'USAF struck Syrian nuclear site'

reply to post by jfj123

---

How about a Tactical neutron bomb?
The one photo of the bomb damage(missle damage?)
doesnt seem to show the type of crater that these weapons would make ....
I still think that one of the mother of all bombs would be more likely to cause that kind of damage......biggest non nuclear ordinance in the world till Russia made a bigger one this year.....
The thing slits apart above ground and makes a huge gasoline vapour cloud,which is then set off by a parachute carried detonator charge
THE ONES THEY USED IN THE NAM WOULD YIELD ABOUT A SQUARE MILE OF ABSOLUTELY FLAT EPICENTER, AND ANOTHER OUTER RING OF LESSOR DAMAGE....
THEY WOULD KILL EVERY (living ) THING WITHIN ABOUT THAT TWO OR SO MILE SQ AREA BY CONCUSSION....

reply to post by bergle

---

`tactical neutron bomb`

a neutron bomb or enhanced radiation weapon is a nuke.

just with an outer materila to allow the escape of a certain type of radiation eg

the warhead of the Spartan ABM (W71)was an enhanced radiation type - the radiation was xray


so `neutron bombs` are just nukes with enancement of a certain radiation type.

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"

Well, typos have increased...

reply to post by jfj123

---

Unbelievable.

How many times do I have to go over this?

Please read the entire post before making such remarks.

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.

reply to post by Aim64C

---

The fact Syria didn't scream about this with such a great propaganda opportunity, ie: "zionist aggressors etc...", tells me that they we're caught red handed doin' something they shouldn't..

Syria screaming that it had been attacked by Israel probably wouldn't amount to much considering the UN & the West are always turning a blind eye to Israeli crimes.

If Syria was doing something suspicious then Israel could say the attack was justified. Yet it was the Israeli military that ordered a media blackout on the matter. Why? What are they hiding? I suspect it has something to do with Hezbollah. Hezbollah must be dealt with before any attack against Iran can take place.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Why Did Israel Attack Syria?
www.antiwar.com...

blog.washingtonpost.com...

Another possible scenario?



[edit on 7-11-2007 by kindred]

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.

Syria is finally going to let the IAEA look at the site.

www.chicagotribune.com...

reply to post by makeitso

---

I looked at the satellite photos of before and after and I notice that the after pic it shows what looks like a clever camouflage tarp of some kind. Thats how the Syrians were quick.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by deltaboy]