there are giant bombs like MOAB with the same explosive power of a small tactical nuke. Why don’t they just use the small nuke?
In: Other
1) It’s worth noting that we don’t use the MOAB, either. Explosives that large aren’t often very useful compared to a series of smaller explosives with specific shapes or payloads. Like, it’s more effective to drop a bomb to break the top of a bunker and then drop another bomb into that same crater than to drop one big bomb. And that’s to say nothing about the possibility of collateral damage. The MOAB is more for shock value than anything, which is why it wasn’t used until 2017 by an administration more concerned with appearances than effectiveness, and unconcerned with civilian casualties.
2) The smallest nukes might have a yield as small as 10 tons of TNT, with the MOAB sitting at 11 tons. But nobody maintains nuclear weapons that small. Those were designed for the Davy Crockett nuclear artillery. Even small, tactical nukes are typically designed to be in the range of a few kilotons to ten-ish kilotons. If you’re using nuke, it’s not because you *want* to specifically use a nuclear device, it’s because you want to deliver more energy to one place at one time than you can deliver with conventional explosives.
Nukes are expensive, dangerous, cause more and longer-lasting negative effects on the area, and have the obvious *tons* of political problems. Given an equivalent yield in conventional explosives, everyone would always *always* choose not to use a nuke. It’s not “Why not use a nuke?” It’s “Why *would* you!?” And the only answer is that they’re just plain bigger. That’s the only reason to ever use a nuke. They’re bigger. Which is why nobody wants to make them smaller.
Latest Answers