"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.