PDA

View Full Version : Apparently the USA nuked Syria



Captain Kidd
2007-Nov-02, 06:31 PM
Wee boy this is going to get the CT people into an uproar ... crud, that counts my in-laws. Since this isn't space related I'll plop it into Babbling.

All things considered, and the fact that I think more than one country would have detected said use, I'm doubting the case, but still, here you go:


Al-Jazeera: Strike on Syria was made by US Air Force with tactical nukes (http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/12309.htm)
The September 6 raid over Syria was in fact carried out by the US Air Force, Al-Jazeera's Web site reported Friday, quoting unnamed Israeli and Arab sources as saying that two strategic US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons executed the attack on a nuclear site under construction.

The sources were quoted as saying that Israeli F-15 and F-16 jets only provided cover for the US fighter-bombers, which carried one tactical nuclear weapon apiece. The site was hit by one bomb and totally destroyed. The use of nukes might account for the fact that the suspected plant was effectively erased from the earth, with few if any traces remaining, according to satellite photos.I'm not finding anything on Al-Jazeera's English site though.

Argos
2007-Nov-02, 06:38 PM
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences, IŽd say.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-02, 06:47 PM
Hmm, looked through all the "news" channels, there's no mention, even from Fox News who you'd expect to brag about it if we Nuked someone.

korjik
2007-Nov-02, 06:53 PM
Hmm, looked through all the "news" channels, there's no mention, even from Fox News who you'd expect to brag about it if we Nuked someone.

you would also figure the russians, british, and french would have all kinds of hissy fits about someone tossing nukes around.

seeing as I have seen photos of the site before the raid and after the syrians cleared the site, and there is a distinct lack of a crater, I would have to say that it seems that a nuke is quite unlikely.

But then, these are the people who think that certain unmentionable events in september were inside jobs, so why would we expect any reason?

Captain Kidd
2007-Nov-02, 06:58 PM
Exactly. It's not like the USA hold that great a sway anymore, or ever. If we, or anybody for that matter, nuked somebody, other countries would be lining up decrying the event immediately. There's no way that all the world governments could be made to keep quite. Well, I guess the Illuminati could do just that, couldn't they? Probably explains why I lost my wallet a few months ago.

DyerWolf
2007-Nov-02, 07:12 PM
you would also figure the russians, british, and french would have all kinds of hissy fits about someone tossing nukes around.

...?

Well, but would anyone really notice if the French threw another hissy fit?







Maybe it is true and the French are the only ones who know...

KaiYeves
2007-Nov-02, 07:17 PM
But then, these are the people who think that certain unmentionable events in september were inside jobs, so why would we expect any reason?
You mean it's not a conspiracy that they force us to go back to school?
(Just kidding, I know what you mean.)

Swift
2007-Nov-02, 07:22 PM
Given the work done by such groups as the The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (http://www.ctbto.org/), as shown during North Korea's weapon test (http://www.ctbto.org/press_centre/featured_articles/2007/2007_0409_dprk.htm), there is absolutely no way that anyone could have used tactical nukes at this site and not have it detected by multiple methods and by multiple countries and agencies.

Nadme
2007-Nov-02, 07:29 PM
I'm not finding anything on Al-Jazeera's English site though.

Do you suppose that's a coincidence?

Jeers to Al-Jazeera, those jokers have zero credibility imo.

Demigrog
2007-Nov-02, 08:01 PM
Maybe this is just setting up Syria's explanation for any radiation detected at the site in future inspections--though any half decent inspection could probably tell the difference.

Ereece1
2007-Nov-02, 09:09 PM
Drudge links to the Jerusalem Post, which also cites Al-Jazeera. There's Al-Jazeera .com and .net, (only one I think is connected to the network) neither has it on the front page. I tried the Arabic on the .net site, but couldn't deduce anything from the pictures. Anybody read Arabic?

Doodler
2007-Nov-02, 10:24 PM
Apparently, these knuckleheads need to learn a little basic geography. If the US were to use nuclear weapons in the region, we'd probably be at war with the Israelis over it.

