Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss
Nothing new. In the 60's Switzerland had it's own Nuclear program, it had exactly 2 goals.
1st: Being able to deliver a nuke to Moscow.
(That was sole reason we choose the Mirage3 back then)
2nd: Nuke our own country in case we're overrun.
Make sense, since we don't have an offensive army[or even the capability,lol].
Speaking of killing your own: The handgun each military officer carries is nothing but a "moral enforcer". 
Torps:
During the Cuba crisis, the Russian subs were equipped with nuclear torpedoes - the decision to fire them was up to the captain, no need for an ok from the politbüro.
Don't you think they would also work pretty well against a flotilla/carrier group? |
My understanding of the tests that the US did on ships leads me to believe the answer to that last question was "yes and no". A detonation of a small nuke (what an oxymoron lol) near a vessel would wipe it out immediately. Further away and the ship provides occupants some protection from the initial blast, plus ships are tough structures. Radiation becomes a problem, but that doesn't mean that vessels not taken out by the blast are out of commission immediately.
Even radiation to certain levels can be dealt with. I know the US did studies on radiation levels and how to decontaminate and protect people from radiation. It was surprising how "close" one could be a nuclear blast and survive, even long term, if they had some limited protection.
My understanding also is that NATO had "plans" to use tactical nukes against Soviet armor. The paths that the Soviets were likely to use to invade Western Europe were limited. Deny those paths and the armor columns could get bottled up. Soviet armor was one of the biggest concerns because it was decent and very numerous. That's why so much US development went into tank busting (Apache, A-10, etc..).
On the flip side, the "nuclear tank" and artillery piece were abandoned a long time ago to my recollection. Too vulnerable, not enough range, and not effective enough plus very expensive.
I'm not sure if anyone (nations) still subscribes to the concept of a limited nuclear engagement. Those types of encounters would seem to lead to escalation in short order.
No google was used on these assertions, all done from memory so take it for what it is worth.
Splitter