ironpony wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
ironpony wrote:
magz wrote:
ironpony wrote:
It was said before that Russia doesn't even have their nuclear warheads in their ICBMs and they have to be put in manually. Is this true?
From what I know, it is true. Warheads and rockets are stored separately.
If they are stored separately, would it be a good idea for NATO to have the warheads in the rockets ready to go just to be a step ahead of Russia just in case?
The strategic nukes of the Russia, US,China ,Britain and France are at a constant state of readiness.
That means they are loaded and ready for launch within several minutes probably less.
It’s been like that for half a century or so.
Battlefield nukes however are stored separately they tend to be weaker and have shorter range.
What's the difference between battlefield and strategic?
Strategic is the big picture. Tactical is the small picture.
Using the US navy to blockade all of the port cities of the south during the Civil War was a "strategy". But if you're on the battlefield at little Roundtop, and you poke the other guy in the eyes before you stab him with your bayonet - the eye poke is a "tactic".
Strategic nukes are the nukes used to wipe out the other guy's cities, and to wipe his country off the map.
Battlefield nukes (which might also be called tactical nukes) are meant to be used on the battlefied against the other guy's armed forces in battles .
Battlefied nukes (like nuclear artillery shells that are fired only fifteen miles by standard army guns) are less powerful so there is less collateral damage, and so they dont kill the guys manning the gun thats firing them.
Strategic nukes are usually fusion (ie hydrogen) bombs many times the power of the Hiroshima bombs. Battlefied nukes are usually fission bombs and are often only a fraction of the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. Or they are some crazy variant of nuke (like a neutron bomb that sends out energy that kills soldiers but leaves buildings intact).