The fallout from nuclear weapons would probably end up getting dumped on just about every country in the region, friend and foe alike. The US has states larger than that region. You can't break wind in Damascus without people in Beriut and Tel Aviv smelling it.

novaderrik
2007-Nov-02, 10:30 PM
if anything, they might have used a fuel-air bomb.
i've heard/read that we used them in the first gulf war, and everyone in the area thought it was a nuke-you-ler blast.
or maybe just the MOAB we developed a few years back and dropped on a few caves in Afghanistan..

mike alexander
2007-Nov-02, 11:07 PM
Naw, it was a hafnium bomb.


"Al-Jizzera - We Make Fox News Look GOOD"

sarongsong
2007-Nov-02, 11:48 PM
..."Al-Jizzera - We Make Fox News Look GOOD"No equal time for Pravda (http://english.pravda.ru/society/sex/29-10-2007/99720-women-0)? http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Delvo
2007-Nov-03, 12:40 AM
The fallout from nuclear weapons would probably end up getting dumped on just about every country in the region, friend and foe alike.That's the image people get of nukes based on the most powerful ones of all, the metropolis-vaporizing "strategic" ones. But that's not what all nukes are like, and it's not the kind of nuke that was specified in this case. In this case, they said "tactical" nuke. That's a rather small, weak nuke, on the order of a few dozen kilotons instead of hundreds of kiltons or multiple megatons like most people think of. They'll blow up an enemy encampment a few miles downrange of your own troops without risking your own troops, or blow up a small section of a city (like a particular neighborhood or a shipping/warehouse/factory district) instead of the whole thing.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-03, 12:49 AM
When we have conventional bombs that do almost as much damage as a tactical nuke, why would we risk earning the world's ire, by using one? Using a nuke would turn even our strongest allies 100% against us.

Delvo
2007-Nov-03, 02:33 AM
When we have conventional bombs that do almost as much damage as a tactical nuke, why would we risk earning the world's ire, by using one? Using a nuke would turn even our strongest allies 100% against us.A MOAB is big enough for an explosion to look like a nuclear explosion to amateurs due to similar airflow effects (mushroom cloud), but the actual level of power is very different. Its power is equivalent to about a dozen tons of TNT, not a dozen or more kilotons like a tacnuc.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-03, 03:38 AM
Still, it would be a rather pointless thing to do, and put us in everyone else's doghouse.

Zachary
2007-Nov-03, 05:31 PM
North Korea set off an incredibly wimpy nuke (500 tons?) and everybody in the world and their dog noticed, why would the US setting off a nuke be any different? A lot of nations have spy satellites flying around; if the US did set off a nuke half the industrialised nations on the planet would have to have been 'paid off' not to spill the beans.

astromark
2007-Nov-03, 08:25 PM
Be careful of this so called nuke strike... A well placed destruction of a nuke facility might leak some of its raw fuel maybe? ... Any indication of radioactive downwind readings as yet unfound... This is rubbish. The world is watching. When a journalist consults his key bd as a source of story, anything could be said. It does not make it so.

PetersCreek
2007-Nov-03, 08:47 PM
Well, if it was a smaller tactical nuke...why the bomber? I've witnessed many an "elephant walk" of F-4Es taxiing for takeoff on a tactical nuke delivery exercise. I don't see why F-15s couldn't carry one to destroy a single target. Less resource intensive, don't ya think?

Count Zero
2007-Nov-03, 08:56 PM
seeing as I have seen photos of the site before the raid and after the syrians cleared the site, and there is a distinct lack of a crater, I would have to say that it seems that a nuke is quite unlikely.

No-no-no! The second bomb was used to blow-up the crater, destroying all evidence of the original attack. Isn't it obvious? [/glp] :D

The_Radiation_Specialist
2007-Nov-03, 10:03 PM
Maybe it was one of these (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/liechtenstein_successfully_tests) :D

Jim
2007-Nov-03, 10:13 PM
Well, if it was a smaller tactical nuke...why the bomber? I've witnessed many an "elephant walk" of F-4Es taxiing for takeoff on a tactical nuke delivery exercise. I don't see why F-15s couldn't carry one to destroy a single target. Less resource intensive, don't ya think?

