Actually, nuclear weapons have indeed been considered for killing troops on the battlefield. At one time, the possibility of the Soviet Union invading western Europe seemed not so remote. Here is a link (wiki) to basically a bazooka launched fission bomb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29 with pictures. ("recoiless gun" means a rocket fired from a tube). The idea would be to for a relatively small force to cope with a relatively large number of tanks. Peter
On 6/19/08, Kilian CAVALOTTI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 19 June 2008 06:58:44 am Robert G. Brown wrote: > > Getting too big > > or two small an explosion can either kill your own troops or not kill > > all of the enemy on an actual battlefield. > > > To add some more OT stuff to this thread, I don't think a nuclear weapon > has ever been used (or even considered being used) to kill troops on a > battlefield. Some cluster bombs (hey, back on topic! :)) are probably > enough for this purpose. > > IMHO, a nuclear weapon is mainly a dissuasion weapon, ie, one you claim > you own to make your ennemies think twice before they strike you. Or > that you use against civilians to make your point louder, and let your > ennemies understand they'd better surrender. > > That's why I find the association between "nuclear weapon" > and "battlefield" a bit irrelevant. > > Other than that, pretty interesting stuff. I'm unfortunately supporting > your conclusions. > > Cheers, > -- > > Kilian > > _______________________________________________ > Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit > http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf >
_______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
