to toast millions who have nothing to do with politics, is another matter altogether.

    The notion of a “measured counterstrike” in a nuclear theater is unimaginable. Welcome to a new era of instability.

    • silvernotes

      It is imaginable! We’ve had battlefield nukes for a long time for use over in Europe against a USSR invasion. I am sure they are still around…somewhere.

  • Cyman Smith

    Dumb article, if in fact we can’t go limited (not) that in itself is as big a deterrent. A valiant attempt at some striking journalism, but it just didn’t pan out.

    • http://defense.aol.com/ Colin Clark

      A classic case of blaming the messenger. These are the views of one of America’s most respected grand strategists.
      Colin Clark

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-Carter/1265694905 Bruce Carter

    Just nuke Iran and N. Korea before they can nuke us or Israel.

  • ahorvath

    Obama wants to reduce the US nuclear stockpile?

  • Edward Campbell

    Has anyone seen the movie War Games ? IF Hollywood can figure out where tactical nukes lead too I hope Russia, Pakistan our defense dept. or any other organization with tactical nukes can figure it out. THE END!

  • Phelps

    LOL… right after 911 President Bush order our military industrial complex to start the development of these low-yield tactical nukes to use against those countries who would harbor terrorists that would use any kind of dirty/nuke weapon on us or our allies! And that’s been well over a decade ago… this want-ta-be think-tanker fantasizer is just wanting so attention… go watch some porn goober!

  • bobofett

    if were not ready by now then we better just give up .

  • dirty

    Have you every played in a Global Guardian exercise? Need I say more.

  • Desiree Beyer Green

    Have U ever thought when a hearse goes by, U may B the next to die. Maybe we as a race have been here before. We reach this point and then Its over, and the bible is a piece of history like all others’ “religions around the world”. The tower of babble and the space station, are we not challenging God in this time ? Are we not speaking world wide using translator ? What is being done with stem cell research are we not using the frame work of pig organs replace the pig cells with our own; for transplant. DNA we can make our own custom humans turning of the ” grow old ” switch “. have U looked at the pictures from Deep Water Horizon “Blood of the lamb” “And all the worlds eyes were on the dragon” We have been here for thousands, although the world has existed for millions. The flood is recorded in several different texts from around the world. one last thing I believe mermaids are real…

    • Tony

      Watch the ending to Assassin’s Creed 3 on Youtube. It shares some of your views. I know it is a game, but they put a lot of research into making it a good experience.

      However, about the tac. nukes. You guys have just released this to everyone. If a terrorist, or someone who gets kicks off of things like this finds the article. Who knows what might happen.

  • Tony

    If there is a Nuclear War that breaks out. I hope that what is left of humanity afterwords is willing and able to pick up the pieces. Nation-building can only go so far. Human and knowledge building is infinite.

  • Leon Engelun

    The taliban and al-Qaeda want this big time.

  • Jerry

    This message is aimed at whatever IDIOT(s) wrote this article. YOU MR. BERG, aka STUPID A$$. If you are American in any way, shape or form, why on earth would you print anything saying that America isn’t yet ready for such an attack?? I guess the almighty dollar (shekel) that you are paid for writing such garbage is worth more than your or the American citizens safety. Thanks STUPID!!!!

  • Snaproll

    I notice the scenarios mentioned all involve another country using tactical nukes as a defensive weapon. In short, if we don’t start a war no problem. The problem is though, going by our actions since WW-ll, sooner or later we probably will.

  • joepapierzjr

    A lot of the comments make me think that too many people watch SciFi movies all day long and late into the night.

  • Jake321

    It may just be me, but I don’t think the article is really about what
    the article on its face is about. It isn’t by chance that the country that
    might be closest to having the “need” to use these types of weapons isn’t
    mentioned. Just think of Israel’s possible “need” to take out the Iranian
    nuclear facilities without the US using those monster conventional bombs. Just
    think of Israel having to possibly not risk its air force while having to deal
    with Syria and Hezbollah at the same time as Iran. Just think if Iran could
    function on a level to continue weapons grade nuclear fuel production when
    faced with an occasional non-lethal EMP attack. Just think what the Mullahs
    might now have to think of as they get closer to Israel’s Red Line. Whether
    there’s any reality to this article, it is a clear warning to Iran, I think.

  • ChicagoMike

    I got some dark humor out of the HEMP anagram .. and I was immediately reminded of Robert Heinlein’s ‘SOLUTION UNACCEPTABLE’ (?), where a radioactive ‘dust’, a byproduct of atomic research is discovered to have devastating effects. And, then, someone assumes that demonstrating the weapon will frighten America’s enemies into not attacking. Doesn’t work. That has NEVER worked. I wonder if the don’t-spend-any-money Tea Partiers will be willing to get off a dime to harden US vitals against a HEMP..

  • James T. Kirk

    Tactical nukes are old news…

  • nauticalman

    MY PREDICTION is that they will launch a small nuke on their own city, then blame it on the U.S., citing reason to launch the real mccoy on the U.S. The U.S. will deny it of course, but… or wait… Maybe the U.S. will use this tactic??? -I wouldn’t put it past our government to do so.

  • leon

    The rest of the world knows that the US is weak and getting weaker day by day with the inept administration that we now have .Any day now we will be hit with a dirty bomb thanks to our black president ..

  • radsenior

    Limited Nuclear?

  • Artemus

    We have to focus on making our military EMP proof and develope these low yeild bombs ourselves. Then use them to our advantage in future regime changeing military actions. We need to continue showing the rest of the world “Anything You Can Do, WE CAN DO BETTER!” Yes thats pride cause I am proud of my country and millitary. That said, we can’t use a large bomb in response to the small ones unless we are all prepared to die in the fallout. Cause once we launch our large bombs, they and their allies will launch back resulting in an earth that is uninhabitable. So we have to beat them at their own game. I hope we don’t wait till it’s too late. Can anyone say, Revolution (tv show) with the addition of foreign countries invadeing like RED Dawn.

  • treadlegal

    My father was the base commander at Offutt AFB during the Cuban missile crisis. Our family lived about an eighth of a mile from the main runway. If you could have seen the terror of realization in the eyes of officers, descending into the SAC Underground Headquarters, leaving their families alone to face an impending nuclear strike, and, if you’ve bothered to read any of the books by the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would understand that there is no conceivable justification for any type of nuclear engagement. Time goes by, and we forget the horror, we forget the sound of the “click, click, click” made by the exposed shin bones of the Japanese running mindlessly through the streets, all of the muscle, skin, and tendons burned away in an instant, as they tapped against the paving stones. I went on to become an Army officer, and for many years was responsible for transporting the tactical nuclear artillery shells and Pershing II missiles. If you think that there could be any excuse to initiate or respond with a nuclear weapon, you’re a fool. I know all about enhanced radiation weapons and EMP. When we developed nuclear weapons, we put on the ring of power instead of destroying it. This is one area, where we must remember the past.

