Used to demolish some military bases or to slaughter innocent civilians by the thousands?
Suitcase nukeSo, basically a snuke?
DAVEEEEEEE
DAVY CROCKETT!
KING OF THE WILD FRONTIEEEEEEER
C'mon guys and gals, sing it with me!
They have a small nuke.. It's called the MOAB (With out the nasty 250k half life)
Davy Crockett doesn't have shit on Atomic Annie though.
Trump already used that months ago.They have a small nuke.. It's called the MOAB (With out the nasty 250k half life)
.But the pivot
Trump already used that months ago.
No but more boom boom. The man has the attitude of a child. You know he wants to nuke something.They have more than one!
If atomic bombs are to be added as new weapons to the arsenals of a warring world, or to the arsenals of the nations preparing for war, then the time will come when mankind will curse the names of Los Alamos and Hiroshima. The people of this world must unite or they will perish.
Does the Jericho Missile from Ironman exist?No but more boom boom. The man has the attitude of a child. You know he wants to nuke something.
No but more boom boom. The man has the attitude of a child. You know he wants to nuke something.
0.11 ktThey have a small nuke.. It's called the MOAB (With out the nasty 250k half life)
I believe in modern parlance that's termed a "nukelet". (will they ever learn?)0.11 kt
The smallest nuke in production waa 0.72 kt
We had Nuclear artillery shells in the 1950s
Fire and Fury
Tactical nukes were heavily discussed during the Bush presidency, with similar outrage. They were intended for bunker-busting.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/30/usa.georgebush
http://progressive.org/magazine/bomb-bush-s-baby-nuke/
The project never really went anywhere, thankfully. They produced the MOAB instead. In whatever scenario you can come up with where a small nuke can do the job, a conventional weapon can typically do the job more or less as well but without the massive geopolitical ramifications.
hawk hawk
That's surprising, I thought we already had a bunch of tactical nukes tbh. And that they'd be the last weapon used before a conflict goes full on nuclear, ie the the last opportunity for deescalation.
Yes. Nukes aren't very tactical.Tactical nukes were heavily discussed during the Bush presidency, with similar outrage. They were intended for bunker-busting.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/30/usa.georgebush
http://progressive.org/magazine/bomb-bush-s-baby-nuke/
The project never really went anywhere, thankfully. They produced the MOAB instead. In whatever scenario you can come up with where a small nuke can do the job, a conventional weapon can typically do the job more or less as well but without the massive geopolitical ramifications.
Tactical nukes were heavily discussed during the Bush presidency, with similar outrage. They were intended for bunker-busting.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/30/usa.georgebush
http://progressive.org/magazine/bomb-bush-s-baby-nuke/
The project never really went anywhere, thankfully. They produced the MOAB instead. In whatever scenario you can come up with where a small nuke can do the job, a conventional weapon can typically do the job more or less as well but without the massive geopolitical ramifications.
Surely the terms 'nuclear weapon' and 'tactical' are oxymorons
Trump, this is a move that will make people hate you more. Do the opposite.
Who let Trump play Metal Gear? Who is responsible for this madness?