…am I misunderstanding the distance between israel and gaza or am I misunderstanding how nukes work? This sounds like a really bad plan unless I’m wrong about something.
Tactical nukes exist, there would be fallout, but depending on the nuke itself, and the burst configuration, that could be limited, and with favorable winds go out over the sea.
Not to mention neutron bombs which are “cleaner” and just kill organics.
But none of this really makes sense, given the fact that gaza’s completely surrounded, and total air and military superiority exists there’s cleaner ways to kill everyone.
One could argue this politician is trying to anchor a really bad idea, so the people agree with a terrible idea that’s not as bad later.
(western) neutron bombs were made for single and very specific explicit purpose: to kill crews of soviet tanks quickly while not generating too much fallout over friendly territory (west germany). neutron bombs are still nukes and still have powerful blast and so on; but while everyone outside of tank is fried anyway no matter what nuke you use, neutrons specifically ignore heavy metal shielding. neutrons are however also stopped by things like air, concrete, and especially water, fuel, plastics and such; most importantly, when first DPICM and then antitank PGMs deployable from considerable distance (think CBU-97 or BONUS, not ATGMs) became a thing, these things just stopped being necessary and were withdrawn from service
against a city you don’t want a neutron bomb. other than tanks, it’s a thing to be used against other nukes, but nuclear anti-ballistic defenses seem a little crazy today so it was phased out too. if you look at actual doomsday arsenals of actual nuclear states, the things stockpiled are plain ol big dirty thermonuclear devices, dial-a-yield from below 1kt to somewhere around 500kt with guidance kit added. even against other nukes neutron bombs aren’t expected to be used today, turns out just bending them out of shape while still in silo seems to be easier
does israel have neutron bombs? probably, would it be effective against a city? not more than regular nukes, and at any rate, just like you say, tons and tons of PGMs are just simpler, easier to deal with and much safer diplomatically
Not an expert by any means, but nukes can get smaller than one would think. The fallout would be the most dangerous thing for Israel, in both the physical and political sense.
…am I misunderstanding the distance between israel and gaza or am I misunderstanding how nukes work? This sounds like a really bad plan unless I’m wrong about something.
Tactical nukes exist, there would be fallout, but depending on the nuke itself, and the burst configuration, that could be limited, and with favorable winds go out over the sea.
Not to mention neutron bombs which are “cleaner” and just kill organics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
But none of this really makes sense, given the fact that gaza’s completely surrounded, and total air and military superiority exists there’s cleaner ways to kill everyone.
One could argue this politician is trying to anchor a really bad idea, so the people agree with a terrible idea that’s not as bad later.
(western) neutron bombs were made for single and very specific explicit purpose: to kill crews of soviet tanks quickly while not generating too much fallout over friendly territory (west germany). neutron bombs are still nukes and still have powerful blast and so on; but while everyone outside of tank is fried anyway no matter what nuke you use, neutrons specifically ignore heavy metal shielding. neutrons are however also stopped by things like air, concrete, and especially water, fuel, plastics and such; most importantly, when first DPICM and then antitank PGMs deployable from considerable distance (think CBU-97 or BONUS, not ATGMs) became a thing, these things just stopped being necessary and were withdrawn from service
against a city you don’t want a neutron bomb. other than tanks, it’s a thing to be used against other nukes, but nuclear anti-ballistic defenses seem a little crazy today so it was phased out too. if you look at actual doomsday arsenals of actual nuclear states, the things stockpiled are plain ol big dirty thermonuclear devices, dial-a-yield from below 1kt to somewhere around 500kt with guidance kit added. even against other nukes neutron bombs aren’t expected to be used today, turns out just bending them out of shape while still in silo seems to be easier
does israel have neutron bombs? probably, would it be effective against a city? not more than regular nukes, and at any rate, just like you say, tons and tons of PGMs are just simpler, easier to deal with and much safer diplomatically
See, that’s what I was thinking but you’re a whole lot more technical than “yeah I’m pretty sure that is dumb” like I said lol.
Not an expert by any means, but nukes can get smaller than one would think. The fallout would be the most dangerous thing for Israel, in both the physical and political sense.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/lost-history-or-possibly-just-lost-meet-suitcase-nukes-192997