I assume gravity is far less variable than the ballistic arc of an ICBM. When nukes are involved, does that make the old method the preferred method of a limited scale nuclear strike?
The new American B-61-13 nuclear bomb has arrived:
Although it was ballistic missiles that had sparked the crisis in Cuba and came to symbolize the nuclear age, the new B61 would be an air-delivered gravity bomb. So named because it is dropped from an aircraft, gravity bombs had been a feature of aerial warfare since wooden biplanes released them over the trenches in World War I. ...
The latest descendant in this bloodline is the B61-13, whose first production unit the National Nuclear Security Administration heralded this week as part of the comprehensive modernization of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
I sometimes think gravity bombs are the preferred method of actually using nukes despite the ballistic missiles that symbolize the nuclear era. I suspect nobody is really sure where an ICBM will land once fired. That Circular Error Probable measured in meters that sounds so accurate simply says that's there is a 50% chance the warhead lands in that tiny circle.
Nearly the entire globe is part of the 50% outside of the circle, eh? Sure, most will land fairly close, but some might go disturbingly astray. And if you are firing one ICBM to send a message, it had best not hit your own side's territory.
Sure, we randomly picked an ICBM to test recently. But I'm sure it was thoroughly checked out before firing it unlike what would happen if there was an order to launch a massive second strike in a launch-on-warning scenario of an incoming nuclear strike. Then it doesn't much matter where your nukes or the enemy nukes land, eh. It's all effed.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. You know you want to.
NOTE: Image from the initial article.
