That may be the most provocative of them all today.
What would be the response to a nuclear power using one of these in combat? Escalation? Retaliation in kind? The damage to the surrounding environment could be small, especially if used to target submarines and ships.
Escalation to the level of H-bombs would mean WWIII. No response demonstrates "weakness." Tit-for-tat seems the most likely outcome, with gradual escalation along the way.
It's far from clear how long that gradual escalation phase could last, but it could be a long time indeed. The first use of low-yield nuclear weapons in combat lays the groundwork for their use in the next conflict.
In short, for much of the Cold War the USSR had such a numbers advantage over NATO when it came to tank forces that the only chance NATO had to hold off a full-scale tank invasion by the USSR would have been the use of tactical nukes.
As you rightly point out, MAD strategy doesn't quite apply here. Yes, the Davy Crockett is a nuclear weapon. However, the fact that it only would've leveled the playing field probably means that the USSR wouldn't have immediately responded in kind. That said, a world of tactical nukes is definitely a scary one (Frank Herbert was rather prescient in this regard), and I'm glad we've never had to find out what it would look like.
> "What would be the response to a nuclear power using one of these in combat? Escalation? Retaliation in kind? The damage to the surrounding environment could be small, especially if used to target submarines and ships."
Look up "Escalate to De-Escalate." The apparent Russian nuclear doctrine involves small-scale nuclear devices (escalation) used in a regional capacity. Their theory, supposedly, is that if only a small nuclear weapon is used in a limited capacity against a military target, a full-scale nuclear response against civilian populations (aka nuclear Armageddon) would be completely unreasonable and consequently the other side would choose to back down (de-escalation).
Now, whether or not Russia actually believes this or merely wants America to believe that Russia believes this is something of an open question. It could be the case that Russia wouldn't actually dare put Escalate to De-Escalate into practice, but merely claim they think it's a good idea as part of their deterrent strategy.
Any with audio? To this day I'm only aware of one video where you actually hear the detonation, albeit with whatever equipment they could grab out of the dumpster behind the nearest Radioshack:
I think, in most cases, the sound is omitted, since it's often the least interesting aspect of the event, and being a little underwhelming, almost detracts from the visuals.
They aren't like loud, irregular rolling thunderclaps, with interesting sweet spots and curious deviations or oddities. They don't rumble and crackle or anything. One bang, a trail off of distant reverberation, and not much else. You have to figure audio equipment doesn't do the explosions much justice during playback either, in terms of volume and possibly seismic effects.
It's just a single report, detached and delayed by the speed of sound, and the mandatory distance from the blast itself. The accuracy of this depiction is valuable, because it informs the viewer of what it would be like to witness a test first-hand, but as entertaining media that demonstrates the noises that relate to the visuals, the timing delay leaves an impatient gap between cause and effect.
To provide improved legibility, the videos would probably want to synchronize the auditory report of the bang with the imagery of the explosion, and push the sound backwards by a number of seconds to remove the delay between sight and sound, due to distance.
As a non-American, while I do see the need for such tests during the Cold War, the way America ruined pristine pacific islands just saddens me. They should’ve been held accountable for that but alas better them than the USSR
If you’re just talking about the islands themselves, I’d say that falls under the umbrella of aesthetics: are the islands more or less beautiful now? We’ll never have an aesthetics court to argue such things, sadly.
However it’s very interesting. With the smaller explosions, I’m really shocked by just how small they are.
We tend to think of better nuclear weapons as “bigger”, getting into the double digits in terms of megaton yield. However, the trend over he last 40 years, as computers has shown is, is miniaturization.
Most likely, nuclear weapons will follow a similar law, particular if war forces them back into active development.
I spent a summer (intern) working at the Nevada Test Site and visited the Sedan crater when I was there (my supervisor gave me the 'nickel tour' as he called it).
He said that one of the goals of the Sedan test was to test the feasibility of using nuclear weapons to create a replacement for the Panama canal across the lower part of Mexico "in a hurry." I don't know what their conclusion was but I remain skeptical that such a plan had any merit.
