The division between '
tactical' and '
strategic'
nuclear weapons is a bit of a joke in the military and its associated industries. Really, the difference hinges not on what the weapon looks like, how it's
stored,
who made it, what
color it is, how
big it is, or even how it's
fired or who has
authority for it. The true difference lies in what the weapon is
launched at. For example, a 60
kt Trident II missile
RV, considered 'strategic' by most lights, doesn't really have a 'strategic impact' if it's dropped on, say, a couple of divisions of armor in the
Iraqi desert. (Okay, okay,
no first use policy and 'breaking the nuclear barrier' arguments aside). Comparatively, a 0.5kt device, if
detonated (say) under the
Pentagon by a non-U.S. government is
extremely strategic. (if it's a U.S. Government, like, say, that of
Texas, well then that's a whole different story :-/ :-P)
Facetiousness aside, the typical means of classifying these things is to determine if it (in its deployed, designed form) falls under the rubric of a 'strategic arms' treaty like SALT or START. If it does, then whoopee, it's not a TNW. This in itself is a bit artificial because START (for example) is concerned with launchers, not warheads.