Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tomahawk cruise missile"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Stephen Bryen]]: "Tomahawks originally were dual capable in that they could have nuclear or conventional warheads. Partly as a result of the now-defunct [[Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty|Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) agreement]], and also because a cruise missile over Soviet territory would be interpreted as a nuclear strike, the US shelved the nuclear warheads for Tomahawk. There is still confusion about what happened to these warheads: are they still in long term storage or have they been dismantled?" | [[Stephen Bryen]]: "Tomahawks originally were dual capable in that they could have nuclear or conventional warheads. Partly as a result of the now-defunct [[Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty|Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) agreement]], and also because a cruise missile over Soviet territory would be interpreted as a nuclear strike, the US shelved the nuclear warheads for Tomahawk. There is still confusion about what happened to these warheads: are they still in long term storage or have they been dismantled?" | ||
| + | |||
| + | Likely not dismantled. See [[Megatons to Megawatts]]. | ||
Revision as of 09:12, September 30, 2025
Stephen Bryen: "Tomahawks originally were dual capable in that they could have nuclear or conventional warheads. Partly as a result of the now-defunct Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) agreement, and also because a cruise missile over Soviet territory would be interpreted as a nuclear strike, the US shelved the nuclear warheads for Tomahawk. There is still confusion about what happened to these warheads: are they still in long term storage or have they been dismantled?"
Likely not dismantled. See Megatons to Megawatts.