I've never used one yet, but I must say that I can visualize an extreme situation or two
in which I would authorize the use of nuclear weaponry, or push the button myself.
Use of nuclear weapons in wartime.
This is impossible to predict as we don't know the future situation.
plutonium + weapon
The term precision nuclear weapon may be a misnomer, but it is generally used to describe a low yield nuclear weapon (perhaps a few kilotons) that can be delivered with great accuracy on a specific target.The idea is to use this device, which is very small compared to an equivalent conventional weapon, in applications like busting deeply buried bunkers or other large below ground installations. Using a nuclear weapon in this type of application would gain a more assured result than the use of conventional explosives. The catch is that if you have this wonderfully effective weapon with all these superior characteristics, you may be tempted to use it.It may or may not be helpful to compare the precision nuclear weapon to what we call a tactical nuclear weapon. This nuclear device has a low yield (about a kiloton or so) that was designed to be delivered by conventional large-bore cannon or a small missile. The limited blast could be directed in a way that it could destroy something like a concentration of armored vehicles or troops that it would be difficult to do with conventional explosives. Consider that a small tactical nuclear weapon that could fit inside a 155 mm cannon shell would do damage that a thousand tons of TNT would be needed to accomplish.
No. LLNL even tested several Uranium-Hydride bombs in the 1950s. Even though their computer models said the devices should explode, none gave a nuclear yield. One could use the waste from the reactor as a Radiological Weapon, but the reactor itself is not useful as a weapon.
Truman in WW2 on Japan.
Harry Truman - August of 1945
The roman army did not use nuclear weapons.
US
nuclear bomb
"Thermonuclear" is a term derived from the science of physics, and was not developed by any one person, to describe a type of weapon and the type of war the use of such a weapon would create. All the ready-to-fire nuclear weapons in the world today are thermonuclear weapons -- there is no difference.Therefore the type of 'war' their use would create would be no different.Also, there is no such thing as a 'conventional nuclear war'; the term makes no sense whatsoever. Conventionalmeans non-nuclear conflict (tanks, planes, men, etc.), nuclear means use of nuclear weapons. The moment a conventional war escalates to the use of nuclear weapons, it ceases to be conventional.So remember, thermonuclear war is the same as nuclear war; they do not differ.
If provoked again due to a pre-emptive attack on our homeland, the USA would inot hesitate to use nuclear warheads on another country.