Nuke Media Blackout?

Because of a recent discussion that was ongoing in another thread about the gaza conflict... www.abovetopsecret.com...

A piece of video was noticed containing a large blast, which some have hypothesized to be "nuke" in nature, as seen here around the 4:05 mark..

www.youtube.com...


My question is, would it be possible to even set off a nuke in this day and age without the "nations" knowing about it.

Surely, the radiation or the EMP would be detected.

Would media, or the lack thereof really be able to blackout the knowledge of such an event in this day and age?

Even a small nukem would leave behind fallout of radiations and EMP disturbances. If one was set off, there would be such a roar from the surrounding nations that it would be the only thing being discussed everywhere.

No nukes today, just a very large conventional bomb or missile explosion.



Cheers!!!!

I think they might try to initially say that from Un-confirmed sources, it would be something else.

But having a nuke go off somewhere in the world, is like having another WTC. It's not something that can be spun to have "not Happened".

There would be way too many independant news sources that would cover it. Especially the country who fired it, they would want to claim responsibility. I dont' think it would be something sudden, i think we would hear about it, and it would be threatened before actually used.

The media is good, but i don't think they're that good.

Neighbouring countries will pick up any radiation, couple that with the EMP from the blast would have disabled the camera that filmed the explosion.

Simple fact is Israel wants that land back, do you think they'd ruin it by nuking it?

[edit on 10-1-2009 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Chadwickus


What do you mean bacK? they never owned it to begin with. You mean they wanna TAKE IT.

This was one powerful explosion but thankfully not a nuke. As if the poor people in Gaza are not suffering enough already.

Here is what a real nuke looks like...

...hopefully the world will never again see this weapon used.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Which was my theory exactly.

You do not nuke soil you want to keep. Beyond that, it would be very difficult to hid something of that magnitude, from the press.

FOXnews would be on that like white on rice for the ratings.

reply to post by TwiTcHomatic


I don't think Israel would ever consider nuking the strip. There are multiple reasons behind this.

First they are way too close to where the bomb would actually go off, killing alot of Israelis and then ruining themselves with the radiation cloud.

Second that land would be useless for 30+ years so yeah your right on that scope.

I could only see them using N's on opposing forces such as Iran or Egypt. Even then, that's pretty close to home.

I don't think the government is that crazy either.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I totally agree with the whole gaza part.. that was just the example at the moment.

The question still stands, could nuke be set off somewhere in the world and the media be blacked out of the fact that it happened?


[edit on 10-1-2009 by TwiTcHomatic]

reply to post by TwiTcHomatic


No as i said, way too many independant agencies would be keeping track of what's going on.

I mean think about it.

Everybody looking for seismic activity, a nuke going off would register on they're scales. People in space would see it. People thousands of miles away would feel the shockwave. It's really hard to cover up something like that, unelss they blamed it on a nuclear plant going off.

Well that video is not a nuke guaranteed if it was if failed.

Never be able to black it out in media because it would be a ratings dream come true.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

What do you mean bacK? they never owned it to begin with. You mean they wanna TAKE IT.

Either way my point still stands.

I'm not going to get into whose land it is. There are plenty of other discussions regarding that I'm sure.

Originally posted by TwiTcHomatic

My question is, would it be possible to even set off a nuke in this day and age without the "nations" knowing about it.

Surely, the radiation or the EMP would be detected.

The US, and not to mention other countries, have multiple satellites that are in orbit now that do nothing but look for things like the unique double-flash signature of a nuclear blast. It would be almost impossible for one to go off without the US knowing about it.

Side note: Everyone states how no one would wish to nuke Israel for fear of destroying religious artifacts and the land... what about a bio-weapon that kills everyone and leaves the corridor open to invasion? Just a thought.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by Alienmojo]

Apparently people on this thread are overlooking a few things. First let me say, that I do not think IDF used a nuke. But there seems to be a blurring of the use of the word nuke here. It is completely possible for IDF to use tactical nuclear weapons, especially since these can be made in a much smaller much less devestating capacity. What happened in Hiroshima, was an atom bomb, but modern things of that scale are called strategic nuclear weapons. No Israel wouldnt us that in this situation. There is nothing illegal about using tactical nuclear weapons however, and they would seem to be no more than super missles so to speak. Were they to use one, I doubt anyone, even the Gazans would not know it was a nuke. There would be no uproar because such a device is not the mushroom cloud of peoples nightmares, and would not cause any harm to neighboring nations. Nol fallout, no huge emp. Its nothing more than an extra powerful explosive. Hamas has underground bunkers, and tunnel system, which could be attacked using either conventional penetration explosives or nuclear penetrating devices. The fallout of such a device would be little to none.

As I said earlier, I don't think they have, but would I put it past them? No. Russia has admitted to using tac nukes in the 80s in afghanistan, and it is widely held that US used one in Iraq a few years back. In conclusion, no uproar. Its acceptable to use these devices in modern warfare. If there should be an uproar, it should be about these massive quantities of phosphorus, but like a tac nuke, it doesnt affect other nations, so it isn't worth getting panties in a wad.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by M157yD4wn]

It could be this...

It is big and destructive. To be exact, the Daisy Cutter bomb weighs in at 15,000 pounds and destroys anything in a 600-yard radius. First used during the Vietnam War, these huge bombs have since been employed in the Gulf War and most recently in Afghanistan. Although the “Daisy Cutter” bomb is not a nuclear weapon, its use in battle has caused controversy because of its terrifying and utterly destructive nature.

Source

Star and flag for your post -- as this subject is always something that's worth considering.

The "daisy cutter" bomb apparently is no longer in use; I say "apparently" because naturally enough the military won't tell us everything they know. However, there are reasons why it might not be even a "daisy cutter", one being that this bomb needs its parachute all the way down and is therefore basically "dumb"(unguided and unguidable), which isn't good for trying to hit targets with precision, and the other reason being that the US could have supplied the Israelis with something far "better" -- namely the MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast) device.

For a short writeup on the MOAB, the Wikipedia article isn't bad. Granted, it's only the Wiki, but its details can be checked by googling other sites, of which there are plenty.

The key things with the MOAB are that it's able to be launched from a higher altitude, only needs the parachute for initial deployment from the transport plane, and is GPS guided. It can take out hardened targets (which the daisy cutter was not designed to do as it explodes just above the ground and was primarily used to clear LZ's for choppers, hence the name) and is also more powerful than the daisy cutter anyway.

If I were to go for an option I'd say it might be the MOAB that was used. For one thing, it's about as powerful as the smallest tac nuke (says the Wiki, anyway), but would have to be a lot less hassle to secure and transport than a nuke. (I'm talking about the storage and transport protocols for nukes, not their relative size.)

Thanks for the post,

Mike