The reality is that “tactical” and “strategic” are functionally meaningless adjectives when applied to weapons or systems.
Theoretically, “tactical” refers to how a military unit engages another military unit. It is how a commander wins a battle against an enemy unit.
“Strategic” refers to how a nation engages another nation. It is how a government wins a war.
The term “tactical nuke” referred to something that a lower level commander could have been authorized to use under his own judgment. If Soviet tanks were rolling across Europe during the cold war, commanders may have been granted the discretion to use small nuclear weapons to halt their advance.
Since the the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction was established, there has been no such thing as a “tactical” nuke. Any wartime use of a nuclear weapon of any kind demands an escalation to total annihilation. I used the term “tactical” ironically.
In declaring that conventional bombs cannot penetrate this fixed bunker, it seems that someone is pushing for unconventional warfare. The reality is that this bunker is not impenetrable. It shares the same weakness as any bunker: getting into and out of it. Bomb the entrances to the bunker, and it will take months or years to tunnel back in. Whatever they are doing inside it, they won’t be doing until they manage to dig it up again.
In common usage they’re equivalent to small and big. In practical terms, all nukes are strategic - use of a nuke has profound global diplomatic repercussions.
Tactical means immediately useful. E.g. use against troops.
Strategical means mediately useful. E.g. use against infrastructure and production capacity. Also massively killing civilians. This is where most heinous war crimes live.
One means directly, one means by middle man. E.g. a president is elected mediatly by electing a law giving council that then votes on who becomes president. As opposed to the people electing said president directly.
Rubanski@lemm.ee 1 day ago
I never really got why tactical and strategic nukes are so wildly different. Aren’t those words more or less synonyms?
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Strategic = Hiroshima getting obliterated
Tactical = The Imperial Palace is obliterated, but rest of Tokyo is mostly intact.
andallthat@lemmy.world 1 day ago
and housing becomes much more accessible too when buildings are intact but their inhabitants have much shorter lives because of radiation
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Eventually, the radiation will be gone.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are habitable now btw
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 day ago
The reality is that “tactical” and “strategic” are functionally meaningless adjectives when applied to weapons or systems.
Theoretically, “tactical” refers to how a military unit engages another military unit. It is how a commander wins a battle against an enemy unit.
“Strategic” refers to how a nation engages another nation. It is how a government wins a war.
The term “tactical nuke” referred to something that a lower level commander could have been authorized to use under his own judgment. If Soviet tanks were rolling across Europe during the cold war, commanders may have been granted the discretion to use small nuclear weapons to halt their advance.
Since the the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction was established, there has been no such thing as a “tactical” nuke. Any wartime use of a nuclear weapon of any kind demands an escalation to total annihilation. I used the term “tactical” ironically.
In declaring that conventional bombs cannot penetrate this fixed bunker, it seems that someone is pushing for unconventional warfare. The reality is that this bunker is not impenetrable. It shares the same weakness as any bunker: getting into and out of it. Bomb the entrances to the bunker, and it will take months or years to tunnel back in. Whatever they are doing inside it, they won’t be doing until they manage to dig it up again.
MangoCats@feddit.it 1 day ago
In common usage they’re equivalent to small and big. In practical terms, all nukes are strategic - use of a nuke has profound global diplomatic repercussions.
Gladaed@feddit.org 1 day ago
Very much not.
Tactical means immediately useful. E.g. use against troops. Strategical means mediately useful. E.g. use against infrastructure and production capacity. Also massively killing civilians. This is where most heinous war crimes live.
flightyhobler@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Image
Gladaed@feddit.org 1 day ago
One means directly, one means by middle man. E.g. a president is elected mediatly by electing a law giving council that then votes on who becomes president. As opposed to the people electing said president directly.
Saleh@feddit.org 1 day ago
It is like a rifle vs. a cannon.
Yes it is functionally the same, but the “bullet” is much much larger.
Gladaed@feddit.org 1 day ago
Not really. More like a cannon and an artillery aimed at industrial capacity.
EstonianGuy@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Generally yield and intention difference, strategic takes out cities, tactical takes out factories, military bases and compounds.