For decades, America’s nuclear arsenal was seen for what it was – a blunt instrument of mass destruction meant to deter nuclear attack. That remains true today, but the recent deployment of new tactical weapons actually increases the odds that strategic nukes will be used.

Tactical nuclear weapons are designed not to flatten cities or destroy industry but to strike specific targets on the battlefield. Supporters argue they give military planners more options. Critics warn that they make nuclear war more likely by lowering the threshold for nuclear use and increasing the chances of catastrophic escalation.

Understanding the reality of tactical nuclear weapons and why they are in some ways the most dangerous weapons ever invented is essential to grasping the truth about these seemingly safer devices.

Strategic vs. Tactical: What’s the Difference?

Nuclear weapons have traditionally been divided into two categories: strategic and tactical.

• Strategic weapons are the backbone of nuclear deterrence – large, city-destroying bombs and missiles that threaten overwhelming retaliation in response to an attack. These weapons typically have yields in the hundred-kiloton range, but megaton-sized nukes also exist.

• Tactical weapons, sometimes called “battlefield” nuclear weapons, are much smaller nukes designed for use in direct combat rather than as ultimate deterrents. Their yields can be less than a kiloton, and they are delivered by shorter-range systems like fighter jets, cruise missiles, or even artillery.

To put this into perspective, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima yielded about 15 kilotons, and most tactical nukes today are smaller than that. Yet they still produce devastating effects compared to conventional explosives.

Why Build Smaller Bombs?

The military argues that smaller nuclear weapons are necessary to maintain a credible deterrence in a world where potential adversaries are also developing tactical arsenals. But what they see as enhancing security, others see as lowering the barrier to engaging in conflicts that are just a short step away from strategic nuclear war.

The U.S. and Soviet Union both fielded thousands of tactical nuclear weapons in the years following WWII. Most were retired when the Cold War ended. America kept about 230 tactical-capable B61 gravity bombs, while Russia retained as many as 2,000 tactical nukes in various configurations.

But the Trump Administration’s 1018 Nuclear Posture Review reversed that trend. It called for new, low-yield options to support an “escalate-to-deescalate” strategy where tactical nukes are used early in a conflict to intimidate opponents.

That led to the development of the W76-2 warhead, a modified version of the existing W76-1 with a much lower yield of about 6 kilotons. An unspecified number of W76-2 warheads are now deployed on Trident II ballistic missile submarines. The possibility they might be used in a nuclear escalate-to-deescalate scenario is terrifying.

Not to be outdone, the DOE’s Pantex nuclear weapons assembly plant in Texas completed the first batch of B61-12 gravity bombs for the U.S. Air Force in December of 2024. NNSA Administrator Jill Hruby said some have already been “fully forward deployed” in Europe, ready for action. A new adjustable tail fin improves accuracy, and a 0.3- to 50-kiloton variable yield gives many options for use.

Proponents say America’s deterrence may seem less credible without lower-yield options, arguing that responding to limited tactical strikes with large strategic weapons would be inappropriate. What they fail to understand is that using nuclear weapons under any circumstance whatsoever is both inappropriate and less credible.

Why Smaller Doesn’t Mean Safer

The idea behind tactical nukes is that they might be used to de-escalate a conflict without triggering a strategic nuclear war. But the reality is arguably different.

Smaller nuclear weapons are still nuclear weapons. Of the tactical nukes in use today, even the smallest has a yield of 0.3 kilotons – the equivalent of 600,000 pounds of TNT. Just one could kill thousands and cause at least some radiation damage to the environment. And tactical nukes are so much cheaper compared to strategic ones that many more can be built.

But above all, the taboo against nuclear use that existed for eighty years is shattered when the first nuke is used, large or small. Using nuclear weapons would be easier to justify once that barrier is broken, with growing incentive to push the limits a little more each time.

Indeed, many analysts feel the reason why tactical nukes lower the threshold for nuclear use is precisely because they seem less threatening and more usable. Military planners may believe they can manage and control battlefield escalation, but that has rarely been the case. Past or present, the course of war is always unpredictable.

No Treaty on Tactical

The U.S. is believed to have around a hundred B61-12 tactical nuclear bombs stationed in Europe, primarily for delivery by aircraft of six NATO countries.

By contrast, Russia’s larger stockpile of possibly 2,000 tactical nukes gives it a perceived advantage in this area – an imbalance that is often cited by U.S. officials as a reason to expand tactical capabilities.

But critics argue that adding more weapons to the mix only fuels another dangerous arms race and increases instability instead. Arms control agreements that once limited these highly destabilizing weapons have collapsed, leaving little constraint on their numbers or deployment.

Who Are They Aimed At?

The primary target for America’s tactical nukes is Russia, which has integrated tactical nuclear weapons into its military doctrine for decades. Russian military exercises often simulate nuclear use in regional conflicts, but Russia’s nukes are mostly aimed at America and Western Europe.

China’s growing military power is also a factor. As China expands its own nuclear arsenal and asserts itself in East Asia, American strategists see tactical nukes as a way to deter aggression in situations where strategic nuclear use would be difficult to justify.

But others say engaging in that kind of thinking is dangerous nonsense that’s beyond starkers to even consider in the first place.

The Global Stakes

The introduction of tactical nuclear weapons does not happen in isolation. Other nations are watching and will adjust their policies accordingly.

As tactical nuclear use becomes more likely, so does the risk of crisis miscalculation or human error. An adversary might mistake a tactical strike for the opening salvo of a larger attack and respond with strategic weapons. Mistakes always happen in the chaos of war – an inconvenient fact that military planners appear to have ignored when it comes to the finality of nuclear winter.

A Dangerous Illusion

The idea that smaller nuclear weapons make nuclear war safer is a dangerous illusion. Nuclear weapons threaten everyone on Earth with their physical power, but they manifest psychologically in illusions like that as well. Today’s decision-making has been corrupted to the point where the unthinkable seems not only thinkable, but even rational somehow. Yet the common-sense reality is that making nuclear weapons easier to use will automatically make the world a more dangerous place.

America’s new tactical nuclear warheads reflect policy choices that should be changed. Those weapons are not necessary or even desirable. They have no strategic value – no “Mutually Assured Destruction” effect. The advantage Russia has in tactical numbers is meaningless when a tactical nuclear war would turn strategic long before most of them could ever be used.

The Deadliest Weapons

The deadliest weapons may not be the ones with the largest yields, but the ones that convince us they can be used without risking consequences beyond our control. That is an illusion we must see for exactly what it is.

At Our Planet Project Foundation, we believe we still have time to understand the risks we face and defuse our situation. The possibility that tactical nuclear war will lead to strategic nuclear war is simply too great for a rational society to accept.