# Do big nuclear bombs have any role in modern warfare? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 31, 2003, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801 "2003-01-31T03:57:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801/21 "2003-01-31T20:59:41Z")
(0.01 kilotons (or 10 tons of TNT) Go look. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801/22 "2003-01-31T21:02:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by empfsu1 \* > \*\*Does France have nukes? \*\* Yes. Here’s some [info and pics](http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/frnukes.html) > [@](#): > > is that why U.S, Britain, China, Russia and France are the 5 vetoing members of the U.N ? No. What **Asylum** said, but a more [official link](http://www.una-uk.org/UN&C/sc.html). ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801/23 "2003-01-31T21:08:22Z")
Tac nukes _used_ to go as low as _ten tons_ yield. That’s a bit much to waste on a tank, but would be appropriate for, say, taking out a bridge, or temporarily stopping an advance through a narrow pass. Take History Channel with a grain of salt. Oh, BTW: The mico-nukes have all been decommed: Fairly useless in an era that has the BLU-82 and it’s cousins. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801/24 "2003-01-31T21:26:16Z")
> [@](#): > > There are plenty of other places in which a single big nuke could effectively stop advancing forces: the Mitla and Gidi passes in the Sinai, as well as the highways passing through Bi’r al Jifjafah come to mind, as does the potential invasion routes through the Golan Heights. And of course the Khyber Pass is increasingly looking like a target for nukes. OK, who’s going to make the obligatory _Dune_ reference? ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801/25 "2003-01-31T21:32:14Z")
The History Channel is my bible. That, and Food TV. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801/26 "2003-01-31T21:53:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mangeorge \* > \*\*(0.01 kilotons (or 10 tons of TNT) > Go look. \*\* Oops… My own link provides the answer you mention. However, in my reading I had read a different answer to this that mentioned the 0.1 kiloton figure and they seemed like a reliable source so I went with it without checking the details in the other link. > [@](#): > > The Davy Crockett fission bomb, fielded by the United States in Europe from 1961 to 1971, is the smallest confirmed nuclear weapon. Its miniature warhead weighed only 51 pounds, had a yield of 0.1 kilotons and a maximum range of 2.49 miles, and could be launched from a recoilless rifle or a jeep. > > SOURCE: [Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists](http://www.thebulletin.org/research/qanda/bombsize.html) ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801/27 "2003-01-31T21:55:02Z")
_snerk_ ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801/28 "2003-01-31T21:55:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chronos \* > \*\*OK, who’s going to make the obligatory _Dune_ reference? \*\* I guess that’d be you 😉 ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801/29 "2003-01-31T22:11:39Z")
It’s the “a maximum range of 2.49 miles” that would kinda worry me. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801/30 "2003-01-31T22:20:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mangeorge \* > \*\*It’s the “a maximum range of 2.49 miles” that would kinda worry me. :dubious: \*\* I figured these were scientist types and they were just anal. Besides, I read the same figure elsewhere too and it seemed like a fairly reliable source but for the life of me I can’t figure how I found the site in the first place so I can find it again for a cite (I remember because I was just getting ready to mentally convert 0.1 kilotons to pounds when I saw the mention in the article saying 200,000 pounds and thought ‘great…that makes it easy’). Should I take it that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is an unreliable site from your and **Tranquilis’** reponse? ---
**Author:** ![tsunamisurfer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@tsunamisurfer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tsunamisurfer)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801/31 "2003-01-31T22:27:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tsunamisurfer \* > \*\*As accuracy of guidance systems and electronic warfare countermeasures improved, missile throw weight proportionately decreased. The super-nukes you’re referring to (in the 20+ megaton range) no longer fit into this nation’s nuclear doctrine. Being able to insert a thermonuclear within a few dozen yards on your target obviates the need for 30-megaton warheads. > > Sad, but true, Dr. Strangelove, the days of “Big Mike” are over. \*\* Hate to be self-referential, but there are some misconceptions in this thread. Officially, the U.S. has no more “super-bombs” of the 10+ megaton range. Currently, the largest-yielding device is the B53 gravity bomb, rated at **9 megatons.** Though this early 1960s-vintage device was slated for retirement in the late 1980s, roughly 50 B53s of the antiques remain in the Air Force arsenal, presumably as blunt (four-ton) tools for carving out hardened enemy bunkers. (Newer, more specialized tactical nuclear weapons can achieve better results, theoretically, but there’s no accounting for Air Force nostalgia.) Second on the hit parade is the mid-1980s vintage B83 gravity bomb, with a theoretical yield of **1-2 megatons**. With about 650 currently deployed, the B83 is designed for “laydown” surface delivery, thus theoretically enabling the escape of a B-1B/B-2 crew. Third and pulling up the rear is a respectable hodgepodge of assorted Minuteman IIIs (335 kilotons), Peacekeeper ICBMs (3-400 kilotons [the most accurate U.S. ICBM, rated circular error probable at 90 meters]), the Ohio-class Tridents (100-300 kilotons), and the lowly Tomahawk, with an, um, modest 200 kiloton yield, roughly 13 times that of Hiroshima’s bomb. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801/32 "2003-02-01T00:55:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sofa King \* > The names escape me, but I recall that there were only a few passes through the Hartz Mountains which the Soviets could use in an invasion of the southern half of West Germany. I’m pretty sure it occurred to NATO that a nice big 20 megaton bomb would render such a mountan pass… impassable. The main name that’s given you the slip is presumably the Fulda Gap. However, I was always under the impression that NATO thinking in the 80s was that the chokepoint in the geography would prevent the Warsaw Pact exploiting its numerical superiority and give the West a fighting chance in the opening few days of such an attack. It was only when they’d broken out past that and were motoring towards the French border that you were tempted to “go nuclear”. The problem then was how to destroy tank formations happily careering across Bavaria. Ah, happy days … ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2003, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801/33 "2003-02-01T00:58:00Z")
**Whack-a-Mole** , rather than calling them unreliable, I’ll just say they have an agenda, so may not be entirely impartial. If you want a nice breakdown of all the American bombs, go [here](http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html). It used to be on the FAS site, but has since moved. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-big-nuclear-bombs-have-any-role-in-modern-warfare/151801.md?page=1)