Not to mention our purity of essence, and our precious bodily fluids.
DHR
DOD policy is quite explicit on the “neither confirm nor deny” position. It is also true that the United States’ nuclear policy is focused upon strategic rather than tactical deployments. It is also true (at least reported) that the US Army has removed all nuclear artillery loads from deployed positions. However, there is another class of delivery vehicle which has long been under the control of the US Army.
The Nike-Hercules is a short to medium rangs delivery system capable of delivering a conventional or a nuclear payload. It is designed for surface-to-air or surface-to-surface use. It is also obsolete in the US Army, having had its various missions taken over by several different weapons systems. Before decommisioning, many of these systems had been sold to allied countries (Germany, Greece, turkey, Britain). In such cases, any warheads with special capability (should they have existed) would have remained under the direct and specific control of the US Army. Hypothetically.
By special capability, do you mean the so-called “micronukes” or “bunker busters”? My impression was that these weapons were only theoretical so far, but highly controversial nonetheless. Is there still R&D going on in this area?
DHR
“special” weapons in US Army terminology includes all armaments of a non-conventional nature. Seems pretty straightforward, right? And vague enough to be useful in certain PR situations. In the post above, I was referring to warheads with tactical nuclear capability. I, of course, can neither confirm nor deny having any knowledge about such warheads. But if I had any, it would most likely be about “conventional” warheads, wieghing half a ton or more and delivered by a large missile-thingy.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*