Pakistan has developed smartest nuclear tactical devices

[untitled]

Here is a 50 Cal nuclear pistol

 

[bubble123]

Ultimate in what sense? The really small nukes like the Davy Crockett recoilless nuclear rifle had a yield of a kiloton or less. The smallest nukes ever made had yields measured in the tens of tons, barely more than conventional munitions when you consider blast is a cubed (to the third power) effect - meaning a 10 kt nuke is not twice as destructive as a 5 kt nuke, it is a few % more only.

The small nukes fission only a tiny, tiny fraction of their core, and spew huge amounts of really harsh radioactivity.

I think they are more destabilizing because they are more likely to be used. A commander about to be overrun will be sorely tempted to fire that 1 kt tactical nuke, where he'd never consider using a 100 kt strategic weapon. And once you nuke an enemy, regardless of size, you've crossed the line, and a nuclear exchange will probably follow.

Wow thks for the info i never had an idea that there were even nuclear rifles. One more thing regardless of the merits of using tiny nukes aren't they still advantageous in battlefield that a really tiny weapon still packs the power of tens of tons of conventional explosive. What u think about that ?

 

[untitled]

Useful only once the nuclear threshold has been crossed. Before that the commander will think a zillion times

 

[bad man smells]

what about nuclear hand grenades???i read that india is working on them to be used against naxalites.

 

[Zarvan]

Well what does this mean does this mean small size missile which will be used in MRLS or something else

 

[untitled]

Well what does this mean does this mean small size missile which will be used in MRLS or something else

MRLS

Multiple Rocket Launcher System

 

[FunkyPeace12]

not useless.. this is actually true.. i seen this confirmed on many other sites.

bogus why even share such a useless info

 

[Chogy]

Wow thks for the info i never had an idea that there were even nuclear rifles. One more thing regardless of the merits of using tiny nukes aren't they still advantageous in battlefield that a really tiny weapon still packs the power of tens of tons of conventional explosive. What u think about that ?

Have you noticed that munitions these days, conventional munitions, are getting smaller? Many nations are coming out with miniaturized guided weapons like missiles that are a meter long, and carry just a small warhead. The reason is because delivery accuracy has improved due to the digital revolution. You no longer need a 2 ton iron bomb when a small (but precise) weapon can destroy the target, with less collateral damage.

There's no need (or rarely a need) to deploy a 20 ton explosive device. If things are that bad, it'd probably be time to use a real nuke, like a 10 or 20 kt weapon. And there are all sorts of sticky issues when it's time to use nuclear weapons.

Giving an army general authority over dozens of tiny nukes is simply a recipe for disaster. And if they are restricted to national authority - can't use them without authorization from the home State - then they lose any real use in a rapidly evoloving tactical battlefield environment.

They also badly irradiate the area and deny that same area to your own soldiers. It's best these tiny nukes went the way of the dodo bird.

 

[Zabaniyah]

 

[bubble123]

Have you noticed that munitions these days, conventional munitions, are getting smaller? Many nations are coming out with miniaturized guided weapons like missiles that are a meter long, and carry just a small warhead. The reason is because delivery accuracy has improved due to the digital revolution. You no longer need a 2 ton iron bomb when a small (but precise) weapon can destroy the target, with less collateral damage.

There's no need (or rarely a need) to deploy a 20 ton explosive device. If things are that bad, it'd probably be time to use a real nuke, like a 10 or 20 kt weapon. And there are all sorts of sticky issues when it's time to use nuclear weapons.

Giving an army general authority over dozens of tiny nukes is simply a recipe for disaster. And if they are restricted to national authority - can't use them without authorization from the home State - then they lose any real use in a rapidly evoloving tactical battlefield environment.

They also badly irradiate the area and deny that same area to your own soldiers. It's best these tiny nukes went the way of the dodo bird.

again lets just neglect those "sticky issues" for the sake of discussion.

and what about moving targets say a few dozen tanks with a few AAAs or tactical SAMs(it would seem unlikely that any SAMs would be left from American perspective but lets just talk about Pakistani perspective) moving in would precision guided munitions just be as effective or even deliverable(Pakistani perspective) ? and what about the safety of platforms that would deliver these munitions.

