Nuclear Field Artillery Cannoneer in USMC

[2RHPZ]

Please, could you provide more informations on MOS 0812? I´ve found following discussion on this topic at different forum:


I buddy of mine at Camp Lejeune sent me an email last week saying that the Corps was bringing back the secondary MOS 0812. For those of you that don't know the 0812 occ field is a NFAC or Nuclear Field Artillery Cannoneer. This signals a major policy shift in regard to the deployment and use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Personally I think its a bad idea but what do you think.

http://shots.oxo.li/pilz/atompilze/atomic%20cannon.jpg

No results from Google ...

P.S.: The USMC must know something that we don't know, yet. p-)

[Hellman109]

someone speaking ****?

Use of nuclear artillery in any current war is stupid, the US have no real threats.

However, in the future it might be needed in a large scale war... but with the number of ICBM's, TNBM's and such I dont think they need it, especially when it wont destroy the whole area, so you need to send in troops into a high radiation area.

Sounds like someone wants the cold war back...

EDIT:

IMO, the only way you would need nuclear artillery is in a scorched earth withdrawl, something I dont think the US would do or need to do anytime soon.

[Nordic Fire]

I dont think they need it, especially when it wont destroy the whole area, so you need to send in troops into a high radiation area.
Low-yield weapons such as nuclear artillery shells were/are mainly intended for sub-strategic or even tactical use. The purpose is not wide area mass destruction.

During the Cold War, the purpose of NATO nuclear artillery was to counter the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Warsaw Pact armor and suppressing the opposing force's nuclear artillery. My guess is that the US strategists are expecting a similar scenario in the future.

The residual radiation from nuclear artillery is not as big a problem as with high-yield weapons. During the Cold War a typical yield for a single standard 155 mm shell was in 10-100 ton (not kiloton!) range but with heavier 203 mm and 280 mm the yield could be increased to the kiloton range. The heavier shells, however, had to be fired from specialized howitzers. Add enhanced radiation (ER) cores to that and you've got enough explosive power for annihilating entire armored columns in one stroke.

Most of the radioactive fallout originates from core material as well as from the activated parts of the bomb superstructure itself. For obvious reasons, both the core and the shell are relatively small in an artillery nuke. Furthermore, the more efficient the fission can be made, the higher the energy release as radiation (gamma+neutron) will be and, thus, less radioactive material is left behind. Compared to the nuclear shells of 1970s and 80s, modern day cores are significantly more efficient. Many earlier designs were simple gun-bombs (slamming two pieces together to achieve the critical mass) that were reliable but very inefficient. The more advanced (and efficient) implosion core geometry became more widespread only in the late 1970s and 80s with W-48.

The idea of reviving tactical nuclear weapons would agree well with the present trend aiming at minimizing the number of troops on the ground (i.e. you're outnumbered most of the time) by the use of unmanned drones, air/space superiority and special forces and - now - by low-yield nukes.

But that's all technical. You are definitely correct to point out that strategically the first-strike use of nuclear weapons - even small ones - is just asking for retaliation in the kind.