I read that in the early 2000's NASA went back over this test as part of an effort to evaluate what the impact of a nuclear weapon would be as an asteroid defense. And caveat the issue of turning one asteroid into a dozen, they concluded that significant delta-V could be added to an asteroid in this way.
[+] [-] apo|7 years ago|reply
https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/possibleinborndogwoodclubgall
That may be the most provocative of them all today.
What would be the response to a nuclear power using one of these in combat? Escalation? Retaliation in kind? The damage to the surrounding environment could be small, especially if used to target submarines and ships.
Escalation to the level of H-bombs would mean WWIII. No response demonstrates "weakness." Tit-for-tat seems the most likely outcome, with gradual escalation along the way.
It's far from clear how long that gradual escalation phase could last, but it could be a long time indeed. The first use of low-yield nuclear weapons in combat lays the groundwork for their use in the next conflict.
[+] [-] jballanc|7 years ago|reply
In short, for much of the Cold War the USSR had such a numbers advantage over NATO when it came to tank forces that the only chance NATO had to hold off a full-scale tank invasion by the USSR would have been the use of tactical nukes.
As you rightly point out, MAD strategy doesn't quite apply here. Yes, the Davy Crockett is a nuclear weapon. However, the fact that it only would've leveled the playing field probably means that the USSR wouldn't have immediately responded in kind. That said, a world of tactical nukes is definitely a scary one (Frank Herbert was rather prescient in this regard), and I'm glad we've never had to find out what it would look like.
[+] [-] JackCh|7 years ago|reply
Look up "Escalate to De-Escalate." The apparent Russian nuclear doctrine involves small-scale nuclear devices (escalation) used in a regional capacity. Their theory, supposedly, is that if only a small nuclear weapon is used in a limited capacity against a military target, a full-scale nuclear response against civilian populations (aka nuclear Armageddon) would be completely unreasonable and consequently the other side would choose to back down (de-escalation).
Now, whether or not Russia actually believes this or merely wants America to believe that Russia believes this is something of an open question. It could be the case that Russia wouldn't actually dare put Escalate to De-Escalate into practice, but merely claim they think it's a good idea as part of their deterrent strategy.
[+] [-] mynameishere|7 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKwkTYeukE4
[+] [-] hymen0ptera|7 years ago|reply
They aren't like loud, irregular rolling thunderclaps, with interesting sweet spots and curious deviations or oddities. They don't rumble and crackle or anything. One bang, a trail off of distant reverberation, and not much else. You have to figure audio equipment doesn't do the explosions much justice during playback either, in terms of volume and possibly seismic effects.
It's just a single report, detached and delayed by the speed of sound, and the mandatory distance from the blast itself. The accuracy of this depiction is valuable, because it informs the viewer of what it would be like to witness a test first-hand, but as entertaining media that demonstrates the noises that relate to the visuals, the timing delay leaves an impatient gap between cause and effect.
To provide improved legibility, the videos would probably want to synchronize the auditory report of the bang with the imagery of the explosion, and push the sound backwards by a number of seconds to remove the delay between sight and sound, due to distance.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jcims|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiderPig|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] phendrenad2|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bucephalus355|7 years ago|reply
However it’s very interesting. With the smaller explosions, I’m really shocked by just how small they are.
We tend to think of better nuclear weapons as “bigger”, getting into the double digits in terms of megaton yield. However, the trend over he last 40 years, as computers has shown is, is miniaturization.
Most likely, nuclear weapons will follow a similar law, particular if war forces them back into active development.
[+] [-] jcims|7 years ago|reply
https://goo.gl/maps/bHEEVZKKK1B2
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|7 years ago|reply
He said that one of the goals of the Sedan test was to test the feasibility of using nuclear weapons to create a replacement for the Panama canal across the lower part of Mexico "in a hurry." I don't know what their conclusion was but I remain skeptical that such a plan had any merit.
I read that in the early 2000's NASA went back over this test as part of an effort to evaluate what the impact of a nuclear weapon would be as an asteroid defense. And caveat the issue of turning one asteroid into a dozen, they concluded that significant delta-V could be added to an asteroid in this way.
[+] [-] tmkbry|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdb333|7 years ago|reply
Everyone should see this if you haven't already!
[+] [-] luke0016|7 years ago|reply