Why planes? Isn't this what cruise missiles are designed to do?

(FTR, I think this N-bomb thing is a bogus claim.)

Krel
2007-Nov-04, 01:55 AM
Maybe it was one of these (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/liechtenstein_successfully_tests) :D

That reminds me of a Charles Addams cartoon. An explorer is stepping into a jungle clearing, looking in shock at two ant hills. The hills are about six feet apart, from the hills are two converging armies. In the middle, where the two armies are meeting, there is a small mushroom cloud about three feet tall. :lol:

David.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-04, 06:37 AM
Still no mention on the other "news" media.

Delvo
2007-Nov-05, 03:41 AM
Well, if it was a smaller tactical nuke...why the bomber? I've witnessed many an "elephant walk" of F-4Es taxiing for takeoff on a tactical nuke delivery exercise. I don't see why F-15s couldn't carry one to destroy a single target. Less resource intensive, don't ya think?Notice that they didn't say "bombers"; they said "fighter-bombers". I was confuzzled by that at first, but then remembered that that was an old phrase for what are now called "attack" planes: designed for hitting ground targets like a bomber, but smaller, faster, and more maneuverable, like a fighter. The dedicatd "attack" class of plane was new once, in a world that already had fighters and bombers in it, so they described it in terms of what they were familiar with. The modern American attack plane is the A-10, named "Thunderbolt" or "Warthog". It's about the size of compact light fighters like F-16, F-18 (versions A-D), and F-35. The Arabic source probably just didn't know that such planes are now called "attack" planes in English. (They might still be called the equivalent of "fighter-bomber" in Arabic.)

I'm still not sure why there'd be only one such bomb apiece for multiple planes, though.


Why planes? Isn't this what cruise missiles are designed to do?Most cruise missiles are not configured to carry nuclear warheads. Israel might not have any that are. I'm not even sure the USA does either; they might not exist at all.

publius
2007-Nov-05, 07:15 AM
Most cruise missiles are not configured to carry nuclear warheads. Israel might not have any that are. I'm not even sure the USA does either; they might not exist at all.


There are many. As I understand, the cruise missile's original purpose was to carry nuclear weapons.

Here's one right here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_Advanced_Cruise_Missile

That carries a W-80 "dial a yield" warhead.

The familiar Tomahawk is also nuclear capable, but I think that was eliminated with one of the nuclear treaties.

-Richard

mfumbesi
2007-Nov-05, 07:26 AM
I doubt that the USA will be dropping nukes on anyone soon.
Imagine the noises that will follow, UN, EU, AU....and other arbitrary bodies (yellow peace, Greenpeace).
Not even a mad dictator will get away with that.

Tog
2007-Nov-05, 09:13 AM
I'm still not sure why there'd be only one such bomb apiece for multiple planes, though.

All your eggs in one basket thing. 5 planes with one bomb each means 5 planes to shoot down to stop the attack.

On the other hand, this is just the sort of thing that a cruise missile was designed to do. Unless the yield needed was just to small to use on any existing missile. And that's assuming it even happened. A big flag for me was the line about the Israeli AF using their own planes to escort the US attack. I can't think of a reason why country B would be involved in a direct attack of country C by country A. Unless it actually never happened as it's all a big propaganda story, in which case it would make sense to involve a second enemy "conspiring against us".

ineluki
2007-Nov-05, 01:49 PM
Well, but would anyone really notice if the French threw another hissy fit?