    • http://defense.aol.com/ Colin Clark


      Let’s hope our competitors are as compassionate and rational as you are.
      Thank you for such a well-written and illuminating comment.

      Colin Clark
      Breaking Defense

  • AB101

    You can talk this sort of thing to death and your enemy will laugh at you. The only thing Russia, China, Iran, North Korea respect is strength and the knowledge that if you do screw with us we will pop a boomer right in your bed. The only recourse the US would have is use what you got. Vaporize the country that uses a tactical nuclear weapon against the USA. They would be the one that let the Genie out of the bottle. You may have to use more than one but they would get the message and so would all other countries with such a thought.. Screw with us by using any nuclear weapon and you die. Live with us as a friend and neighbor and we will respect you as such and we all can be at peace. And No, a large nuclear explosion will not bring the world to an end and make it unlivable for a thousand years as the Libs would like you to believe.

  • masmanz

    US not only invented the bomb it is the the only country that used it. The purpose of all this noise is just to get more funding. Will China or even Russia ever dare to attack us? Even North Korea won’t do anything unless we attack them first.

    • Bruce_in_San_Jose

      Truly those countries believe in survival. Where “mutually assured destruction’ actually staves off nuke war. But, as the Muslim world comes into possession of nukes, their leaders say time and again that the only way for the 12th Emom to return to the world in global annihilation of all of Allah’s enemies. In the process they, devout Muslims, will all ascend into heaven. The welcome death in the name of their god.

      • masmanz

        No Muslim leader has said any such thing. Only some Christian cults believe in apocalypse and rapture. However, the good news is that the chances of the Tea Party coming to power is quite slim.

  • Artemus

    We have to focus on making our military EMP proof and develope these low yeild bombs ourselves. Then use them to our advantage in future regime changeing military actions. We need to continue showing the rest of the world “Anything You Can Do, WE CAN DO BETTER!” Yes thats pride cause I am proud of my country and millitary. That said, we can’t use a large bomb in response to the small ones unless we are all prepared to die in the fallout. Cause once we launch our large bombs, they and their allies will launch back resulting in an earth that is uninhabitable. So we have to beat them at their own game. I hope we don’t wait till it’s too late. Can anyone say, Rev*luti*n (tv show) with the addition of foreign countries invadeing like R*D D*WN.

  • Steve Brooks

    We have to make it VERY clear that there is no such thing as “limited nuclear attack” that we will consider ANY use of nuclear weapons as justification for thermonuclear retaliation.

    • Bruce_in_San_Jose

      Much less than likely that we would respond in any way with force of any kind, under the Obama administration.

  • D Brown

    Ike should have left Patton alone and we wouldn’t be having this problem, he wanted to kick the Russians butt back in the 40’s ! I know Obama is to chicken to do anything !

  • Cory Thompson

    “Outside the US, both established and emerging nuclear powers
    increasingly see nuclear weapons as weapons that can be used in a
    controlled, limited, and strategically useful fashion.”

    Let ’em. Then we’ll wipe them off the face of the planet. So, they may be seeing wrong.

    • Bruce_in_San_Jose

      Under this administration, I have serious doubts that we would respond in any way…particularly if the attack originated from a Muslim country.

      • Cory Thompson

        Actually, sadly, I have to agree with you. This is what I say we’d do living in an ideal world with a president who actually has some backbone. Under this administration, they’d likely apologize because we didn’t all stand in one spot to make for an easier target.

  • dead man walking

    Obama will save up if we only become muslum

  • bah002

    This is definitely one of the stupidest stories out there! lets all get scared of a nuclear attack! PLEASE this was done to death in the 50’s duck and cover! If the idiots in charge and that includes that pin head in North Korea, do not realize to do something that would kill them ALSO, then why worry, because once it starts, it’s back to caves and rock throwing.

    • Bruce_in_San_Jose

      Well, there is a group that believes that the destruction of the earth is the only way to win salvation and receive their promise of 72 virgins.

  • coolsteam

    If a country uses a nuke in armed conflict between us and them, we have two options: use large conventional forces to win the war (which is possible), thereby showing the world that we don’t need nukes to win a war. The other option is to go in big and lay waste to the entire country. The first option leaves the door open for someone to try us…the second option informs the world that they try us at their own risk. While I prefer the first option, the proliferation of nukes has made that a risky strategy. I therefore support the MAD position of letting the world know there is no acceptable use of nukes, large or small will result in a major retaliation from the US…and if they want to destroy the world by getting involved in our retaliation on a country they feel is an ally, then go for it. The reality is that support for a rogue country that uses nukes against us will evaporate once they see we are not bluffing…and no other country will ever call our bluff again. If we open the door to allowing countries to use nukes against us so we can show how good our conventional weapons are, we will be repeating a mistake made by President Carter when he did not invade Iran in retaliation for taking over the US embassy (US soil). Up until that time, nobody had dared take over a US embassy because it was considered an act of war…when Carter called off our response, he was told it would result in a domino effect…which it did. Let’s not make the same mistake with nukes.

  • jericho1234

    it’s naive to think that we’re the only country that has the technological capability and advantage over everybody else. we don’t have a monopoly on the best and the brightest and not a lot of intellectuals from other countries can actually be bought like most of us would like to think. as the old saying goes, beware, never ever underestimate your enemy.

  • qcubed

    Seriously? What conservative thought up this brilliant idea?

  • qcubed

    Anyone remember Dark Angel? Perhaps you need to go rewatch the series and realize that they didn’t even TOUCH the economic impact of even ONE city being blacked out.

  • Bruce_in_San_Jose

    With the recent reports of the deterioration of our nuclear war heads, it is not likely that we could respond whether large or small. Nukes aren’t forever. They require maintenance. The maintenance team, the guys with the know-how that traveled round the world doing the upkeep, was disbanded under Bush. It may be that by now we no longer have any nukes that will go boom, whether tactical or strategic.

  • qcubed

    So many hotheads here willing to end civilization just to prove how macho they are.

  • jo funk

    is this a wake up call or what. We are so cozy in our usa Shiite happens I agree the whole world does not think like Americans We need well schooled men and women to get out there and see what the world is thinking on many intensely varied levels is this off the subject point their are many ways to refine our warfare tactics for all I know we are already in the minds of so many foreign peoples yet with our modern face are we really that impressive

  • t

    US already in nuclear War! Do the asleep ever look at the toxic cocktail we call food? Approved by our Oh So Great FDA, big agri and the rest of the “don’t let the door hit you in the butt as it revolves?” All of you will be so lucky to be living to see a nuke drop. Our own government will kill us all with their poison pesticides they approve as food LONG before the first bomb drops. And don’t forget to become a PATIENT for life with the same kill the masses our medical has become. They are counting on it!

