The document is worth reading in full, but here are few key takeaways: >Rapid development of a nuclear SLCM and modification of Trident II warheads for 'low-yield" i.e. tactical strikes >Deployment of nuclear-capable bombers and multi-role fighter jets to forward locations >Acquisition of a nuclear air-launched cruise missile (LRSO) >A nuclear capable F-35A >Deployment of W78 bombs on USN aircraft >Adoption of B61-12 bomb by 2024 and deployment of it on both strategic bombers and multi-role fighters >Reduce threshold for using nuclear weapons in conventional war. Allow nuclear response to asymmetric, non-nuclear threats.
TL;DR we're re-entering the world of tactical nuclear warfare
I am ok with this.. it was going to happen sooner or later.
Blake Peterson
>entering We already have thousands of tactical nukes.
Also >we're
Landon Carter
>A nuclear capable F-35A The only combat bird that can't carry a B61 in our arsenal is an A-10 (too slow to LABS).
Since the F-15, it's been REQUIRED that all fighters can carry a B61 or B83.
Nathaniel Sanchez
something about nukes really bothers me I mean just the fact that they exist and are inevitably going to be used some day, maybe not this lifetime or the next but who can predict the geopolitical landscape 100 or 1,000 years from now
Hunter Johnson
Nukes are smalltime.
Jonathan Bailey
They're only likely to be used on the Japanese as payback for anime. Don't worry so much faggot.
Cooper Brooks
Eventually there will be a major nuclear war, or some antimatter experiment in a chinese lab will blow up half the earth, or an asteroid will hit us. Sooner or later something will take us out.
Charles Davis
This.
Incidentally it's further evidence that the A-10 is an obsolete piece of shit.
Isaac Thomas
That's just inefficiency.
Could have easily done some tactical BRRRRTs during those initial ISIS mass beheading vid shoots and leaked cockpit footage instead.
Brayden Rivera
Wrong Pierre, the A-10 a shit.
Jack Collins
So was said target. Shit cancels shit. Better than marginal loss on both sides.
Mason Morales
>150 or so nuclear tomahawks
Josiah Hall
>what is the B61 >what is the B83 Idiot
Kayden Lewis
Both of those are bombs that can't be launched en masse from a SSGN. They also require a large plane to come in at a good altitude to drop them. Nuclear tomahawks rest at 50 feet and they arrive simultaneously.
Justin Campbell
>Both of those are bombs that can't be launched en masse from a SSGN. And they're tactical nukes dipshit. Do you not know what these words means? > They also require a large plane to come in at a good altitude to drop them. Wrong. They can be used from any US fighter jet.
Charles Thompson
>And they're tactical nukes dipshit. Do you not know what these words means? You're being contrarian. The comeback of nuclear tomahawks is a big thing, brushing it away with "Well we have lots of tactical nukes already" is exactly what I'd expect from reddit.
>They can be used from any US fighter jet. Okay, so now we're dealing with a couple of F-35s instead of some F-16s, that's great, now the enemy can simply put up a fighter screen. Or, we can use a couple of nuclear tomahawks and he'll have exactly 5 seconds to respond with equipment that he doesn't have.
Cooper Rodriguez
>You're being contrarian No I'm using words properly. You presented it as if the US has some shortage of nuclear weapons and I pointed out, correctly, that the US posseses thousands. The fact that you don't know the meaning of the word tactical is no one's problem but your own. >instead of F-16s What part about any US fighter or bomber do you not understand?
William Howard
>You presented it as if the US has some shortage of nuclear weapons I copied the OP off of a thread on /k/.
>that the US posseses thousands It does not currently have a stated nuclear tomahawk capability (it does have one, they didn't just throw out the plans when they retired them the last time), now it states that it wants that capability back. Can you not see how this fits into everything else going on?
>What part about any US fighter or bomber do you not understand? What part about massive plane compared to tiny tomahawk do you not understand?
Jose Morris
So some Tridents will have less powerful warheads in order to be used tactically. This does not change anything. The delivery method remains the same, the range remains the same. We can't know what warheads are there - tactical or strategic, so we don't really care. We will immediately respond with strategic nuclear strikes to US mainland. Americans believe they can use nuclear weapons somewhere in Europe, in Middle East, and sit back on their own continent in safety. This is not the case. The moment they use nuclear weapons against Russian forces, the United States will be destroyed as military, economic and political entity.
The point about nuclear capable Tomahawks is nothing new either. We always knew that EPAA was aimed at Russia. We always knew that deploying Aegis ships with SM-3 in Europe was meant to neutralize our nuclear arsenal, not defend eurocucks against Iran.
Andrew Howard
Settle down, Boris. Don't let these LARPers make you think simple tactics like these matter.