Notice, yes, care, no

Larry Jacks
2007-Nov-05, 02:54 PM
Notice that they didn't say "bombers"; they said "fighter-bombers". I was confuzzled by that at first, but then remembered that that was an old phrase for what are now called "attack" planes: designed for hitting ground targets like a bomber, but smaller, faster, and more maneuverable, like a fighter. The dedicatd "attack" class of plane was new once, in a world that already had fighters and bombers in it, so they described it in terms of what they were familiar with. The modern American attack plane is the A-10, named "Thunderbolt" or "Warthog". It's about the size of compact light fighters like F-16, F-18 (versions A-D), and F-35. The Arabic source probably just didn't know that such planes are now called "attack" planes in English. (They might still be called the equivalent of "fighter-bomber" in Arabic.)

Not exactly. An attack plane is a tactical aircraft primarily designed to strike ground targets. It has little or no air-to-air combat capability. A fighter-bomber can do both missions although it typically does one better than the other. For example, the F/A-18 is a fighter-bomber. It has a good air-to-air capability as well as having the ability to carry bombs and anti-shipping missiles. The F-16 is a fighter but it's primarily used for ground attack instead of aerial combat. Conversely, the A-10 is a terrific close air support plane. I think A-10s might've shot down a helicopter or two during the 1991 Gulf War but that's about the limit of their air-to-air capability.

The F-15E Strike Eagle's primary mission is interdiction. It's intended to go deep into enemy territory and strike critical targets but it also has the abilty to attack other fighters but primarily to defend itself while performing the primary mission. A former Squadron Officer School classmate of mine used to fly F-111s but was reassigned to fly F-15Es when the F-111s were phased out. He was very happy about the assignment. His words were "Running away sucks. If someone messes with me, I want to turn around and shoot them in the face!" Last I heard, he became a test pilot and was commanding a flight test squadron at Edwards Air Force Base.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Nov-05, 08:34 PM
So many posts, and not one shred of evidence that Al-Jazeera actually reported such nonsense.



Al-Jazeera: Strike on Syria was made by US Air Force with tactical nukes (http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/12309.htm)
The September 6 raid over Syria was in fact carried out by the US Air Force, Al-Jazeera's Web site reported Friday, quoting unnamed Israeli and Arab sources as saying that two strategic US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons executed the attack on a nuclear site under construction.

The sources were quoted as saying that Israeli F-15 and F-16 jets only provided cover for the US fighter-bombers, which carried one tactical nuclear weapon apiece. The site was hit by one bomb and totally destroyed. The use of nukes might account for the fact that the suspected plant was effectively erased from the earth, with few if any traces remaining, according to satellite photos. "Israel Insider Dot Com"?! Yeah, that sounds like a "fair and balanced" source about Al-Jazeera. :rolleyes:

RalofTyr
2007-Nov-06, 07:28 AM
Yes, this propaganda by the Israelis. It must be a victory for Israel to penetrate a website focused on astronomy....

And to quote Nelson from the Simpsons, "You gotta nuke something".

Singular
2007-Nov-06, 09:32 AM
So many posts, and not one shred of evidence that Al-Jazeera actually reported such nonsense.

I've noticed on this board, evidence is something that everyone else is expected to provide :(

Neverfly
2007-Nov-06, 10:39 AM
I've noticed on this board, evidence is something that everyone else is expected to provide :(

Not at all.

To make a claim- evidence is required.

Otherwise- all one has to do is spout claims all over the place- with no restraints in place to ebb the flow.

But quite a few here kindly do the research for others- positng links and pages and quotes to provide answers to questions.

Being able to back up your claims is a very good habit.
It promotes critical thinking, the seeking of knowledge, self analysis and scientific process.

It reduces confussion, assumptions, guesswork and handwaiving.

I cannot list in detail, without clogging up a few BAUT pages, just how much BAUT has taught me to do this:)

It makes me question everything, seek out evidence in everything- and I have learned and expanded on existing knowledge a great deal.

I still have a long way to go- But hopefully, a step at a time, I'm learning the skills necessary to do learning well.

Captain Kidd
2007-Nov-06, 02:42 PM
I made no claim, plus I even said that I could not find any such article on Al Jazeera's website. Noclevername also mentioned the lack of finding it anywhere else.