    Wake up! Getting nuked every time you pull into that fast food lane every, time you submit to their needless prescriptions, vaccinations for everything and expensive, un-needed medical test. And still not getting it! Go hide in your bomb shelters and die of heart disease, diabetes, and all the rest that weren’t common 50 years ago. Rely on those “Keep me sane” drugs”, “Help me sleep drugs” and “drug my child to death for being a chlid” drugs. Eat the garbage then scratch your head and say “WTF?” You are being the American they hope you will be. The perfect LAB RAT! Can we say BAA?

  • City Sharkk

    This is a ridiculous war mongering post, the great nations have no reason to go to war..China and Russia need to give Japan the stupid islands what are a few small atolls when you have two of the largest countries in the world and Japan is smaller then California.With that said the great nations are so co dependent on each other war between them is all but impossible.iran and north korea are a seperate problem but even they wouldnt use nuclear weapons because everyone knows if the US gets nuked it the end of the world

  • grainofsand

    Maybe I’m a dreamer but why does human kind have to waste money on WMD and killing rather than giving and helping each other is much more advanced as a civilization, I believe as a species evolves the rule of society is to seek happiness and the better of humankind as a whole. Just think for ONE minute if we could learn to TRUST each other as humans. Are we that primitive knowing what primitive means.. I feel blessed to be a free American but I know there is a supreme being and that we are equipped to make this earth a better place to live and not destroy it. Who said we own this wonderful earth. This earth, mother nature, disease, viruses, ,is not fully understood and we have fellow humans dying of starvation yet we elect to direct our resources of ways to kill sounds ignorant. Humankind must be smarter than this.
    They don’t call them the seven deadly sins for nothing


    The best use for nukes is limited strikes in areas with large populations of anti-american, enviro-whacko, constitution hating liberals.

  • Mike China

    The US can easily destroy any country including China. Destroying China won’t be cost free.I believe any US use of nw to attack China would invite Chinese retaliation.
    The days when the US can park its carriers in the Taiwan Straits and are sanctauaries are over.Any war with China wont be a replay of desert storm with minimal US casualties. It would be a replay of the Vietnam war many times over.

  • z

    no that couldn’t happen. I mean Obama said that the terrorist are gone and we have no enemies and russia and china love us and muslims are peaceful and would never hurt us. No we have a muslim commie pig in the white house giving away state secrets, murdering americans, selling guns and tanks and funding terrorist and drug cartels. Oh but nothing is going to happen we are safe

  • jo funk

    many comments think like dicks bigger better others historically thinking in the golden age of atomic war a bombs were used to kill people now we have wmd to end technological savey. realistically psychological warfare and using scalpel weaponry is our best bet not bigger better we must out think our enemies and use our most modern tech to nullify their frontal offence not a joke not a scare tactic from the 50s but a rare situation that must be well thought out for survival of us and them. PEACE!!LOVE!!

  • TheHighForester

    This is not a new concept. In the 1960s the US was faced with the possibility of a massive conventional attack by the Soviet Union across Central Europe and lacked the conventional forces to deal with such an event. The US therefore developed “tactical nuclear weapons” to be used to stop large Soviet tank formations and defend Western Europe. The best known of these was the “Davy Crockett,” which was called an “atomic mortar” and fired ordinance capable of producing explosions in the 50-100 kiloton range. Later, US doctrine changed and the Davy Crockett was abandoned. In 1964 I pulled guard duty at a facility near Gabligen, Germany where ammunition for this weapon was stored.

    What goes around comes around.

  • armourglass

    Nukes enable less populace nations defeat more populace nations.

  • earthtalk

    For every action there is a reaction. When the republican Bush/Cheney necons created conditons for war in Iraq it was a game changer…America lost the respect of most of the world and became the aggressor rather than protector. There is a religious civil war going on in the middle east. There is paranoia and fear taking place in N. Korea and within our military industrial complex, already this complex is the largest and most expensive in the world by a factor of 8 X money wise. Now they are saying they need to add, not cut back as our country borders on bankruptcy. Wall Street likes to carry a big stick to protect its greed. Over population and lack of jobs creates a sense of low worth and young people then become east targets for radical religious thinking. You will never have peace in the world when you allow the top 1% to buy governments and steer policies designed to create wealth for that 1%. The 99% will eventually rise up in varying degrees to stomp on you which then creates even more fears that we need even more military weapons. Humanity is still evolving and has a choice. War or peace. Greed or common sense.
    Americans used to have bomb shelters, but few do now. If war mongering imperialists continue to have there way we just may need them. Every empire collapses from greed.

  • Robert Benner

    Seems our world is losing any sense of right and wrong. If this is possible, all should be put aside until the threat is removed. Or are we just looking at ” news hype”. On another page of huffpost, I think, it shows a muslim woman in official garb and the caption reads American woman killed in syria? Is the only thing required now days to be an American a “photo ID”? Why not make all enemies of the US citizens? No wonder kids these days are more confused than ever. By the way, this is a commentary,so keep all your return e-mails that I am not allowed to reply to at home.

  • Winner!!!!!!

    ..the person that invented the ‘Bomb’ should have been strung up by his balls..he was so far off the real purpose of Life it’s just unimaginable…NO ONE WINS!! all Bombs should be deactivated WORLD WIDE!!

    • silvernotes

      Yeah right. I don’t give up my bombs until everyone else does….and that is not going to happen.

  • Tdow

    I do not believe or agree with the author’s assertions.

  • PETE287


    • http://defense.aol.com/ Colin Clark

      If the nuke is not used on US soil but against forward deployed US forces or against our satellites, what then??
      Colin Clark
      Breaking Defense

  • Mike

    If China or anyone else launches missels from there mainland then there mainland gets struck there should be no if’s and’s or but’s about it. It should be clear…

  • Rich

    This is partially bullshit, the United States had small yield artillery launched nuclear weapons in Vietnam. That’s right folks we had the capability to blast those little bastards right out of their tunnels and didn’t use it… on moral grounds.

  • Snakeone

    The human race is a failure. I say push the button, and we can start over in 200 years.

  • Monica Adams

    So, who’s going to tell the President about this??? Hello! Lights are on but no one is home!

  • Indian Citizen

    US is having stockpile of Nukes…so they should stop blaming others…they only used Nukes and killed millions of people of Japan…US people are not humans at all!!!

    • cs

      It was the right move at the time. I wasnt alive then but it saved Millions of lives. Both American and Japanese. Get over it dude. Today’s Nukes would kill millions upon millions more then them used on Japan. Plus, there isnt a need to use them today so far. I mean is the world in another global war? NO

      • masmanz

        It is sad to see that people still try to justify the horrible act.

