question for tactics gurus

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.

Moe wrote:
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.

Not their infrastructure; the IDF would have little preference
for preserving it.

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 sure, if you ignore the political implications of using nukes -such
as killing large numbers of noncombatents, inflaming the entire muslim
world to jihad, etc- nukes always look good.

"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?

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.

The real value of nuclear weapons is the threat of using them, NOT actually
using them. The Navy boomer fleet said if they ever had to launch SLBMs they
would have failed their purpose - convincing the Soviet Union and Red China
they could not "win" a nuclear war.

Unfortunately, with death-wish terrorists there may be no such deterrence!

end

"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.

"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.

----------
In article , "Moe"
Moe@MoesBar wrote:

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

You really don't understand what is going on there. The Israelis are not
hitting the infrastructure by accident. They are deliberately hitting it.
They want to blow up bridges to prevent the Syrians from resupplying
Hezbollah.


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.

You really don't understand what is going on there. Hezbollah is _in_ the
civilian population. In many ways they _are_ the civilian population. Some
guy walks down his street to the Hez checkpoint and asks for an AK-47 and
they give it to him and how he is Hezbollah too.

So how are you going to get all those radiation rays to zip around the
civilians and only hit the guys with guns and rockets?

Watch the news today. See the stuff about the 50 civilians killed by an
Israeli bomb. The Israelis were not trying to kill civilians, but the
civilians happened to be where Hezbollah was. You think that a nuke would
be a better option?


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.

What about the political fallout? You think that Israel could do this and
not suffer extreme consequences? They might find themselves getting
attacked by all their neighbors, and do you think that the United States
would stand by them if they started detonating nukes? It would be extremely
bad for them.




D

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

"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
It's a nuke dammit!

The smallest US ER weapons are about 1kt minimum. That is equal to1000 tons
of TNT or 1,000,000 kg of TNT or 2204623 pounds of TNT. A 155mm high
explosive artillery shell weighs about 98 pounds but only contains about the
equal to of 15 pounds of TNT.

Can you try to imagine the damage 100, 155mm shells would do to an apartment
block? It would destroy everything! (By the way it would take about
1,500,000, 155mm artillery shells to put 1kt of explosives on a target.)

Now can you imagine what the results of even a small nuke would be? NO! You
can't imagine it. No one can unless you have seen it and even then it's
unbelievable. No matter how its explained to you the human mind just can't
comprehend something that big, something that is orders of magnitude bigger
that anything you have ever experienced

The US and the Soviets were only able to make nukes this small after a lot
of testing. Israel has at the most, only participated in one test, and that
is not know for sure. (Vela incident 22 Sept 1979?). Without the benefit of
actual testing it is doubtful that Israel has been able to make such a small
ER nuke.


So to get back to your original post, what possible tactical advantage would
it be to totally destroy a number of square blocks of a city? It would just
create more fighting positions. The same for using chemical weapons. Sooner
or later you have to put troops in there. Why because you only control he
ground under your boots!

Note: The SI system of measurement is used by the nuclear scientific
community. The metric tonne (1012 calories or 4.186x1012 joules) is the ton
used in kiloton or megaton.


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.

You can be assured that all the Arab are well aware that if Israel were to
about to go under, they could expect to receive several nukes on their major
cities not to mention "holy sites". Mecca and Medina would probably cease to
exist.

Would Israel really push the button? Heck I don't know, but neither do the
Arabs.


"W. D. Allen" wrote in message
...
The real value of nuclear weapons is the threat of using them, NOT
actually using them. The Navy boomer fleet said if they ever had to launch
SLBMs they would have failed their purpose - convincing the Soviet Union
and Red China they could not "win" a nuclear war.

Unfortunately, with death-wish terrorists there may be no such deterrence!

end

"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.