Talk:Tactical nuclear weapon
|It is requested that a diagram or diagrams of a weapon be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.
|The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
Estimates of tactical weapons
From Federation of American Scientists
Russia has an estimated 2,050 tactical nuclear weapons.
The United States retains a small inventory of perhaps 500 active tactical nuclear weapons. This includes an estimated 400 bombs (including 200 in Europe) and 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles (all on land). Others, perhaps 700, are in inactive storage.
France also has 60 tactical-range cruise missiles, including some on its aircraft carrier, although it calls them strategic weapons.
The United Kingdom has completely eliminated its tactical nuclear weapons, although it said until a couple of years ago that some of its strategic Trident missiles had a “sub-strategic” mission.
Information about possible Chinese tactical nuclear weapons is vague and contradictory, but might include some gravity bombs.
India, Pakistan, and Israel have some nuclear weapons that could be considered tactical (gravity bombs for fighter-bombers and, in the case of India and Pakistan, short-range ballistic missiles), but all are normally considered strategic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Criticism and controversy section
The criticism and controversy section needs either to be heavily edited or to be removed from the article. It is details converse opinions on the efficacy of tactical nuclear weapons. It's written essentially as personal opinions. ask123 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- The whole article is in need of a rewrite. The use of dubious online sources, for one thing, is a major problem. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Does the chart on this page seem strange to anyone? This article is about Tactical Nuclear Weapons, but the graph seems to refer to all nuclear weapons. I think it should be removed. DannyJohansson (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Removing. Xihr 00:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
lost torpedoes in bay of naples
I can't seem to find any other stories about these lost torpedoes other than the short article in the Independant. I think this should be removed.
Nothing else I can find, either, but even that article in the Independant - all based on "unnamed sources" - states that the likelihood is dubious and that the Italian military would have detected and removed them by now. I agree - this sounds highly unlikely. The use of this source needs to be adjusted in the article to reflect EVERYTHING that was said in it. Right now, it's been cherry-picked. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Types: Neutron bombs
The final words of this section regarding neutron bombs, "while reducing blast effects", should be removed. Neutron bombs are not intended to reduce blast effects though they are of lower blast yield than a comparable non- enhanced radiation nuke. It is a common misconseption that Neutron Bombs are designed to leave buildings and infrastructure intact while killing with radiation. Rather... They are designed to additionally kill with radiation, those that would otherwise be protected from the blast effects, troops in armored vehicles and bunker and the like. The lower blast yield is not by intention, but rather is a result of enhancing the radiation output. Removing the neutron reflectors allows more fast neutrons to escape the reaction mass and increasing the initial radiation pulse. But the cost of doing so is reducing the number of doublings of the chain reaction and a lower overall yield. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)