Just the ludicrousness of somebody suggesting the USA nuked somebody was worth noting. Although after rereading my opening post, I had orignally mentioned the lack of finding it anywhere else but apparently took it out for some reason before posting.

Edited to change "nothing" to "noting"

Disinfo Agent
2007-Nov-06, 03:12 PM
I made no claim [...]But you linked to an article which does make the outrageous claim, without comment. Normally, that's an implicit endorsement.


[...] plus I even said that I could not find any such article on Al Jazeera's website. Noclevername also mentioned the lack of finding it anywhere else.Not enough. Upon reading that, some people just concluded that Al-Jazeera probably has the allegation in its Arabic edition, but not in its English edition. Except that there's no evidence that it's even in the Arabic edition to begin with.


Just the ludicrousness of somebody suggesting the USA nuked somebody was worth nothing.It is a pretty ludicrous claim for the Israeli magazine to make. And, reading their article, it's oddly vague on the details, particularly regarding what it was that Al-Jazeera actually reported, and what is just speculation by the Israeli magazine. The first paragraph in the article (quoted by you) simply says:


The September 6 raid over Syria was in fact carried out by the US Air Force, Al-Jazeera's Web site reported in Arabic Friday, quoting unnamed Israeli and Arab sources as saying that two strategic US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons executed the attack on a nuclear site under construction. The claim that the attack was carried out by the US Air Force is dubious (though note that it comes from "unnamed Israeli and Arab sources" -- reliable?), but nowhere is it claimed that nuclear weapons were used in the strike.

The article does make that suggestion in the next paragraph:


The use of nukes might account for the fact that the suspected plant was effectively erased from the earth, with few if any traces remaining, according to satellite photos.

...but it's not at all clear whether it's quoting Al-Jazeera, or whether the Israeli author is just speculating all by himself.

Fazor
2007-Nov-06, 03:12 PM
Just the ludicrousness of somebody suggesting the USA nuked somebody was worth nothing.

Well, yeah. I mean, how could you cover up the fact that you nuked someone? And how would a single nuke vaporise any trace of a supposed nuclear power plant? I'm not an expert on atomic warfare, but even if a nuclear bomb could litterally vaporise such a large structure (one built with the thought of a nuclear disaster in mind, being a nuclear power plant and all), the evidence of such an attack would be anything but discreete.

korjik
2007-Nov-06, 04:57 PM
That's the image people get of nukes based on the most powerful ones of all, the metropolis-vaporizing "strategic" ones. But that's not what all nukes are like, and it's not the kind of nuke that was specified in this case. In this case, they said "tactical" nuke. That's a rather small, weak nuke, on the order of a few dozen kilotons instead of hundreds of kiltons or multiple megatons like most people think of. They'll blow up an enemy encampment a few miles downrange of your own troops without risking your own troops, or blow up a small section of a city (like a particular neighborhood or a shipping/warehouse/factory district) instead of the whole thing.

Remember that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both smaller than todays tactical nukes.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-06, 06:47 PM
Noclevername also mentioned the lack of finding it anywhere else.


I mentioned that it wasn't on any of the U.S. cable news channels that I get. "Anywhere" is a much bigger place, I think. ;)

Captain Kidd
2007-Nov-06, 06:52 PM
But you linked to an article which does make the outrageous claim, without comment. Normally, that's an implicit endorsement.Let's see
I commented about conspiracy theorists having a field day with it
I doubted it was true
I couldn't find any mention on Al Jazeera's websiteHow is that not commenting?



Not enough. Upon reading that, some people just concluded that Al-Jazeera probably has the allegation in its Arabic edition, but not in its English edition. Except that there's no evidence that it's even in the Arabic edition to begin with.So I'm responsible for how other people think and come to conclusions?


It is a pretty ludicrous claim for the Israeli magazine to make. And, reading their article, it's oddly vague on the details, particularly regarding what it was that Al-Jazeera actually reported, and what is just speculation by the Israeli magazine. The first paragraph in the article (quoted by you) simply says:It is a ludicrous claim. I quoted the first couple paragraphs as, ususally, the first one or two do provide the meat of the article.


