----------
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