"Red Rider" wrote in message
...

"Moe" Moe@MoesBar wrote in message
...

ignoring the political implications of crossing the
imaginary threshold or tripwire regarding usage of
tactical nukes. would it not afford the IDF a significant
advantage to execute strikes using enchanced radiation
packages ?

minimal collateral damage to infrastructure, while
still achieving the goal of defeating the enemy that
has dug itself in.

place the strike packages on a few F-15E's, or GLCM's
and sanitize the target areas of hezbollah combatants
with less losses than a direct engagement of ground
troops.



Why in the world would someone want to protect infrastructure occupied by
the enemy?

well it seems everyone is in an uproar over
the destruction of lebanese infrastructure.

one presumes that once the hezbollah elements
are rendered inert, that the lebanese govt
can rebuild.



Just as an example all iron/steel items, cars/ machinery/ washing machine,
refrigerators,etc. not destroyed by he blast/heat effect of the detonation
will remain useless due to induced radiation (gives off gamma rays) for
some
time. Example a new crew occupying a tank that was subject to ER weapon,
will die within 24 hours due to the induced radiation (gamma rays) from
the
hull..(This point has always been deliberately overlooked/ignored by the
anti-nuke crowd at the encouragement of the then Soviet propaganda
machine).

As the burst height is typically 100m there will still be some quantity of
debris sucked up and deposited as local fallout.

Also ER weapons are not the "solve-all" battlefield nuke weapon that
uniformed people have made it out to be. First it is still a nuke, even
though it is a very low powered one.. Second it has a very limited killing
zone measured in hundreds of yards (max is about 880 yards), not thousands
of yards or miles. And last the so-called "clean" nukes are only clean
when
compared to other nuke weapons, the fallout radiation though it may be
reduced in quantity, can still kill you.


so would there be a significant tactical advantage for
IDF to deploy such weapons ? (that was my original query).

"my" opinion (ignoring political blowback), is yes it
would. the limited kill zone would minimize collateral
damage to non combatants. particulary since it's not a
traditional "battlefield", but an urban environment.

the hot fallout would be problematic, but the psychological
shock to the enemy that the "asymmetric" warfare that they
hoped to win, now just became a more difficult proposition
by the introduction of weapons they never expected.