The claim that the attack was carried out by the US Air Force is dubious (though note that it comes from "unnamed Israeli and Arab sources" -- reliable?), but nowhere is it claimed that nuclear weapons were used in the strike.You did see the sentence that has the words "the use of nukes" in it right? And at the end where it says "it would be the first use of nuclear weapons in the world for a non-test purpose since the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945"?


The article does make that suggestion in the next paragraph:


...but it's not at all clear whether it's quoting Al-Jazeera, or whether the Israeli author is just speculating all by himself.


Finally, that article does have a link to Al Jazeera (which I don't remember seeing earlier, they must have added it later). I can't read Arabic though so it might just be a chicken soup recipe for as much as I know.
Aljeezra article (http://www.aljazeera.net/News/Templates/Postings/DetailedPage.aspx?FRAMELESS=false&NRNODEGUID=%7b8A16CD40-BC16-4DDC-B808-6BFC96107F4C%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fNR%2fexeres%2f8A16CD40-BC16-4DDC-B808-6BFC96107F4C%2ehtm%3fwbc_purpose%3d%255C%255C%255C %255C%255C%255C%255C%252F%27&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest&wbc_purpose=%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%2F%27#)
Oh wait, Google has a beta of Arabic to English, gonna try it ...
Wow, it actually made fairly good progress, some day we might just have a Universal Translator. Here's Google's translation (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.net%2FNews% 2FTemplates%2FPostings%2FDetailedPage.aspx%3FFRAME LESS%3Dfalse%26NRNODEGUID%3D%257b8A16CD40-BC16-4DDC-B808-6BFC96107F4C%257d%26NRORIGINALURL%3D%252fNR%252fex eres%252f8A16CD40-BC16-4DDC-B808-6BFC96107F4C%252ehtm%253fwbc_purpose%253d%25255C%2 5255C%25255C%25255C%25255C%25255C%25255C%25252F%25 27%26NRCACHEHINT%3DNoModifyGuest%26wbc_purpose%3D% 255C%255C%255C%255C%255C%255C%255C%252F%2527%23&langpair=ar%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools). Hmm... if I'm figuring this out right, their source is Israeli.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Nov-06, 07:07 PM
You did see the sentence that has the words "the use of nukes" in it right?Yes, I even commented on it in my post.


And at the end where it says "it would be the first use of nuclear weapons in the world for a non-test purpose since the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945"?So? What does that have to with Al-Jazeera?


I can't read Arabic though so it might just be a chicken soup recipe for as much as I know.
Aljeezra article (http://www.aljazeera.net/News/Templates/Postings/DetailedPage.aspx?FRAMELESS=false&NRNODEGUID=%7b8A16CD40-BC16-4DDC-B808-6BFC96107F4C%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fNR%2fexeres%2f8A16CD40-BC16-4DDC-B808-6BFC96107F4C%2ehtm%3fwbc_purpose%3d%255C%255C%255C %255C%255C%255C%255C%252F%27&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest&wbc_purpose=%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%2F%27#)
Oh wait, Google has a beta of Arabic to English, gonna try it ...
Wow, it actually made fairly good progress, some day we might just have a Universal Translator. Here's Google's translation (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.net%2FNews% 2FTemplates%2FPostings%2FDetailedPage.aspx%3FFRAME LESS%3Dfalse%26NRNODEGUID%3D%257b8A16CD40-BC16-4DDC-B808-6BFC96107F4C%257d%26NRORIGINALURL%3D%252fNR%252fex eres%252f8A16CD40-BC16-4DDC-B808-6BFC96107F4C%252ehtm%253fwbc_purpose%253d%25255C%2 5255C%25255C%25255C%25255C%25255C%25255C%25252F%25 27%26NRCACHEHINT%3DNoModifyGuest%26wbc_purpose%3D% 255C%255C%255C%255C%255C%255C%255C%252F%2527%23&langpair=ar%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools)I'm afraid I do not trust automatic translators.
Having said that...


