205 replies to this topic

[Derek L]

I dont think tactical nukes were/are at the disposal of local commander at all times. I belive it would be up to higher ups. Otherwise it could get scary just because 1 division is losing and decides to even out the playing field. I could be wrong but I remember reading this but I might be mistaking.

You’re close…….Most of the warheads were under control of the Strategic Rocket Forces (ICBMs, IRBMs Scuds/Frogs etc) and those that weren’t, were held at the Theatre, Army Group Level and you can be sure, there were numerous levels of Cheka, KGB and MVD in the equation.

[Derek L]

Some weapons like the Little John were attached at division level during the Cold War. Their use was another matter, as you say. But, I'm looking at a scenario where said division finds itself out of communications and threatened by 4+ Soviet mech divisions. Do you pop-off that Davy Crockett or MADM?

Thought you were talking about the Soviets........With NATO, some nukes were held at even lower levels than Division…….Same with Naval and Air Force equivalents……..In theory, their use required prior sanction from higher up the food chain……..In, fictional, practice, you never know.

[DogOnPorch]

Yup, it certainly would have depended on the date of the war though……..After NATO had numerous 120mm barrelled tanks and TOW’s deployed to Germany, the utility of many of the older Soviet tanks would have been in question, and it’s not unreasonable to expect a similar ratio between NATO & Warsaw Pact armoured losses as those per historic between the Israelis and Arabs……As for nukes, they didn’t need them, they had divisional artillery……I wouldn’t have envied the troops and civilians on the ground.

The Russians have always been slow to mothball any particular machine. Plus, they've exported huge numbers of their older tanks/aircraft to the 3rd world over the decades post WW2. If one side has nothing...a T-55 can be quite daunting. But, the Israelis' armored force is half made-up of captured and converted T-55s/T-62s/T-72s courtesy of the Arabs...so there have been some positive side effects.


The TOW and LAW changed the battlefield...and the Sagger and RPG-7, of course. All those wires criss-crossing everywhere would have been disturbing, I bet.

The US has always been keen on the organic artillery support. Bullets before soldiers. The 155 is one of the finest gun lines ever made, in my opinion. Soviet artillery was often directed at corp level or higher without much input from the troops at the front. But, again...they had tens of thousands of artilley pieces, katyushas, FROGs, SCUDS and AT guns. The big hammer.

Edited by DogOnPorch, 10 April 2012 - 07:27 PM.

[DogOnPorch]

Thought you were talking about the Soviets........With NATO, some nukes were held at even lower levels than Division…….Same with Naval and Air Force equivalents……..In theory, their use required prior sanction from higher up the food chain……..In, fictional, practice, you never know.

Then there's the boomer fleet. The President needn't be involved under certain conditions if I'm correct. BC??

[bush_cheney2004]

Then there's the boomer fleet. The President needn't be involved under certain conditions if I'm correct. BC??

The office of President and SecDef are at the top of the National Command Authority food chain for two-man control of nuclear weapons release and execution of the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) or its modern equivalent, which is a pre-ordained protocol to follow for all US strategic nuclear forces. The president can only be removed from the process by temporary transfer of power (i.e. 25th Amendment), which has happened at least three times. This is why continuous communications is so important to boomers on patrol.


Before tactical nuclear weapons were removed from all US submarines (e.g. MK45 ASTOR torpedo or UUM44 SUBROC), release was controlled locally by the ship's crew (two-man control) and standing orders for rules of engagement.

[Topaz]

Question, who would it be harder to sale to, the Canadians public or the US government? I can't see the US allowing Canada or mexico to have the nukes.

[bush_cheney2004]

Question, who would it be harder to sale to, the Canadians public or the US government? I can't see the US allowing Canada or mexico to have the nukes.

The US still provides nuclear weapons through a sharing program with NATO partners. Germany, Turkey, and others still have US nuclear warheads on their soil (controlled by USAF). Canada had such an arrangement until 1984.

[-TSS-]

If Canada wants to keep the artic they should spend the money to colonize and develope it. Thats how you secure territory... if we built mines, cities, and ports there then we would have a pretty strong claim. If we dont, theres a good chance we we lose it, or at the very least have to share some it, no matter what we spend on our military.

In the modern world you can't really force people to move anywhere against their will. How would you attract people to move in large numbers to the Canadian arctic? Exempt them from the federal taxation?

[Mr.Canada]

I'm personally in favor of Canada becoming nuclear capable. 3 ICBM silos for each coast should do it(9total).

[DogOnPorch]

I'm personally in favor of Canada becoming nuclear capable. 3 ICBM silos for each coast should do it(9total).

Heck...let's just put up 12 low Earth orbital platforms in various orbital planes loaded with MIRVs.

[Signals.Cpl]

In the modern world you can't really force people to move anywhere against their will. How would you attract people to move in large numbers to the Canadian arctic? Exempt them from the federal taxation?

I guess improving infrastructure to hopefully lower the cost of living in the north would be a great start. Another one would be more military aircraft up north to assist the Rangers so if there is some disturbance anywhere in our territory we can be in a better position to investigate any and all incidents. I don't think it helps our claims up north if we can't a) Show the door to anyone who might be trespassing in our airspace or through our waters and b)The fact that the rangers could report an explosion on our territory and it would take us several days to investigate.