Why is the idea of “downsizing” the destructive power of Precision Guided munitions so controversial? With the reduction of the CEP why not reduce the amount of energy use to deter/deny or adversaries the use of its assets? We already know how to do this. Witness: the Davy Crockett nuclear mortar; S.A.D.M., special atomic demolition munitions aka “dial-a-nuke” variable yield satchels; and 120mm cannon shells.
After all the smaller gadgets create much less contamination and collateral damage. Neither side wants to create another Chernobyl type site in a country they might need to occupy.
In fact this has already been tried, tested, and proven on the battlefield already! Where collateral damage must be strictly limited, such as is the case where enemy combatants are operating in close proximity to civilians, hospitals, and schools, “bombs” made of inert solid concrete have been fitted with JDAM guidance packages successfully rendered their targets inoperable or useless with their kinetic energy only. Why use a $30 million missile when a rock will do?
Geaux ahead and start work on the new devices, if we cannot do away with the special munitions, at least we can make them cleaner, smarter, safer to store and transport, and way more precise and useful. Hopefully Vlad will choose to settle rather than go broke trying to keep up!