Would Syria allow Russia to use tactical nuclear weapons on their soil?

Frankly I dont think it is in Assads hand anymore. Would he protest? I dont think he would act in any way to piss off the one force that keeps his head between his shoulders.

originally posted by: Tiamat384
a reply to: concernedcitizen519
I don't think Russia would resort to nuclear warfare because that form of warfare is largely indiscriminate.

The actual problem with using nuclear weapons in this case is, strangely enough, they wouldn't work. I don't mean that a huge area won't be fried and contaminated, but that the actual political goal still wouldn't be accomplished.

The bombs dropped on Japan were the end of an enormous planned campaign which saw the Imperials suffer defeat after defeat after defeat. The tide was inexorable and the outcome certain, just not the timescale. The bombs were the shortcut.

But when you use nuclear weapons to start escalation, as opposed to finish an already victorious campaign---what happens? You make victory that much more difficult as there can be no compromise. What would have happened if Japan vaporized Pearl Harbor on December 7th?

a reply to: mbkennel
The fact it is discriminate is in support to what you say here essentially.

In that it being indiscriminate would only escalate the war. More recruits for Daesh.

Did the Nazis indeed detonate a tactical nuke at the onset of the Battle of Kursk?

a reply to: mbkennel

Not only what you said but in addition it wouldn't end Isis since they operate in countries other than Syria and Iraq. It would also push Isis into overdrive with getting their hands on wmd's for retaliation.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: concernedcitizen519

US uses nuclear weapons all the time.

Every time a hellfire missile explodes, an A10 fires its cannon and tanks fire armor penetrating rounds.

Depleted Uranium is radioactive.

Edit:

links

There are other, more common non-radioactive materials that can kill a person a lot faster than exposure to depleted uranium. Its far weaker than natural uranium.

a reply to: intrptr

US uses nuclear weapons all the time.

Every time a hellfire missile explodes, an A10 fires its cannon and tanks fire armor penetrating rounds.

Depleted Uranium is radioactive.

Granite is radioactive, too. Depleted uranium shells are not nuclear weapons, no matter what presstv says.

originally posted by: concernedcitizen519
With Putin raising eyebrows this week by mentioning the possibility of using nuclear weapons against terrorists, although an unlikely scenario, do you think Syria would allow it in the Country?

Would Syria allow Russia to use tactical nuclear weapons on their soil? - An interesting question considering that if you go back to the last time the US started to bomb Syria back to the stone age, you will find if you hunt around YT a video that was in the view of many people familiar with topic, a nuke explosion.

I wonder if Russia is considering using a nuke, do they have in mind using a nuke that is similar in size and type as that explosion that occurred a year or so ago. Should this be the case, might the purpose of using it be to prove that the explosion that occurred a year to so ago, was in fact a nuke explosion?

Its an explosion that occurs at night time, that put out more light then that sun for an instant and had lightening in the mushroom cloud. These, it seems, are the giveaway characteristics of a nuke explosion.

Its alleged, that an explosion that occurred in a fertilizer plant in Texas around a similar time and had similar characteristics, was also a nuke but was explained away at the time, as a fertilizer explosion.

World War three thread. Hey everybody, speculation nukes, think it's going to happen? Just think, no citation or facts, no source of any kind. Jump up and down if you think something crazy will happen.


Great thread!

originally posted by: concernedcitizen519
With Putin raising eyebrows this week by mentioning the possibility of using nuclear weapons against terrorists, although an unlikely scenario, do you think Syria would allow it in the Country?

Personally i dont think it matter what the Syrians think or what we think.

If Russia thinks the use of this type of weapon is the right solution, they will use it.

I dont think the US asked the People of Japan if it was Okay to drop two nucklear bombs on two Japanees cities either.

originally posted by: Tiamat384
a reply to: concernedcitizen519
I don't think Russia would resort to nuclear warfare because that form of warfare is largely indiscriminate.

Excuse me ... do you "really" think this is about Syria? Or 30 thousand guys, who call themselves ISIS and are running around in a black dress?

How about a reality check ... Europe, along with the US is stealing oil from the middle east. Europe can't sustain it's own oil needs, not even 10% of it. The US is bankrupt, and can't afford to buy any ... you're broke and there is nothing you have, anyone wants. You don't even have gold, except stolen gold ... the Nazi gold, isn't really Nazi gold, it's US gold ... "taken" by the US as a victor of WWII.

The US is "intent" on destroying Russia, and China as well ... as well as Iran, N.Korea and half of the world. It's cause a complete ruin in Europe.