  • John

    Any nation fool hardy enough to detonate a nuke on or near US soil ought to be aware we will annihilate them and turn them into a glow-in-the-desert. Should the white house hesitate in doing so under such circumstances they are guilty of high treason against the American people. We have avoided nuclear war by maintaining this stance. It IS an all or nothing scenario. Any nation that would use one small nuke against us, must be assumed to intend to destroy us utterly and the only way to prevent that is to utterly destroy them first. Mutual annihilation is what kept us from going to nuclear war for the last half century, it is the only thing to keep us from going there now. These little nations who think they can just play with their new toys ought to think twice about this. Our leaders are remiss in their duties by not annihilating those of our enemies who are currently building nukes. Iran and N Korea for example should have both been turned into glow-in-the-dark deserts years ago.

  • Indian Citizen

    Who is this US always entering in other country affairs while having their own problems with their citizens…their own Psycho people killing their own species…that is how God decided to punish US

  • Steve R

    The most consistent thing is that most people just want to live, work, raise families and live in peace. Nothing is “fair” and disputes to land & rule are endless, let’s just decide that borders are borders, it is what it is and uniformly make war illegal. We are all ONE people and war is pointless. As powerful as we are I’m sick of seeing our boys (and girls) coming home in boxes and in the end it’s always about money, oil, politics. Enough already, time to evolve to the next level…we’ve come so far and accomplished so many wonderful things; can we PLEASE move past weapons, killing and all this non-productive wasteful craziness. I mean, Semper Fi and all that macho crap but it just doesn’t end well….time to take another path. Let us be so powerful that we realize it’s not the answer, ever.

    • Andrew Patton

      And how do you propose we do that? As long as man is sinful, war is possible, and if someone attacks you, the only alternative to fighting is surrender, which may mean your extermination.

  • Bryan Merritt

    We need to be prepared for any and all things if we are to survive in today”s world The worst threats are Iran and North Korea but to think terrorist organizations would not use nukes against us is crazy of coarse they would if they ever get hold of one…We are at war with radical Islam weather or not our President and his administration knows it or not they will keep on attacking us until we wake up…

  • J

    First soften the public up to the idea for a while, then…

  • Maverick

    It’s only a matter of time before we destroy our own race. Hopefully enough of us will survive the irradiated Hell, and maybe one day, possibly rebuild.

  • Brian1387

    While all of this article is something to consider , what bothers me is that during the 911 attack, our military was SO disorganized they sent a whopping 2 planes up to protect us and what did they do??? They went the WRONG FLIPPIN WAY!

    They had to re-route and head towards NY!

    Our military trains every day spending God knows how much money on fuel etc. But when we are under attack, these people take WAY too long and use WAY to little of our military to defend us. Communication between FAA and the military was borderline ignorant!

    I say that if the military gets the call that we’re under any sort of attack send up MORE than necessary fighter plains and Black Hawks! Flex the muscle we brag about! Don’t take 30 minutes to send a couple planes in the wrong direction! Americans want to KNOW and SEE our defenses at work! By the time 911 was over, the military didn’t do anything to protect us. All the planes either reached their targets or the passengers took control back and it crashed in PA. The US military was useless! THIS is where I am upset. And I am a former firefighter. Lost a lot of brothers that day.
    If America wants to claim military power, they need to actually RESPOND with REAL muscle….not be so disorganized and use the mock 2 and mock 3 capability when the country is in need of protection!

  • bill

    That is the problem. Thinking that America would never use a big bomb should be what we should convince our adversaries we WOULD do. Even if they drop a small one ,level one of their cities. That way they learn any escalation would only end in their demise. Some countries need to be reminded how MADD works.

  • bludevil

    So do we thank em for using the low-yield atomic bombs? nuke or no nuke, nothing to do with the yield level.

  • bludevil

    equipe the F-35 with the B-61 warheads then.

  • RObomarq

    That is a bit of a false statement . we still have older low level nukes. the old gravity bomb nukes and they are stored in a hollow mountain right outside myhome town. they were moved to the monzanos starting in the 1950’s.

  • Ally821

    Perhaps if we stop poking our noses in other countries’ affairs, we wouldn’t have to worry about these threats.

  • Alexis

    Looks like the U.S. doesn’t have the upperhand anymore :)


    Tactical hardly I’d say what’s to keep someone responding with an all out nuclear response ? Let’s say they decided to take out DC could we not take out 5 of a countries major targets ?

  • James Meritt

    And what does one do when the possessor or nuclear weapons WANTS Armageddon? There are religious views (mideastern countries have espoused this) that desire and end-of-world, thinking that they – and ONLY they – will go to heaven as a result.

  • Bruce Allen

    There is no such thing as a “limited” nuclear attack. Once someone uses one the other side will want to retaliate with one just a little bit bigger…and so on.

  • jerryhak@aol.com

    We are talking here about very sophisticated weapons and delivery systems. One very important and very likely scenario is the simple, and very effective method of just putting a basic 5 Kiloton bomb in a wooden crate, in a freighter ship from N Korea, or Iran (of course they would use another counties flag) and park It(or more than one ship) in any US harbor(s) and let it go off in the middle of the working day. Missive destruction of the city, suburb, and the area’s infrastructure. There would be a long time to find who did it, and maybe never really know. This like any other mass destruction strike, to horrific to think about it. Staying strong and not showing quivering fear is important, but also just important is making an extra effort to negotiate firmly with the adversary. The far Right’s, limited boulder head idea of not firmly negotiating with these extreme illogical countries is ridicules, as is the far Left’s approach of not wanting to stand up to these nuts or push them so far that we offend them or even anger them. Must be strong but intelligent. I think we have enough good and smart people in Congress and the military who will best protect us. We are the greatest nation in world for many different reasons

  • cohara1103

    even if iran or north korea china used a small tact nuke we would retailate with full nuclear annihilation………this story is ridiculous no matter what, small nuke, large nuke your enemy uses one you use a 1000 the object is to win and win quickly not to play fair which is exactly what this story is suggesting hey they only used a 1 megaton yield so we can only do the same……ahahahahahahaha so stupid you use a 100 megaton hydogen bomb and destroy their captial……..if they want nuclear war you give it to them and wipe the country from existence

  • Angel

    As usual, the United States sits back and sleeps at the wheel, relaxing in its superiority and vanity, as the world moves forward with the desire to kill.

  • brian

    the US military is a fucking joke they are more worried about the latteis or what lady they are going to gangbang and steal from the american tax payer Brian Harrington USN RET

  • brian

    there latties

  • brian

    nuclear war nobody wins period even just one is enough to have an impact no matter what they yeild factor if we have 450 KT am sure the russians and somebody else has the bigger better fire cracker

  • George

    This sounds like Orwell’s “1984” ware country’s bomb themselves and say it’s another country that is doing it just to keep people in line.

  • Muddywood

    Nuke Mecca

  • Dick

    Just as Gwar said. BRING BACK THE BOMB.

