Nuclear weapons as camouflage

>>34753601
google: Use of EMP in warfare

>>34753601
Yes. It's also a good idea to use them on the defensive by dropping nuclear weapons in a line to create a barrier for attacking troops.

Nah. A sudden premature nuclear detonation would probably throw them into disarray, but the actual explosion would not deter pursuit since you couldn't be very close to the explosion yourself. Disregarding heat and radiation, there's still the issue of the whole nuclear explosion thing to contend with. Enola gay was about 9 miles away from Little boy on detonation and still got buffeted to shit, little boy is pretty Milquetoast by modern standards so you would need to assume a much larger safe distance, which would make you even more engageable.

>>34753601
If the inferior country, ie the one incapable of delivering their nukes to strategic targets due to a lack of escort aircraft, tried that, they'd be fucking themselves more than they would their more capable adversary.

>>34753689
True. But like I said, it's just something I've been pondering, hypothetically. How well shielded are modern ships anyway? What would be effects of a powerful close-by EMP on an American aircraft carrier?

>>34753755
Basically nothing. The effects of EMPs are vastly overstated, from about 4 miles from GZ handheld electronics would be unaffected.

>>34753839
What about radar? How would a close nuclear detonation affect radio detection?