"Recent debates about U.S. nuclear weapons have questioned what role weapons with shorter ranges and lower yields can play in addressing emerging threats in Europe and Asia. These weapons, often referred to as nonstrategic nuclear weapons, have not been limited by past U.S.- Russian arms control agreements, although some analysts argue such limits would be of value, particularly in addressing Russia’s greater numbers of these types of weapons. Others have argued that the United States should expand its deployments of these weapons, in both Europe and Asia, to address new risks of war conducted under a nuclear shadow. The Trump Administration addressed these questions in the Nuclear Posture Review released in February 2018, and determined that the United States should acquire two new types of nonstrategic nuclear weapons: a new low-yield warhead for submarine-launched ballistic missiles and a new sealaunched cruise missile.
During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union both deployed nonstrategic nuclear
weapons for use in the field during a conflict. While there are several ways to distinguish between
strategic and nonstrategic nuclear weapons, most analysts consider nonstrategic weapons to be
shorter-range delivery systems with lower-yield warheads that might be used to attack troops or
facilities on the battlefield. They have included nuclear mines; artillery; short-, medium-, and
long-range ballistic missiles; cruise missiles; and gravity bombs. In contrast with the longer-range
“strategic” nuclear weapons, these weapons had a lower profile in policy debates and arms
control negotiations, possibly because they did not pose a direct threat to the continental United
States. At the end of the 1980s, each nation still had thousands of these weapons deployed with
their troops in the field, aboard naval vessels, and on aircraft..."
Nonstrategic nuclear weapons