  • http://historyscoper.com T.L. Winslow

    Iran won’t trust Hezbollah with nukes to destroy Israel, giving them plausible deniability? Moose hockey. That’s just what they’re planning, the only thing that makes sense to their determination to end the existence of Israel while claiming not to even be building nukes. As soon as they have them ready, they probably already have Hezbollah suicide volunteers, and a support network to get them into or close to Tel Aviv where they can set them off for Allah’s promise of paradise.

    As to major powers using limited nukes, there’s too much respect for MAD, not to mention disruption of trade relations. Other than crazy North Korea, I’d mainly be worried about Iran and Hezbollah, not wave the idea off like this author does.

    • masmanz

      You have been listening to too much war propaganda. Iran’s leaders, both religious and secular, have clearly stated that they do not want to build the bomb. Their facilities are under constant UN surveillance.

    • Max

      Iran also knows that the US has a habit of going into a blind rage and lashing out at whoever it even thinks might be responsible. In this case, Hezbollah is a known Iran proxy, and everybody knows that Iran has been going for the bomb for some time now. The US can do that sort of math, and so can the Iranians.

  • a little older

    it is troubling , by the content of this article, that history could repeat itself. It seems a nuclear
    detonation of any kind, aimed at people, is imminent in the not so distant future. It is unfortunate that we are running out of people that are still alive who were a survivor/witness to the massive destruction of the last one, to help educate about why this should never happen again, EVER !

  • Ben

    The simple fact is, everyone has someone they care about. Which makes all out nuclear war ridiculous.

    I ask you this question, if this possibility of tactical nukes being used on the US or somewhere else around the world is such a real possibility that we “aren’t prepared for”, than why hasn’t it happened before? Nukes have been around in abundance for decades, tactical nukes have been around for the same duration. We can respond to any attack from any country at any scale imaginable, this isn’t blind patriotism when I say we are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, we are truly one of the greatest military countries that has ever known to exist (If not tied with the Roman empire at its peak).

    IF we get into a full scale non-nuclear war. We will have so many new military toys that come out of places like area 51 that have never seen the light of day, it will make you think we are using alien technology to defeat our enemies. You have to understand, why break out the new -never before seen in public technology- for encounters like Afghanistan or Iraq when conventional military power can solve the problem?

    IF you are talking full scale nuclear war or nuclear war with tactical sized warheads, don’t you pay attention to the news? We have such advanced anti-missile technology that traditional nuclear missiles are almost a thing of the past. Which only leave small tactical nukes like the article speaks of, which is our only true “realistic threat” here. Which is something the cia and intelligence community keeps an eye on. Don’t you think we have spies in north Korea, Iran, Pakistan, China, Japan and everywhere else we need to watch nuclear proliferation? There is a reason North Korea hasn’t progressed their nuclear strike capabilities.

    So I say everyone can calm down and relax, go back to eating your breakfast. Go about your day like nuclear war isn’t a threat because the truth is, it hasn’t been a realistic threat since the cold war. There is a reason the military stopped putting so much money into making all equipment EMP proof.

    • masmanz

      But the whole idea is to get more funding. Scare the public and use their tax money for these new gadgets,

    • Max

      Unfortunately the truth is that ABM systems are not nearly as reliable and effective as the Pentagon wants everyone to believe. The development of MIRVs made the whole concept pretty much a joke on the strategic level 30 years ago.

  • Gunner

    Thye US has been ready for limited Nuclear war sincd General Dwight David Eisenhower and His Sec State John Foster Dallas created the NATO, CENTO, and SEATO Treaties, and deployed US Nuclear Armed missile surrounding Joseph Stalins Soviet Union. The Regulas Missile Boats in the Sea Of Japan. Us Mssile Bases in Turkey, Italy, and Great ritian amonst others.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matt.bracken.98 Matt Bracken

    Brave New World, comrades. The Russians and Chinese, not to mention Pakistan and other smaller actors, might not choose to play by our chosen sheet music.

  • keith

    the USA wouldn’t have to fight any wars if the american people got rid of their billionaire wall street plutocrats, living in luxury- grown fat off maimed veterans and depleted uranium deformed muslim babies. The USA is evil, pure and simple, and its people dolts.

  • vstillwell

    This is absurd. When a nuclear reactor melts down, the effects can be felt globally. Now imagine a bunch of tactical nukes going off and what that would do. I have read studies that stated that as little as a dozen nukes going off could make the earth’s atmosphere toxic for all life except cock roaches. I am not in the camp that says nuclear weapons makes us safer. Frankly it’s been a miracle or just extreme luck that there hasn’t been a nuclear exchange yet.

  • Max

    There’s no such thing as ‘limited nuclear war’. Escalation simply doesn’t work like that, because in the event of a nuclear exchange of any magnitude, neither side has any reason or assurance to assume that the other will stop at any arbitrary point, especially when one side is on the wrong side of an overmatch. Russia was not going to play RAND’s game in the 60s, and China has no reason to do the same.

  • cavalier

    A scenario fits nicely into this discussion is also one that should cause the think tankers a lot of sleepless nights. What if the North Korean political cadre feels really threatened by a fumbling US diplomatic action? They might retaliate not by a strike on the US homeland but rather a strike at thee US economy? How could they do this? They already have the capability to launch a HEMP shot over Tokyo and Singapore simultaneously. The EMP effects would cripple/destroy two major world exchanges and throw the markets into a trading crash for which it would require months or years to recover. Civilian electronics at the world exchanges are not as well protected and would be toast to say nothing of recent trades. What could or should be our response to the loss of Japanese electronic manufacturing facilities and a world trading exchange?

  • Future59

    Wouldn’t it be nice

    Man I just think if this world could live in peace and use all this spending on agriculture, energy technology we could live in a world with no starvation and unlimited smart energy solutions with individuals and companies rewarded for their results and hard work. It would be great to see TV news that makes of people happy and grateful of each other of another break though in the world problems of today.

  • Anonymous

    I can imagine limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan being possible if Russia or the US is the referee, and Russia or the US gets to intervene and annihilate whichever side gets a red card. Problem is a referee. If the US was the only superpower, it could referee limited nuclear wars in some regions in the way it referees limited chemical wars in the Middle East. In the case of Russia-US war, there would be no referee, all communication would be cut and mutual destruction would entail.

  • Lop_Eared_Galoot

    First off, there were never any ‘firebreaks’ in nuclear warfare because the scenarios ALWAYS spelled ruin for the U.S. if the most likely Russian threat went nuclear first. Why? Because we have to bring the war to the theater and nobody is going to risk a continental strike to avenge dead sailors. This has been true of the REFORGER SLOC attack doctrines of Russian Strategic DA and AVMF via their emphasis on _nuclear capable_ AShM from the earliest AS-1/2 onwards. They are big missiles because they were ALL nuclear capable.

    If a big REFORGER convoy goes down, the NATO ground war is lost. Period. Russia knows this and they also knew that we would start using Pershing and F-111 and later Gryphon to make the trade for Western Europe one of a sterilized Ukrainian breadbasket and non-access to any of the Baltic from irradiated ports. Assuming we didn’t nuke Moscow immediately.

