Hey! No Biggie! A Little Old Tactical Nuclear Bomb

Relax, all you Strategic Intercontinental Nuclear Missile guys. What’s to worry? A couple million surplus enemies of freedom vaporized cheaply and efficiently? No problem! It’s TACTICAL.

Simulated 750 kiloton nuke on London after about 0.2 seconds

Speculation is “viral” (and what a fascinating Bill Gates-owned, Microsoft-generated and implanted phraseology that is, don’t you think?) … speculation is Viral that the Israeli Defense Force may be “mulling” dropping a “Tactical Nuclear Weapon” on Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. That would be done because Hezbollah would wipe the dinner plate clean of the IDF ground forces and say, “Come back here you sad sacks! We ain’t done with you yet!”

And then naturally Israel, Sacred Israel, would have The RiGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF with a “Tactical” little old Teeny Weenie Nuclear bomb.

Of course that would be effective only if one could persuade a reasonably large number of Hezbollah fighters to congregate in one spot. Maybe the IDF could finance another open air New Age Techno-rock music festival like October 7, 2023’s shindig that attracted so many Hamas music lovers?

There is also “Viral” ( I just love that cute word! Don’t you?) speculation about maybe Bibi Netanyahu took almost 60 standing ovations from the US Congressional Whorehouse as tacit permission to nuke Iran. A “Tactical Nuclear Warhead” would be much more economical if dropped into central Tehran where all those men, women and children terrorists are so conveniently gathered.

It seems to be Viral, Micro-Soft Corp, wisdom that the detonation of a Strategic Nuclear Weapon would trigger Global Thermonuclear War involving the USA, Russia and China and that would make at least North America and Eurasia permanently uninhabitable for the next hundred thousand years after killing at least 5 billion people in less than a week.

But maybe if it was just a little old, itsy-bitsy, teeny-weenie TACTICAL Nuke, well, that wouldn’t put all of the nuclear forces of the USA and Russia and China and India and Pakistan on hair trigger alert would it? They’d all just chill out and relax and stand down, no worries. Right?

Awe come on, fellas! Y’all got to just GET USED to this new defintion here between a Strategic nuke and a Tactical Nuke. Totally different things!

A TACTICAL nuclear bomb is just used on soldiers, combatants. Terrorists, maybe. (All of Gaza is terrorists. There’s two million of those voters for Hamas. Is that Tactical?) Anyhow, if it’s TACTICAL it’s totally OK. Right?

Everybody’s gonna understand that. Right? All those strategic nuclear missile launcher guys will just say, “Hey! Relax. Chill, guys. It’s only TACTICAL. Stand down. It’s maybe two million people tops! NO BIGGIE.”

A STRATEGIC nuke is different. TOTALLY not the same thing!

That big bad world-destroying Strategic Nuclear bomb could level Shanghai (25 million) or ChongQing (35 million. What a TEMPTING concentration of enemies of Freedom!) or London (merely six piddly little million) or New York City (only 8 million. Hardly worth it). Moscow? 12 million enemies of Freedom. London? Nine million nice, not Russian, Not-Enemy-of-Freedom-type people.

Simulation of a Nuclear Explosion in LONDON - YouTube

The simulated warhead yields a 750 kiloton blast. I asked our all-knowing god Google if this is small enough to be called a “Tactical" Nuclear Weapon. I can’t get a straight answer from our esteemed grand robot of All Wisdom.

Seems to be a matter of size. And nobody seems to agree. I confess to being just a tippy-tad worried about that lack of consensus.

There are Nukes as small as the equivalent explosive power of 5,000 tons of TNT. A 5000 ton conventional bomb is impossible of course. The bomb that levelled Hiroshima was, by various, accounts I have read over the decades, as powerful as 15,000 or up to 20,000 tones of TNT.

Hold up! What is this “TNT”?

Tri-Nitro Toluene was invented well over a century ago and is the standard measure of bomb potency. I just wanted to be clear about that.

With all the jargon being thrown around, I think it’s only prudent to be careful about terms of reference. Maybe I can’t get a straight answer about “tactical Nuclear Weapons” because the idea is not really defined.

Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand tons of TNT is 250,000 tons short of one Mega-Ton. That’s One Million (1,000,000) tons of TNT. I used to hear a lot about “one mega-ton” nuclear weapons. Nowadays, maybe 3/4 of a megaton is considered a standard “strategic weapon”.

Kinda makes a piddly little old 5,000 ton nuclear bomb hardly worth worrying about. Hell! A little old firecracker like that would have levelled only one third or even only one quarter of Hiroshima. It would have killed … ?

Help me out, O all Knowing Google, by the offices of thy Angel, Wikipedia:

“On 6 August, a “Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later, a “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki. Over the next two to four months, the effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000 to 166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000 to 80,000 people in Nagasaki; roughly half occurred on the first day.”

So a little old 5000 tons of TNT would have killed only [90,000/5 =] 18 thousand of those Japanese enemies of Freedom in America. Hell. That wouldn’t have impressed the Russians!

Before the atom bombs were dropped, the USAAF’s B-29 bombers firebombed Tokyo killing 100,000 people in one night. What say you, O Wise Wikipedia?

"On the night of 9–10 March 1945, 334 B-29s took off to raid with 279 of them dropping 1,665 tons of bombs on Tokyo.”

That’s awfully expensive, all those bombers. The Atom bomb made Strategic bombing so much more efficient.

That’s what that word “Strategic” means. When you kill millions of unarmed civilians that’s STRATEGIC. It’s strategy. It makes governments want to surrender. But only if you kill millions all at once and only if they are unarmed and only if they are all in one place. Like a city.

If they are soldiers or militias or terrorists and you only kill maybe one or two million in a city that is, well, unappealing tourist-wise … well… that’s TACTICAL. You see?

Or...?

Maybe we’re hearing a lot of guff about “Tactical” and “Strategic” Nuclear weapons because spouting off about the non-existent red line between “Tactical” and “Strategic” is a way for SOMEBODY up there where decisions are made – that’s gotta be in Washington, right? Or maybe Tel Aviv? – wants to throw a lot of sand in the eyes of the global public in order to … ?

Get away with using a nuclear bomb to destroy parts of Lebanon? Or maybe mass murdering two million people in central Tehran and get away with it?

Can you think of a reason why Bibi Netanyahu’s gang of fanatics would not expect that they would be allowed by the United States to do that with one of their 80 nuclear bombs and face no consequences for it? I can’t.

I can’t think of a single reason why they would not expect to be scot-free after one more mass murder since they have never been told no by Washington since 1967. And who is there in the White House to tell them no? An idiot and two moronic viragos! And a Congress full of whores for AIPAC headed by the slimy likes of Lindsey Graham. There isn’t a brain cell between them, much less a shred of human decency.