US tests 'most dangerous nuclear weapon ever produced'

[Smitty-48]

It's debatable which was the most dangerous, I suppose it could be the B61 because it was the one most likely to be used and used first, but could have been the BGM-109 Nuclear Tomahawk, as that was arguably the most strategically destabilizing.

[Kazmyr]

It's more likely to be used because it's so limited, precise, and least dangerous of them. An F-15 driver can deliver that thing spot on target.

Could we see something with such a low yield be employed in battle? I think the media wimps could get on board with a nuke that has such a low impact on the environment.

Not a chance re: media limp wrists. Anything nuclear is like being a Nazi. Pure evil and must never see the light of day, no matter the reality of it.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's more likely to be used because it's so limited, precise, and least dangerous of them. An F-15 driver can deliver that thing spot on target.

Could we see something with such a low yield be employed in battle? I think the media wimps could get on board with a nuke that has such a low impact on the environment.

Depends who is president. If it happens under Trump, they will squeal nonstop.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's more likely to be used because it's so limited, precise, and least dangerous of them. An F-15 driver can deliver that thing spot on target.

Could we see something with such a low yield be employed in battle? I think the media wimps could get on board with a nuke that has such a low impact on the environment.

Not a chance re: media limp wrists. Anything nuclear is like being a Nazi. Pure evil and must never see the light of day, no matter the reality of it.

Obama could have gotten away with it.

[Smitty-48]

Generally the neutron bomb was always the "most dangerous nuclear weapon ever produced" but I suppose you could argue that it never entered full rate production.

[Smitty-48]

I gather this is only an American competition, as there is the Hatf VII/Babur, which is a variable yield nuclear cruise missile in the hands of the Pakistani ISI.

[Speaker to Animals]

We've had these for a long time. I don't know why they are making a big deal out of it in the press other than to produce more propaganda. This is one of the strategic roles of the F-15 platform. We used to maintain an aresenol of them at RAF Lakenheath and Woodbridge. I am not sure where we kept them in CONUS, but pretty much all the F-15 wings could configure their aircraft to carry them.

[Smitty-48]

They don't actually say who said it was the "most dangerous", they just air quote "military experts", but if it was really military experts, more likely they meant it is the most dangerous because it is the most accurate, a nuclear JDAM basically.

[Speaker to Animals]

They don't actually say who said it was the "most dangerous", they just air quote "military experts", but if it was really military experts, more likely they meant it is the most dangerous because it is the most accurate, a nuclear JDAM basically.

It's pretty accurate. They can drop that thing right on your head if they want to.

Tactical nukes were a big deal when the threat of a Soviet offensive was real. There really was no other way to counter it.

[Kazmyr]

Obama could have gotten away with it.

I don't doubt it for a second.

Reduction of Nuclear Arsenal Has Slowed Under Obama, Report Finds

MAY 26, 2016

A new census of the American nuclear arsenal shows that the Obama administration last year dismantled its smallest number of warheads since taking office.

The new figures, released by the Pentagon, also highlight a trend — that the current administration has reduced the nuclear stockpile less than any other post-Cold War presidency.

Still, the new figures and private analysis underscored the striking gap between Mr. Obama’s soaring vision of a world without nuclear arms, which he laid out during the first months of his presidency, and the tough geopolitical and bureaucratic realities of actually getting rid of those weapons.

The lack of recent progress in both arms control and warhead dismantlement also seems to coincide with the administration’s push for sweeping nuclear modernizations that include improved weapons, bombers, missiles and submarines. Those upgrades are estimated to cost up to $1 trillion over the next three decades.