    There is no reason why such an attitude cannot be enforced at the nation-state level today. It is simply a return to the overwhelming response doctrine of the early 1950s which served U.S. well throughout the Cold War.

    Having said this, the real danger from low yield nuclear weapons is that we are rapidly approaching a time when non-nuclear or at lest non-fissionable detonation of low yield fusion bombs is readily achievable.

    In late October or early November of 1944, with the wolves literally at the door, West and East, Hitler made his last trip from Berlin to an army testing ground in southeast Germany called Ohrdruf where he saw a demonstration of a cherry red liquid explosive which, when detonated, utterly incinerated witness plates set in a test area 600-800m across. What this liquid explosive is no one has yet satisfactorily explained but it most likely an isomer of uranium or thorium (Otto Hahn and Lisa Meitner having discovered them in 1921). Since the Ohrdruf region was not just a ‘national redoubt’ of last resort but also the center of a massive, hidden, SS nuclear weapons R&D program, completely separate from the fuddy duddy Uranium Club under Heisenberg, one can reasonably assume that, just as with the American effort there were in fact at least two, separate, nuclear weaponization efforts underway throughout the war. Groves comments on the ALSOS efforts in _And now it can be told_ were in fact still a lie because it covered up the most dangerous element of the German program: that nukes it did not need highly enriched uranium but rather lithium deuteride and/or tritium could be detonated using a sudden flash of stimulated gamma/X-ray emission from a cascading isomer whose sheer -heat- (remember, /thermo/ nuclear weapons) created the pressure needed to detonate a boosted fission if not pure fusion reaction.

    Hitler was so enthused with what he saw that he based the concept of the Werewolves and ’10 minutes past midnight’ recoveries of German sovereignity on the notional value of German teenagers running into self detonate inside occupational garrisons with suitcase nukes that could reduce to ashes an Allied force rendered static and clustered by the very act of victory.

    Despite George Patton’s mad rush some 150 miles past the agreed upon delineation of forces (all the way into Eastern Czechoslovakia where the R&D factory was located) the Soviets got the best of this technology along with one of it’s inventors: Manfred Von Ardenne. At a time when the U.S. first hydrogen test shot was a cryo plant four stories tall, (the Russian observer laughed and congratulated us for the ‘World’s First Exploding Meat Packing Plant’) this man was in Russia, miniaturizing the trigger assemblies for their fusion weapons to a vastly greater level of sophistication (he would be awarded not one but two of the Soviets’ equivalent of the Nobel Prize for his efforts and allowed to retire back to a position of wealth and influence in the East German scientific establishment).

    And so it was that diehard Nazi insurgent suicide bombers became an offensive tool, and the plot of a Charles Bronson film, as the U.S. went from 200 atomic warheads to over 1,500 in the space of five years and yet could not generate the bomber force necessary to deliver them in under six hours from first warning.
    Imagine Soviet moles walking onto SAC airbases with .2KT nuclear weapons strapped to their backs with massive gamma radiation secondary effects from the isomer metastable collapse back to ground state and you have a real means to discourage genocidal overkill of the Russian population due to SAC overestimated defensive attrition modeling.

    It was the known presence of a widespread infiltration mole presence as ‘Russian Werewolves’, undeterred by the crackdowns of McCarthyism, that drove us to Reflex and Airborne alert and eventually the BAS/DeadMan/Looking Glass/ERCS automated launch capabilities for the followon ICBM force. The Russians were here and they were not going to use revolvers and sticks of dynamite to blow stuff up with.

    Point Being: nuclear weapons are an exercise in engineering as much as physics. The U.S. WWII approach to gaining atomic weapons was that of a nation with 3 billion and 180,000 men to throw at a problem. Cheaper solutions were arrived at in nations that had to cut corners and while they never got anywhere (because German nukes were intended as initiators for much bigger yielding weapons that required plutonium whose production we religiously bombed out of existence) with them, the Third Reich pioneered a system which has much more utility today than it did in 1945 when overrun was assured regardless.
    Modern computational systems along with finite element design and CATIA driven machine tools allows anyone and their brother with a few million dollars to replicate _as engineering tolerances_ what took the entire Manhattan Project to pioneer.

    It certainly didn’t help that the CIA let AQ Khan getaway from URENCO in 1978 and /sponsored/ the Tinners selling drawings and parts to half the Terrorist states on the planet.

    Now that it is impossible to contain nuclear proliferation, one might be excused for asking if it is in our interests to interfere with the process of acquisition by nuclear seeking state powers when simple requirements of -compliance- (isotope doping of reactor cores to ensure identification of post-blast radiologics and thus assignable responsibility for material ‘losses’) would encourage them to function as state level powers.

    This would only leave the problem of keeping non-state political entities like Hezbollah which own seats in Lebanon’s parliament and sponsor all manner of civic engineering projects by which to legally obtain high tech tools, from using the ‘new nuke’ technology to bring in such small quantities of radiologic material that they would not be detectable with conventional neutron flux scanners in our ports of entry.

    Since Iran almost certainly has nuclear weapons already (See: _Countdown To Crisis_ which stated a 50:50 chance in 2005) and simply holds them in unacknowledged component teardown to avoid IAEA protocol violation, it stands to reason that a more moderate stance recently taken by the likes of Ahmadinejad might be seen as a way to gain engagement sufficient to tie Iran to a level of ‘club membership rules’ of responsibility in not supplying his Quds revolutionary terrorist/intelligence corps with the technology to hand off to secondary non-state actors.
    Hold your friends close and your enemies closer. So that the ties which bind you both become the inescapable clauses of civilized behavior which grant mutual survivability.

  • Ernie kaputnik

    Perhaps the nuclear threat is not limited to nations, but elite cabals that are so intimately intertwined with each other. Specifically, I’m referring to the elites that are pushing global warming, sustained development, population control, gun control, and every other non-traditional agenda on the world’s populations. There is an incredibly small minority that controls the world’s resources, wealth, social services, education, food supply, pharmaceuticals, that could care less about our well being. Rather they are continually attempting to control us by telling us what to think and eat, how to worship, where to live and how we live. It wouldn’t surprise me if at the next Bilderberg meeting they just decide to eradicate half of the global population with limited several nuclear weapon strikes to get us down to a more manageable size. Granted, they can’t kill all of us because they still need us peasants to perform the manual labor.


  • Sam Sewell

    The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System(s) was a tactical nuclear recoilless gun for firing the M388 nuclear projectile with a yield equivalent to somewhere between 10 or 20 tons of TNT— very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead – Tactical nuclear weapons are a viable option for surgical strikes with minimum collateral damage. People and buildings w miles from epicenter are safe. They are also very useful as a show of force in a nowhere zone.