Considering that one would be using Apaches or even drones don't u think they are easy meat for even WW2 era AAAs having basic radar guidance(of course if the enemy is say china otherwise after USAF is done there isn't usually any ground asset left)

and also don't u think its cheaper to use a small nuke rather than using expensive missiles guided by electronics on even more expensive platforms.

also aren't there any type of nukes that emit no or very negligible amount of radiation. Surely u guyz must have probed into it.

and lastly the prized question

In the light of Indian Cold start Doctrine where hundreds possibly thousands of tanks would be hurled in one go supported by heavy SAMs what other choice do we have to stop them ? (considering that our army aviation isn't even enough for killing insurgents)

 

[TehS4rge]

I agree with you on the little nukes, crazy!!

 

[Mav3rick]

The stronger don't need excuses to justify their actions. If Americans are up to some thing, they won't fabricate such stories, they would prefer to implement their plans, like Abbotabad operation and mehmand strikes.

They fabricated 'Kuwait invasion' to destroy Iraqi Military with the help of another 34 countries, WMD's to invade Iraq again later, 9/11 to invade Afghanistan etc., they always need a reason to invade and their fabrications/propaganda machines are unmatched and unparalleled.

 

[Mav3rick]

Y would Chinese poke their nose. would you explain please.

I wonder what the Chinese reaction would be if Pakistan is seriously attacked....didn't they fight the US over Korea/Vietnam? Would they now allow Pakistan to go down and for America to sit right at their throat? Probably not.

I am not worried how would Europe and US will handle Pakistan" However I am much more concerned about How we will handle NATO. US and INDIA in 3rd world war..

US we can handle, not because we have the technology to beat them but because of their sorry attitude when body counts rise at their end. NATO will most likely not take a part because of various reasons and India is not stupid to jeopardize its rising status and economy with a war with her neighbor whose strong military is more India-centric then anything. Infact I wouldn't be too surprised if India, too, strongly opposes a war.....a destabilized Pakistan without her military can be a nightmare for India. The Muslim countries along with Russia would also do everything they can to prevent the war and may even provide Pakistan with any kind of support it requires. With Pakistan at the helm, things would be a lot more complicated.

 

[Chogy]

They fabricated 'Kuwait invasion' to destroy Iraqi Military with the help of another 34 countries,

Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was fabricated? Oh Reaallly?

 

[Chogy]

again lets just neglect those "sticky issues" for the sake of discussion.

We can ignore it for the discussion, but the importance of the nuclear threshhold in politics and war is enormous!

and what about moving targets say a few dozen tanks with a few AAAs or tactical SAMs(it would seem unlikely that any SAMs would be left from American perspective but lets just talk about Pakistani perspective) moving in would precision guided munitions just be as effective or even deliverable(Pakistani perspective) ? and what about the safety of platforms that would deliver these munitions.

Can tactical nukes win a battle that would otherwise be lost? Possibly, yes. But one needs to consider what will happen to your own troops in the area. Nukes are horribly imprecise. One should apply the correct amount of force to destroy a target. Consider an armored column. Yes, it'd be a juicy target for a 1 kt nuke. It could also be destroyed by an aircraft like the A-10, by artillery, or by JDAM types of iron bombs.

In the light of Indian Cold start Doctrine where hundreds possibly thousands of tanks would be hurled in one go supported by heavy SAMs what other choice do we have to stop them ? (considering that our army aviation isn't even enough for killing insurgents)

Everyone's opinion is different. Consider that STRATEGIC nuclear weapons hold an enemy hostage... "If your armored attack succeeds and Pakistan is going to fall, we WILL lash out with our arsenal and obliterate two dozen major cities. Do you really want to continue your attack?" This works when you have a rational enemy, and despite what people here say both Pakistan and India are rational. So are the USA, Russia, China, and the other nuclear powers.

I'd say the threat of strategic nuclear attack in response to a devastating conventional invasion is more forceful than tactically nuking the invading forces themselves... and it is much easier to control, and less likely to be accidentally triggered.

So in your scenario, I'd suggest a "message" be sent.... "Stand down, back off, or we WILL use our strategic arsenal." If the message instead was a 1 kiloton tactical nuke over an armored column, the only message that'd send would be "We've crossed the nuclear line... go ahead and retaliate with your own nukes."

It's a difficult question that's been debated for decades.