View Single Post
Old 2013-02-28, 22:04   Link #481
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, England
Age: 31
Originally Posted by ogon_bat View Post
The temptation to use the so called tactical warheads ("small" nuclear weapons) is going to be too big in any major conflict. With just one bomb you can obliterate the enemy naval fleet before they even reach your fleet. Even better, use a neutron bomb and the fleet might even by recovered as a war bounty (and the damage to the ecosystem is not long term). So the reason no nuke have been used is because there has been no need, I bet that if the first Iraq War had the amount of causalities feared at first, a nuke would probably had been used.
The tactic is only practical if it is a significantly stronger state attacking a weaker one for example the US, Russia or China could do this against a nation such as Iran. However if the powers are more evenly matched such as US vs Russia or/and China then the amount of collateral damage inflicted through tactical nuclear weapons would be too great. For this reason they would be avoided unless one of these powers major faced an existential threat. Unlikely for that to happen in the near future. Greater chance of there being massive political unrest/upheaval or civil war than those scenarios.
monsta666 is offline