  • Sam Sewell

    WEAKNESS INVITES AGGRESSION To the degree that our leaders are weak we are more likely to be attacked. Obama is weaker than Carter and is wearing a “KICK
    ME” sign for all the world to see.


    WEAKNESS INVITES AGGRESSIONI To the degree that our leaders are weak we
    are more likely to be attacked. Obama is
    weaker than Carter and is wearing a “KICK ME” sign for all the world to see.

    Because the “diplomacy” the State Department
    leans toward placating evil doers the diplomats are responsible for more deaths
    than the military.

    Swift and deadly saves more lives than cautious and diplomatic.

    Had the Gatling gun been available and used at Bull Run might we have
    saved 620,000 lives in the civil war?

    Had the atomic bomb been available and used after Pearl Harbor or the
    invasion of Poland could we have saved 62 million lives during WWII.

    If we randomly pumped a few 9mm rounds into the trunks of cars crossing
    the Mexican border could we have saved thousands of Mexican lives lost in the

    Is the time to use tactical nukes now, rather than later, and would we
    save lives by doing so?

    You get the idea. I am beginning to think that being “civilized” and “diplomatic” is a very costly way to deal with things. Being civilized and diplomatic kills people. We usually apply a solution that works only after we have tried everything else. Maybe the most humane strategy is to be swift and deadly at the first sign of violence, or in
    the case illegality, be swift and just.

    Because we are civilized we are easy targets for the uncivilized. Is
    there a major flaw in my reasoning that I don’t see? Or as O”Rielly says,
    “Tell me where I’m wrong.”

    • RebelSoldier

      you are insane. That’s the problem wit your “reasoning”.

      • Sam Sewell

        Name calling rather than logic or facts. Easy win for me.

  • Whizzabour

    don’t worry yanks, people will understand that you are killing them for their own benefit,

    and that you will destroy their homes and people from thousands of miles away for
    their own good, and of course they will have the joy of you telling them how to run their
    countries, ‘the democratic way’ despite you not have a democracy in the states and only accepting results that suit you. So someone using nuclear weapons on ‘the good guys?’ NaH! just ask the 2 million vietamese carpet bombed to death , they would not have if they could, would they?

  • zzizek

    Sick people, making wars.

    Sick people, going into wars (soldiers).

    Sick people, making weapones.

    All of them don’t care of murdering someone else. But not to survive. We HAVE enough to survive.

    IT’S JUST KILLING IN THE NAME OF GREED. Animals don’t do this … so what are we? I will never understand, how many cruel people there are.

  • zzizek

    This comment was already deleted – it just tells about everything. 😉

    Mean sadistic people with no values start wars.
    Mean sadistic people with no values make weapons.
    Mean sadistic people with no values go into wars.
    Mean sadistic people with no values support KILLING PEOPLE.

    In 2013 … where there’s enough food … it’s not war for survival … it’s war cause of greed. And all of above support this. Not even animals kill for greed, so what are we – human? …

  • onebigfurybear

    AWWWW Shucks Y’all, 20,000 degrees and 500 mile per hour winds in a absolute death circle of 25 miles with say a 20 kiloton thermonuclear device, and that is a firecracker compared to the megaton babies. Celebrate the 4th of July? So the question is who has been chosen to be Nuked? The little 1 kiloton nukes that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki instantly vaporized 60,000 people. So whose bright idea is it to test these WMD’s on us and them? Have you checked with any Quantum Physics Professors or Astrophysicists to see how it may affect everybody on this unique little planet? You’re playing with fire. These things were meant to be a deterent, not a solution. Korea got our attention, same as Cuba some 50 years ago. The Israelis want to Nuke Iran’s Nuke maker before they in turn get nuked and the United States has 35,000 nukes here and there.

    • Andrew Patton

      The nukes that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 15-20 kilotons. Nukes are powerful, but not as powerful as many people think they are.

  • Mahir

    I have a feeling that a lot of people here have missed the point. The article talks about the the possibility that an “inferior” military would use “tactical nukes to stop a “superior” military from achieving a conventional victory. This idea that if Iran, N.Korea or any other country used nuclear weapons as means of last resort in defence against military formation that it should be responded with strategic use of nuclear weapons, targeting civilians, is probably the stupidest thing one can imagine. They would be using nukes on US soil but on their soil, in a purely defensive manner.

    People who advocate this should seriously think about the fact that once you bomb someones country with nukes, destroy their cities, kill their people, then they have nothing more left. At that point they too will respond with stratigic use of nucler wepons, and than you get MAD.

    And the biggest problem for me here is that the effects of nuclear warfare are not bound by borders, if they were, I wouldn’t care. You kill them, they kill you, your problem. But the fact is that nuclear warfare is a global issue, tactical use of nuclear weapons would be a moral, political issue for the world, strategic use would be an existential issue.

    So before you say if they sink our aircraft carrier with a nuke we should erase them from existence, think about the fact why is your carrier there in the first place.

    No country is trying to replace the US a global hegemon. The only thing that some countries are trying to do is ensure their own sovereignty, they are trying to protect themselves from US interference in their domestic affairs.

    The message I got from reading some of the comments here is that a lot of people hold the opinion that the US is the big guy on the block who tells you: ” I will beat you be because you are not doing what I tell you and if you strike back at me I will kill you”, and that the big guy is somehow the good guy. The measge that you send with this position is not that the best choice is not to fight back but rather that when you get that chance to strike back you should go for the kill because you have nothing to lose.

    Nuclear weapons are a Pandora’s box. The humankind was lucky to have used them once and realised how dangerous they are. We probably won’t be so lucky next time. And because of that everyone should do as much as possible to avoid starting a nuclear conflict. If nukes are used it won’t be just the responsibility of the guy who pushes the button but also of those who force his hand. The easiest way for US to avoid a confrontation is not to provoke one, no one intentionally challenges the US if they can avoid it. The best thing to do is to follow the old law, an eye for an eye. This is something that the US should especially learn as they tend to over exaggerate both in the seriousness of the attack and in the response.


    I refer to US because a lot of comments a read are about US,and also because the US is the largest military power in the world with the most proactiv foreign “diplomacy”. But what I have written is about every country, be it US or Russia or China or event N. Korea or Israel or Iran ,if Iran does develop nukes. In every confrontation there is the aggressor and the defender and moral high ground is always with the defender.Also sorry for any grammatical mistakes that I may have made.

  • minutemanIII

    Interesting. But noteworthy is the new chinese star wars program. China has launched 3 objects into space and has been testing tactics.
    The three satellites, launched July 20 by a Long March-4C launcher, were later detected conducting unusual maneuvers in space indicating the Chinese are preparing to conduct space warfare against satellites, said the official who is familiar with intelligence reports about the satellites.

    One of the satellites was equipped with an extension arm capable of attacking orbiting satellites that currently are vulnerable to both kinetic and electronic disruption.

