Talk:Strategic nuclear weapon

Merge with Tactical nuclear weapon

Addressing both "strategic" and "tactical" weapons in one article would be clearer and avoid duplication of terms - since there is no clear line between tactical and strategic weapons other than their (intended) use, each article needs to contrast with the other. --mcpusc (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a serious differences in delivery and size as well as use. Tactical weapons are delivered by ordinary battlefield systems such as artillery and are often in the low to sub kiloton range. This is important because many get the impression that nuclear deterrence only applies to city and industrial targets when in fact deterrence extends to wiping out ground and naval forces. This is critical historically to explaining the Cold War defense of Europe where the American plan was to stop the Soviet Army with massive tactical strikes on the battlefield. 108.65.0.169 (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There should be no merger of tactical nuclear weapons page with strategic nuclear weapons page. Both topics are capable of a full page on their own. Merging them would create a very long page with two distinct sections (tactical and strategic). The clear line between strategic and tactical weapons lies in their different, deployment mechanisms, destructive output and design. Tactical nuclear weapons do little contrasting with strategic nuclear weapons, relative to conventional weapons. As for the dupication of terms, it would be a small price to pay for better organized and shorter articles. 91killer (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"since there is no clear line between tactical and strategic weapons other than their (intended) use" - not only is that a good enough reason to have 2 separate articles, but there is a difference in the size because of this very reason. Tactical= small, strategic= large. They are just fine being 2 separate articles and the only way I see merging them is making them both a section in the article on nuclear weapon -Eaglescout1984 15:32, 14 May 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglescout1984 (talk • contribs)

I agree with those who believe that there should be 2 separate articles. Merging the 2 topics into one single article will muddy the waters. It makes good sense to keep the topic of 'tactical nuclear weapons' in its own discrete article. There's no łogical or compelling reason to merge with strategic nuclear weapons. 88.107.62.235 (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

2 articles. The use, purpose and construction are all different. Ray Van De Walker 06:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep the 2 articles separate. Nuclear weapons is a broad category with plenty of room for separate articles on topics of interest. I found this article searching on "mini-nuke." Would have been less satisfied to find the article on strategic nukes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.24.22 (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

oppose merge - strategic nuclear weapons (i.e ICBM with MIRV travelling halfway around the world) and tactical nuclear weapons (ie. artillery fired on a battlefield such as the W79) are different weapons with different purposes/yields/range and there is more than enough information on both to warrant 2 articles 87.112.14.197 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

in conclusion Tactical Nuclear Weapons and Stratigic nuclear weapons are to entireley different topics i dont think they should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.90.68 (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)