"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.