Hmm... if I'm figuring this out right, their source is Israeli....interesting how that ain't quite how the Israeli article reports it, isn't it?

Ereece1
2007-Nov-07, 05:32 AM
I appreciate Captain Kidd's further research, providing the Al-Jazeera site (which I note is the .net, not the .com). I'm not up on nuclear forensics(? terminology?), but I think Swift's comments are probably accurate in that the actual use of a nuke was unlikely.
Still, here, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=12023068-E7F2-99DF-3CBCE4AD9D3FCD19&chanId=sa003 , is a link I found to a Scientific American story in regards to a relevant U.S. policy shift, uncovered by the Federation of American Scientists. The time lag in the process of their Freedom of Information Act extraction results in policy being dated by about 4 yrs.
Perhaps, (as in maybe, conjecture, supposition, speculation, or I wouldn't actually put money on this, unless, maybe, you were to give me some tempting odds...) the original source for U.S./nuke attack story was a agent for U.S. hawkish interests, disseminating misinformation to see what regional political vectors of anti-nuke sentiment could be drawn out to better prepare as the Iran response rhetoric escalates.
Perhaps the military only complied with F.A.S.'s F.I. request (something they could have probably gotten around or indefinitely prolonged), to send a subtle warning to Iran.
Perhaps not.
I notice with all the interesting talk in this thread of variation in yield and differing forms of delivery devices, there's been no mention of the somewhat controversial development in the last few years regarding the U.S. pursuing research into lower yield nukes.

jfribrg
2007-Nov-07, 01:48 PM
The notion that any country would use nuclear weapons in this situation is beyond ridiculous. In case all of the above points don't convince someone, here is one more. IIRC, all the major nuclear powers (I'm not sure about India and Pakistan) are bound by a treaty not to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country.

Argos
2007-Nov-07, 02:09 PM
So, in case of a nuclear conflagration, nuclear powers will destroy themselves leaving the non-nuclear nations free to jump ahead while they descend into a Dark Age? No leveling of the playing field? Hard to believe...

Larry Jacks
2007-Nov-07, 04:16 PM
IIRC, all the major nuclear powers (I'm not sure about India and Pakistan) are bound by a treaty not to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country.

I know of no such treaty. Perhaps it exists but I'm skeptical. The term weapons of mass destruction (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/w/05866.html) is defined in the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms as:

(DOD) Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be high-yield explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological weapons, but exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon. Also called WMD. See also destruction; special operations.

If a nation conducted a non-nuclear WMD attack against the US, odds are good that the US would respond with WMDs of our own - almost certainly nuclear.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-07, 05:40 PM
IIRC, all the major nuclear powers (I'm not sure about India and Pakistan) are bound by a treaty not to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country.

Eve if such a treaty really did exist, treaties make poor defenses. They depend entirely on the honor system.

RalofTyr
2007-Nov-07, 09:56 PM
The US does have a treaty in which they promise not to threaten non-nuclear countries with nukes. It's more diplomatic etiquette than anything else.

Instead, the US uses it's carriers and the fact it can take down counties, like Iraq as a more realistic threat for diplomacy.

Larry Jacks
2007-Nov-07, 10:44 PM
The US does have a treaty in which they promise not to threaten non-nuclear countries with nukes. It's more diplomatic etiquette than anything else.

Treaties have names. I'd like to know the name of this treaty if it exists.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-07, 11:00 PM
The US does have a treaty in which they promise not to threaten non-nuclear countries with nukes. It's more diplomatic etiquette than anything else.

Treaties have names. I'd like to know the name of this treaty if it exists.

Yeah, I remember that one. I think it was called the Second Khitomer Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khitomer_Accords)

One Skunk Todd
2007-Nov-07, 11:10 PM
Most cruise missiles are not configured to carry nuclear warheads. Israel might not have any that are. I'm not even sure the USA does either; they might not exist at all.

