what a load of todge! planes dont fly with a large variaty of weapons they fly with what they need for the target. how many jets did you see in the gulf loaded to the max, you take what you need so your as light as possable and need less fuel. and they are defanetly not going to be carryin ga few nukes just in case they need to take out a small town on there way

in the words of Elan Ripley...."did iq's just sudenly drop will i was away"

Originally posted by talon
in the words of Elan Ripley...."did iq's just sudenly drop will i was away"

Well, typos have increased...

Originally posted by COOL HAND
If they nuked the site, where is the fallout from it?

Why would the USAF need to bomb it in the first place with the IAF has the capability to do it itself?

Why are you using al-jazeera as a credible news source?

I was about to write a lengthy reply, but you really hit the nail on the head

[edit on 11-4-2007 by TheAgentNineteen]

Some people really need to look at the original article.

The planes it refers to were shown on the photo of the article, which was stock photography from an airshow, which is why there is such a variety of planes. At no point does it suggest those planes were involved.

As someone above correctly pointed out, tactical aircraft only fly with the load they need. Carrying anything else adds weight, weight equals a decrease in aerodynamic performance and speed. A plane loaded with something it doesn't need is almost asking to be shot down.

Someone above refers to a BLU-82 Daisy cutter bomb. You need a heavy plane to carry one because they are huge. And by a heavy I mean a B-52 or a C-130. In Vietnam the bombs were pushed out of the backs of C-130's on Parachutes, and occaisionally dropped from Skyhook Crane Helicopters. You can't carry one on an F-15/16/18, or inside an F-117. Even a B2 would need its rotary launcher removed and be adapted.

As for nukes, all nukes create EMP. They all create a flash. Any nuclear detonation would have been seen by countless satellites that are - suprisingly - in orbit to detect a such things. Such satellites are owned by the USA, Russia, and I suspect, China. Russia and China aren't likely to keep quiet about a nuke going off somewhere, especially one that has links to the USA or Israel.

I'm calling the article BS. Its junk. Its written in a "friend of a friend" manner and it means nothing at all. Its hyperbole and scaremongering.

What concerns me more though is some peoples masturbatory fantasies about nuclear weapons. Grow up please. These are things that you don't just chuck about like paper planes. There are people sitting in control rooms and silo's and on subs that have enough power literally at their fingertips to wipe most of the planet away, and a sudden nuclear explosion/incident and a confusion of facts could very easily escalate into something much larger very quickly.

i can`t remember where i saw it but `taqctical nuclear war - isn`t - when you use nukes you use what you have , weapons for the fluid battle field and weapons for the bases/industry and cities - the 2 go hand in hand , so whilst there might be `plans` and fantasies about a limited nuclear exchange - the reality is that as soon as you use one , its end game and the lot will be used.

I was discussing this with a friend of mine - and, I have yet to look into it, myself - however, he said the reports he saw was the Israel bombed a reactor (probably thought to be a breeder reactor for weapon's grade plutonium) in Syria. The only real strange part about it was that the Syrians didn't scream bloody murder or seem to do anything but act like nothing was ever there in the first place, or that anything had ever happened.

Which contrasts with the typical reaction of "The Zionists are coming!"

Anyway - I would have to agree that the original article is... well, bogus.

The only exception being that the source was confused, and rather got the "plan B" aircraft mixed up with the aircraft that actually performed the strike. It isn't uncommon for an additional aircraft or two to be placed in the air and armed with a "trump card" should the mission fail and things get rather chaotic. Depending upon the believed consequences of failure of the initial mission - a nuclear weapon may have been placed in the air.

But that would be rather hard to prove one way or another - and, if it wasn't used, is akin to debating contingency plans.

Originally posted by kindred
Another possible scenario?

Possible but unlikely given the amount of aircraft talked about. An Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilites would probably take many more planes to make sure the job is done. I would have expected at least 25 strike aircraft, probably more, plus all the support aircraft to do such an attack.

Probably a small reactor or what was going to be one. The radiation is hard to hide. Easier for the Syrians to say (or insinuate) that the planes doing the bombing had nukes.

At least that's what it seems like to me.
I'm not calling anybody a lying, fearmongering idiot or anything like that.

Yeah, but I heard it was actually bombed the Chinese, flying US insignia, piloted by Mongolian pilots, and the entire mission was funded by Antarctica!

Al Jazerra is just as bad if not even worse than pravda when it comes to propaganda against the US..If it were even remotely true I think in my own opinion that a barrage of TLAMS or TASMS with a low yield payload would do the job or a B-2 could do the job from high above..Just my personal opinions here.