"10 Kt" tactical weapon?
No discussion in three months, so I looked the article over. One thing that jumped out at me is the mention of a 10 kt tactical weapon. 10 kilotons is about the yield of the atomic bombs that fell on Japan in WW 2. Not that great in terms of today's bombs, I suppose, but about ten times what the tactical weapons yield. This is shown on the chart to the right, courtesy of this Wikipedia article.
As a bonus, folks, we can use the article to revise our expectations as to the destruction of many of the cities and military bases. Posting both the picture and the link here might even "mess up" a lot of our established articles. How many warheads, what strength, etc.? It all depends on what we are looking for, I guess. SouthWriter 16:54, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
Really don;t get how American nukes have anything to do with a Soviet strike, but really the only possible issue I can see would be the warhead being referred to as "tactical," though even that's a bit of a stretch. Lordganon 05:05, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
The chart is indeed of US bombs, but the point is, "tactical nukes" are small, light weight and rather low yield weapons. The terminology would apply to Soviet weapons as well. SouthWriter 14:18, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that the Soviets would 'waste' their high yeild nukes on small military targets like bases, small ports or power stations, and as the Americans had tactical nukes (and the soviets weren't above 'borrowing' American designs for their military) they would have had them also plus you can pack a lot more 10KT nukes on a ICBM designed for a 2 or 5 MT bomb--Smoggy80 10:55, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. The point is, there were very few active bombs bigger than 1.5 MT. The US had a few 1.2 MT bombs, but most of them were it 300 Kt range. The 10 kt bombs, though small, were not "tactical" nukes - at least not in the way we use the term today. Removing the word "tactical" and replacing it with "low yield" would be what I had in mind. SouthWriter 16:28, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
Does any body think that that west more land would have have united with Lancaster. Having the unite would but a little more back in to this allmost dead timelin.Goldwind1 (talk) 11:19, September 21, 2018 (UTC)