(0.01 kilotons (or 10 tons of TNT)
Go look.
Yes. Here’s some info and pics
No. What Asylum said, but a more official link.
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.
OK, who’s going to make the obligatory Dune reference?
The History Channel is my bible. That, and Food TV.
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.
snerk
I guess that’d be you 
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?
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.
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 …
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. It used to be on the FAS site, but has since moved.