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
A MOAB is a massive ordinance air blast. This bomb was designed to penetrate terrain then detonate, collapsing cave systems and liquifying bodies with ungodly amounts air pressure. Caves were used as terrorist strongholds during the war on terrorism.
Payload to be delivered out the back of a C-130. They just drop the ramp and push her out. Wouldn’t be easy to deliver if there was legitimate resistance like air defense systems.
A standard vietnam era B-52 bombing run would pack more explosive ordinance than a single current MOAB, the MOAB is just way more efficient at accomplishing the task if you’re targeting fortified cave systems.
A tactical nuke doesn’t penetrate the ground like a MOAB, they detonate in air to maximize the area of damage. It could potentially collapse parts of the cave due to explosive force, but the damage pales in comparison to what a MOAB can do to a cave system – which is basically “select all & delete”.
Stop using video games as a source for your information. Fall Out is nothing like using actual nuclear weapons. I swear, there’s explain like I’m five, and explain like my parents are brother and sister. And it is increasingly the latter.
The nuclear deterrent. You use nukes, someone else will, too.
The nuclear arms race is like two men standing knee deep in a pool of gasoline, each showing the other how many matches he has.
Please look up nuclear fallout and how we can literally date high value items like wine or paintings based soley on Cesium 137, a radioactive piece of evidence left from nuclear bombs from around the world.
The effects of nuclear weapons last for a long, long time.
If a bomb is a tool that dispels explosive energy (they come in all sizes!) from triggering small emergency devices to large concussive ouchies in combat, then nukes aren’t worth the consequences of radiating an area AND upsetting the global community.
There is a (over) dramatic stigma around the use of nuclear weapons for an absolutely necessary reason of shaming people out of accidentally sending the strategic warheads flying.
That and a tactical nuclear weapon doesn’t have the same explosion characteristics as the MOAB. Total energy yield is just one property. There is also a question of ground penetration which the tactical nuclear weapons are less effective at than the delayed fuse, much heavier moab bombs. There are some limitations around the types of energy released in each, but engineering could probably make a tactical nuke close enough to a moab to be used interchangeably in many cases.
But with the additional stigma and financial cost of using a nuclear device, why would you go that route?
Latest Answers