General Discussion

PortTack

(35,824 posts)

31. It's from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.. it is not just a political statement!!

Tue Oct 4, 2022, 08:15 PM

Oct 2022

The term “tactical” is often used to imply that the bomb is smaller or less powerful, but this is misleading at best. Some “tactical” warheads in the U.S. arsenal have yields of around 100 kilotons. That’s smaller than some of the larger bombs available today, but still massive: The bomb used on Hiroshima had a yield of just 15 kilotons.
https://www.grid.news/story/global/2022/04/29/what-is-a-tactical-nuke-and-would-putin-use-one/

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/xocwrd/putins_tactical_nuclear_weapons_could_pack_the/

““Today, the tiniest tactical nuclear weapon is capable of destruction far worse than what happened in Hiroshima..."”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-small-nuclear-strike-if-putin-uses-a-tactical-nuke-its-world-war-iii

These are not “political statements!!”

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Russian nuclear submarine armed with 'doomsday' weapon disappears from Arctic harbor: report Putin's [View all] Yorkie Mom Oct 2022 OP

More saber rattling. A radioactive tsunami....it would poison a good portion of Russia..especially PortTack Oct 2022 #1

Good point. ColinC Oct 2022 #2

No. former9thward Oct 2022 #19

A tactical nuke..really no such thing PortTack Oct 2022 #27

That is a political statement by a political appointee. former9thward Oct 2022 #29

It's from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.. it is not just a political statement!! PortTack Oct 2022 #31

Why does the DOD use the term "tactical nuclear weapons" ? former9thward Oct 2022 #32

Read my update...or do a search yourself. Tactical nukes is very misleading PortTack Oct 2022 #33

Another garbage right wing outlet... Spazito Oct 2022 #3

Yes, only right-wing sites are reporting this. GoCubsGo Oct 2022 #6

Exactly! Spazito Oct 2022 #9

I've got a radioactive tsunami in my pants for Murdoch-owned media belpejic Oct 2022 #37

And that US/NATO Hunter/Killer sub that's shadowing it that NATO isn't talking about MarineCombatEngineer Oct 2022 #4

I saw an interesting interview with the captain of our stealth nuclear sub..very interesting PortTack Oct 2022 #28

+100 nt MarineCombatEngineer Oct 2022 #30

Let's see how this turns out. OAITW r.2.0 Oct 2022 #5

Gee, a brand-new Russian submarine in the Arctic? grumpyduck Oct 2022 #7

I can't say how but "we are on it." Botany Oct 2022 #8

GQP: go ahead. Root for the Russians, now. lindysalsagal Oct 2022 #10

"capable of creating a 1,600-ft 'radioactive tsunami" ruet Oct 2022 #11

No worries. The US Navy knows where the subs exhaust port is maxrandb Oct 2022 #12

Indeed...I don't think Operation Crossroads or Operation Wigwam had 1,600ft waves EX500rider Oct 2022 #13

... ruet Oct 2022 #18

Nope. Not buying one word of it. Stinky The Clown Oct 2022 #14

Oh noos. Disaffected Oct 2022 #15

Fails The Smell Test ProfessorGAC Oct 2022 #16

A more likely explanation sarisataka Oct 2022 #17

Oh, FUD! FSogol Oct 2022 #20

Headline: "armed with doomsday weapon" Mr.Bill Oct 2022 #21

A radioactive tsunami VGNonly Oct 2022 #22

You've lost another submarine? ThoughtCriminal Oct 2022 #23

Vladdy should ask how all those super V-weapons worked out for the Nazis. localroger Oct 2022 #24

The way the Russian's build things it probably sank... Buckeyeblue Oct 2022 #25

Just in terms of execution, it fails basic physics tests. KY_EnviroGuy Oct 2022 #26

the plot... myohmy2 Oct 2022 #34

This is a little too Dr. Evil to be believable Renew Deal Oct 2022 #35

"When I gazed into Putin's soul, the abyss gazed back into me" struggle4progress Oct 2022 #36