They're considered to be some superweapon that could change the tide of a war. But let's take the current war in Ukraine, if Russia were to deploy tactical nukes against military targets, could It realistically enable a proper breakthrough in any of the fronts?
Nukes enables actually useful ways to ruin your enemies if they play too retarded. Every single country should have nukes,
>tactical nook posting
>>64759244Peace through proliferation is the only way.
The nuclear bomb is science fiction.
>>64759232if the russians nuke all the cities in Ukraine there's nobody left to resupply the men at the frontso it would take them about half a year to reach the irradiated ruins of Kyiv fighting only the troops at the front
>>64759423Europe would still supply them.
Tactical nukes are a meme. The strategic ones are not.
>>64759244Not every country is a democracy with a system of checks and balances.Pic related. Or USA.
What a retarded post.>ICBM and (stealth) bombers dropping warheads on critical enemy infrastructure like say Chinese or US shipyards would be massive hits to industrial capabilities>SLBMs allow a large scale nuclear strike with extremely low reaction timing>nuclear interceptors are very likely capable of neutering incoming warheads based on X-ray pump tech the US was maturing back in the 1970’s, so much so that the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty had to be signed because the new Nike interceptor variant was almost like a nuke deleter >nuclear ASW vastly increase CEP and even more so in shallower areas like Taiwan straightTactical nuclear weapons are a bit retarded outside of desperate defense
>>64759511And?