  • BOBRB52H

    If a nuclear war does in fact break out the first order of business is to remove Obama from power immediately as he caused it…This could be avoided with very little effort and Obama is backing a dangerous Al Qaeda Muslim Brotherhood agenda to advance its terrorist organization into a world power, one most people in the world will not stand for…Obama is a war criminal and why he is still in power is a mystery to me

  • BOBRB52H

    If we were to keep our nose out of Syria and Obama were to be impeached, the world would be a much safer place right now…

  • corners

    all you need to do is have a nuke explode 50-100 miles above central United States to cripple anything with a circuit or wire in it. We would all starve to death in a month or two.

  • don77701

    U don’t think a nuke attack will happen. Come on, one of these days the Islamic terrorist is going to have it. The way technology is modernizing. I won’t be surprised if just a small team can create a nuke briefcase. Just a matter of time, all – just a matter of time.
    If not soon enough with the Islamic terrorist, then an issue with Russia will bring it on. The day the nuke was made it signed the death warrant to this age.

  • dalart

    I think it has come . The time to use limited Nukes on serious enemies of the United States..if they say they will distroy The USA then They have declared war on US…War is very expensive to fight conventionally. .and a single Nuke cost way less…it also sends a message to Islam…no more! THE only real draw back other nuclear nations will also use it and that can become a problem.

    • doom

      You are a complete dumba$$, radiation remains in the environment for millions of year you stupid fuctard.

  • Branko Dodig

    There’s more then one problem.

    First, a nuclear attack on US soil can be deterred by an extension of MAD strategy to the middle east at large. It means making a clear and public choice that a nuclear attack from the middle east countries or any of their (frankly) government sponsored terrorist organizations would mean immediate, massive and automatic nuclear retaliation against the involved party(-es).

    This might be viewed as unfair (because the terrorist organizations are not formally part of the nations in the area), but it would without little doubt, work as a deterrent. However the cornerstone of MAD policy is that the consequences of an attack have to be clear and public, and it is politically tricky to state that we hold the nations in the region culpable in case of a potential nuclear attack by terrorists operating within their borders. Some of them are US allies and “allies”, after all.

    A nuclear attack on occupying US troops on foreign soil is not really a situation where MAD-type of deterrent is applicable. This has been the idea of Russian defense strategy for some time, in case of a convention attack – respond with tactical nuclear warheads. Any use of nuclear warheads on Russian soil means immediate escalation to armageddon. It’s not as crazy as it sounds – it just means “don’t invade countries with a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons” and is really a reasonable and well thought out defensive strategy. They have, after all, the right to defend themselves.

    However, what if it happens to US troops in ME or somewhere else? Eg. if USA invades Iran and they use tactical warheads to defend from the invasion? It would be possible to retaliate with strategic nuclear weapons, yes. However, this would cement the US position as an international villain and have far-reaching consequences, not to even mention the morality of obliterating a nation for, well, defending itself.

    The answer to this problem, really – is don’t invade countries with nuclear weapons. In fact, not invading countries without nuclear weapons would probably delay nuclear proliferation in the first place. As uncomfortable as it sounds, the ability to strike US troops and possibly US soil with nuclear warheads is a defensive measure they view as necessary. Not to attack, but to be able to defend themselves.

  • Kevin

    Russia only knows the States has something that makes a win with the States impossible. They don’t know what it is but they do have an idea of allies of the States and those allies not being from another “nation” are not to be messed with so Russia will be a good boy and just play in its own sandbox.

  • No Way Out

    Limited nuclear war is impossible; it will always escalate into full-scale Armageddon. This has been war-gamed for over half-a-century now, and the conclusion has always been the same. The fact that no nuclear weapons have been used since WWII, despite the trillions of dollars invested by the world’s nuclear powers, shows how dire the consequences of using nuclear weapons really is.

    No nuclear armed country is going to take the instantaneous murder of hundreds of thousands of its citizens calmly or fatalistically. Retaliation will be immediate and presumptive, very well including attacks against all countries likely to benefit from such an attack.

  • Wolfman

    As soon as the terrorists get nuclear weapons it is all over for all of us and God will sort us all out

  • Bob Shuttleworth

    I will use /paraphrase Carl Sagan’s analogy on “limited nuclear war”
    “Suppose that you are locked on a room with your mortal enemy. The floor is awash with gasoline. You have a box of matches. Your enemy has half a dozen matches. Who is more powerful?
    In a nuclear war, no one wins. There is really no such thing as a ” limited” nuclear war. The nukes today make the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs look like firecrackers.
    To quote the movie “War Games”, “The only way to win is not to play.”

  • Mark Burley

    Sometimes you have to think the unthinkable if nukes become smaller cleaner more accurrate and more survivable that can only be good and god forbid the madness of using them comes around having some sort of cogent plan might have a chance of stopping armageddon better if we all gave them up but thats in a sane world we dont live in one sadly.

  • Wolfman

    as soon as the terrorists use nuclear weapons God will sort us all out

  • blastisbad

    hahahha funniest thing about US government is they say
    they afraid of iran nuclear weapons but mentols can we see yours nuke and israhell

  • gothic

    Moron cats be cat stew as chef boy r d ravioli are da bomb but after 20 years shelf life runs out. I don’t want to be here without Facebook never mind No Sun for a few decades.

  • john rocha jr

    People’s republic of china has 1.3 billion people currently. The population stress within this nation makes war in the future a possibility. All questions should be placed upon the table if china cannot curb it’s population growth. Are the limits upon childbirth to a couple effective in china? It is said that one child per couple is slowing down china’s population dilemnas but are these steps effective? China is active with its advances in the south china seas. Is this a sign of what a cold war with them will be like? President obama wants to pivot our attentions to southeast asia from eastern europe. What is in store for the u.s. if this is done upfront, in front of everyone? The world we live on is becoming more and more dangerous because of the insanities of situations like with islamic state and the alliances that are formed between allies and enemies. There are and perhaps can be no half measures to prevent the wars that exist in our times but these are what are required to ensure that a form of these kinds of peace be maintainable. Low yield nuclear weapons could be designed and used but where are the red lines to be drawn. How, if they are used in a limited way would people respond that have little choice but to suffer from the realities that hypothetically exist from such a situation? How would people be controlled from tearing apart government in such a situation? What would become of our united nations and the civility that it represents? Which strategies will work in a world gone crazy with violence?

  • Capt.Steve Thompson

    The real issue is the world is getting too small to allow radically diverse nation/states to continue to exist as they are. Wipe them out or bring them inline. Considering man and his many faults, politics ,religion and cultural differences, it is too unwieldy to make such a change.
    As I see it, select the best specimens and create a viable gene-pool (maybe 2,500-5,000) of the threatening culture/nation./state, and obliterate the rest.
    Give the new nucleus excellent health, education and welfare in the truest sense, and welcome them into the community of life. Sounds horrible, but that is where we are going, the plan is all that remains to be worked out.