The US has a history of using Nuclear weapons ... as someone pointed out here, every time they fire a round they throw radioactive dust around ... and poison the surrounding. In Vietnam they used Chemical agents, with the death of MILLIONS ... and in Korea, they used biological agents.

US has had several Nuclear accidents and they bury Nuclear waste material all over the world ... it's going to kill our grand children. Russia, burried Chernobyl ... the US burried their accidents in "National Security" and haunted and even killed some of the reporters (allegedly). Fukushima is still glowing.

I'd rather trust the Russians, even if they're pissed trunk on Vodka ... and if they think a Nuke is necessary ... then by all means ... because the truth is, if the US wins ... then we here in Europe will be dead within a century, anyway.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: intrptr

US uses nuclear weapons all the time.

Every time a hellfire missile explodes, an A10 fires its cannon and tanks fire armor penetrating rounds.

Depleted Uranium is radioactive.

Granite is radioactive, too. Depleted uranium shells are not nuclear weapons…

Depleted Uranium is Uranium, not "Granite". DU is waste left over from the nuclear power industry. It is way more radioactive than stone and a component of weapons fired from US missiles and shells.

Non nuclear weapons don't utilize nuclear materials. Nuclear fallout is spreading from their use by the US military throughout the region and beyond.

Depleted Uranium ammunition

military.com

a reply to: intrptr

Depleted Uranium is Uranium, not "Granite". DU is waste left over from the nuclear power industry. It is way more radioactive than stone and a component of weapons fired from US missiles and shells.

That does not make it a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons use fission or fusion to create massive amounts of heat and hard radiation (x-ray, gamma, and neutron, principally). Depleted uranium gives off traces of particle radiation. This is given off as lead isotopes decay into a more stable energy state. It is a side effect; DU is used because it is very dense, making it suitable for high velocity shells. If you believe that the radiation is intended as a weapon, please refer to it as a radiological weapon, like the theoretical "dirty bomb." This is an extremely important distinction to make, and deliberately not making it is nothing less than black propaganda. Russia also uses depleted uranium, of course.

Non nuclear weapons don't utilize nuclear materials. Nuclear fallout is spreading from their use by the US military throughout the region and beyond.

Depleted uranium is not a nuclear material. In fact, it occurs in nature. It just so happens that is is a side product of nuclear energy technology, making that the most convenient source. Nuclear fallout has not been spreading for over fifty years. nuclear fallout was the result of radioactive dust from atmospheric detonations of nuclear arms settling to Earth as the nuclei of raindrops. Please educate yourself.

a reply to: DJW001

Depleted uranium is not a nuclear material.

Its "granite", got it.

Fallout from DU weapons is even dirtier than nuclear weapons because it is in the dust on the ground at your feet, long lived and blown on the wind to be inhaled and ingested by people living there.

Depleted Uranium, the real dirty bomb

a reply to: intrptr

Fallout from DU weapons is even dirtier than nuclear weapons because it is in the dust on the ground at your feet, long lived and blown on the wind to be inhaled and ingested by people living there.

.

Do you have hard data to support this? Even the sources you cite make it clear that this is a controversial claim.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: intrptr

Fallout from DU weapons is even dirtier than nuclear weapons because it is in the dust on the ground at your feet, long lived and blown on the wind to be inhaled and ingested by people living there.

.
Do you have hard data to support this? Even the sources you cite make it clear that this is a controversial claim.

There is no data you will accept, like I said in another thread people can tell when truth is revealed about something, you come out to bury it in a land slide of "no proof", veiled insult and forum sliding.

a reply to: intrptr

This is all off topic. I am opposed to the use of Depleted Uranium munitions on the grounds that they are unnecessary and possibly cause more environmental damage than more conventional projectiles. In any event, their use has been seized upon by propagandists to mislead the under-informed into believing that the United States (and other countries) are using nuclear weapons.

a reply to: bjarneorn
Obviously it is not about Syria. Nowhere in any of my post does it suggest I believe that. And all I said was I doubt that Russia would resort to the usage of nuclear weapons...so the American intent, European oil needs and American history of nuclear weapons and accidents is irrelevant.

a reply to: DJW001

In any event, their use has been seized upon by propagandists to mislead the under-informed into believing that the United States (and other countries) are using nuclear weapons.

They are.

ENOUGH!

This thread is not about what is or is not a nuclear weapon, or who or who has not used them.

Discuss the topic of the OP only.

Anything else will be removed as Off Topic and post bans handed out.

Do not reply to this post.