I'll bet all the Air Force personnel relieved of command over this incident know they exist: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/19/loose.nukes/index.html?iref=newssearch

Also, Radiation Specialist, are you sure that wasn't the Duchy of Grand Fenwick? :)

Disinfo Agent
2007-Nov-07, 11:14 PM
I don't see how this is relevant. If the Syrian facilities that were bombed were part of a nuclear compound, as Israel claims, then I imagine that the treaty, if it exists, would not apply. Unless, that is, the alleged "nuclear facilities" were civilian, and had no weapons. Then again, did Syria ever sign the treaty?... But all this is speculation. Turtles all the way down. If nuclear weapons had been used, we would have heard about it already.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-07, 11:17 PM
I appreciate Captain Kidd's further research, providing the Al-Jazeera site (which I note is the .net, not the .com). I'm not up on nuclear forensics(? terminology?), but I think Swift's comments are probably accurate in that the actual use of a nuke was unlikely.


The general story I'm seeing is that Israel bombed a site in Syria on September 6. They're not saying much about it, but it seems to be commonly believed that Syria was starting on a "research" reactor (a small reactor that could make bomb fuel). Syria hasn't said much about it either, but apparently cleaned up afterwards (this was seen from satellite photos). All the discussion indicates an attack with conventional weapons. That makes sense: The point would be to destroy the facilities before they go operational. And, unless a facility was very well protected, it certainly could be destroyed by conventional weapons. There didn't seem to be any indication of a reinforced underground enclosure, just some surface facilities without a containment building.

From a little googling, there are statements (I don't know if they are true) that there are folks working at the Jerusalem Post that wouldn't always have the most positive views of the U.S. or Israel. I don't know who came up with the story originally, but it makes more sense to me that it would be somebody that wants to cause a negative emotional reaction by showing the U.S. helping Israel in a way that would get special notice. I think it's pretty clear what ethnic groups there would tend to have the most negative reaction to that.

Captain Kidd
2007-Nov-07, 11:47 PM
The US does have a treaty in which they promise not to threaten non-nuclear countries with nukes. It's more diplomatic etiquette than anything else.

Treaties have names. I'd like to know the name of this treaty if it exists.
Well, I'm not seeing any such specific treaty, however it seems to be an unwritten "it's a nice thing to do" part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treat. But there's no good explanation of how that came to be. Or even if this treaty is the cause of it. Might just be that since this treaty is about weapons, it's being linked to the "let's not blow up non-nuclear countries" unspoken agreement with nukes.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-proliferation_Treaty)

The five NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The U.S. also had nuclear warheads targeted at North Korea, a non-NWS state, from 1959 until 1991. The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_for_Defence), Geoff Hoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Hoon), has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_states)"[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-proliferation_Treaty#_note-1). In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Chirac) of France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-proliferation_Treaty#_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-proliferation_Treaty#_note-3)

Fraunkensteen
2007-Nov-11, 01:27 AM
Hmm, looked through all the "news" channels, there's no mention, even from Fox News who you'd expect to brag about it if we Nuked someone.

Why would a sane person think Fox News would boast about the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

KaiYeves
2007-Nov-11, 01:37 AM
Hello, Fraunkensteen and welcome to BAUT!
How's Eye-gore?

Neverfly
2007-Nov-11, 01:54 AM
Why would a sane person think Fox News would boast about the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

Any news media would. That's a Big Scoop!

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-11, 04:19 AM
Any news media would. That's a Big Scoop!

Report on it, yes. But brag or boast about it? I doubt it.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-11, 04:41 AM
Why would a sane person think Fox News would boast about the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

Uh... A person who's making a joke, perhaps??

Fraunkensteen
2007-Nov-11, 01:30 PM
Uh... A person who's making a joke, perhaps??

Perhaps.

But I could quote it as improbable fiction.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-12, 03:32 PM
I'm still not sure why there'd be only one such bomb apiece for multiple planes, though.
Political pressure to maximize number of sorties flown, as that's the measure of success. Ref. Goodhart's Law as reformulated by Professor Marilyn Strathern `When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.'