The Department of Defense, specifically under the direction of Undersecretary Elbridge Colby, is looking to increase the number of “tactical” nuclear weapons in America’s nuclear arsenal. Many hear “tactical” and think that these nuclear weapons aren’t so destructive, that they’re more usable than other nuclear weapons. The Department of Defense also aims to deploy more of these weapons throughout Europe. It’s seen as a go-between of putting US boots on the ground or withdrawing from these continents entirely.
But tactical nuclear weapons aren’t the golden ticket to solve this dilemma, and the United States should refrain from adding more of them to its nuclear arsenal and should refrain from relying upon them for defense.
These nuclear weapons are tactical in the sense that they target battlefield objects, like tanks and airfields. They also have lower explosive power compared to strategic nuclear weapons, ranging from 0.1 to 50 kilotons of explosive yield. But this framing of tactical versus strategic nuclear weapons is misleading. It fails to acknowledge two things: the actual destructiveness of tactical nuclear weapons and the dangers of escalation during a war or crisis.
Tactical nuclear weapons, though less destructive than their strategic counterparts, are still more destructive than the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, which had an explosion of 16 kilotons. By comparison, the weakest one deployed by the United States today is rated at 0.3 to 50 kilotons of TNT. A study from the Council on Strategic Risks showed the effects of a 20-kiloton nuclear explosion. It would induce “third- and fourth-degree burns” to those at 1,500 meters surrounding the fireball radius. Fires would also ensue along this radius, and those within this range would experience blindness. For those unfortunate enough to be inside the 600-meter blast radius, however, they are immediately vaporized. Even at 2,500 meters away, buildings and plants would catch fire. Within about 800 meters of the explosion site, blast waves would destroy buildings. Food and water would become contaminated. Contaminated debris from the blast—fallout—would risk contaminating anything it encounters with radiation.
Using the NUKEMAP, a simulation tool for nuclear explosions, a 20-kiloton surface detonation on New York would kill an estimated 159,000 people and injure about 291,000, with fallout reaching near Shelton, Connecticut. This is just from a single tactical nuclear weapon, and a smaller one, at that.
Regarding escalation, there’s little telling how other countries would respond to a tactical nuclear weapon being used. They could de-escalate, escalate with non-nuclear military attacks, or escalate with nuclear attacks. If the side escalates, there’s little telling how the original user of the tactical nuclear weapon would respond in kind. The probable answer is that it too would escalate.
Rather than deploy more tactical nuclear weapons to certain regions, the United States should accept the limitations of military power: the fact that its military simply can’t be everywhere all at once. Nor should it aim to be. The United States must be more selective about where it has security commitments and where it deploys troops. In Europe, US troops are not needed to defend the continent against a Russia that is having a difficult time fighting Ukraine. The United States should also seek to cooperate with its security partners in the Asia-Pacific to avoid sending so many troops there to defend them against a rising China.
Nuclear weapons aren’t just like any other weapon or just a “bullet,” as President Eisenhower called them. More people need to be aware of the dangers of tactical nuclear weapons. Otherwise, policymakers and defense officials may feel increasingly compelled to use them as bullets.
