Did Israel Use a 'Nuke' On Hizbollah?

Sponge Bob

Fascinating !

From

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1935945.ece

There are two possible reasons for the contamination. "The first is that the weapon was some novel small experimental nuclear fission device or other experimental weapon (eg, a thermobaric weapon) based on the high temperature of a uranium oxidation flash (made in Israel or an American black weapon SB) ... The second is that the weapon was a bunker-busting conventional uranium penetrator weapon employing enriched uranium rather than depleted uranium." A photograph of the explosion of the first bomb shows large clouds of black smoke that might result from burning uranium.( an American bunker buster SB)

and also from that article.

At worst it's some sort of experimental weapon with an enriched uranium component (not depleted SB) the purpose of which we don't yet know. At best - if you can say that - it shows a remarkably cavalier attitude to the use of nuclear waste products."

one could even wonder if Hizbullah started the war (they did) to provoke Israel into revealing this weapon program if the weapon was a home grown quasi nuke. Uranium is the best penetrating weapon known and thats the metal not the atomic bomb as such or an enriched uranium device of ANY sort.

If a quasi nuke was actually deployed then Israel have caused a right mess in my opinion. They have lowered the global threshold for nuclear weapon deployment. DU as used in anti armour weapons is simply an ulta heavy metal to penetrate metal, its not explosive as in fission and atomic .

Internationally we have gone 61 years since the last known military nuclear weapon usage, I had kinda hoped we could manage another 61 at least.

Less of this

Manic Moran

Either explanation rather stretches the definition of 'nuke', doesn't it?

Article doesn't go into motive: What would have been the benefits of using such weapons in that case? At least cluster munitions and WP have pretty obvious benefits.

NTM

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

Either explanation rather stretches the definition of 'nuke', doesn't it?

Article doesn't go into motive: What would have been the benefits of using such weapons in that case? At least cluster munitions and WP have pretty obvious benefits.

NTM

Well that's really a question ye should put to the Israelis.
It would appear that using such weapons are merely no big deal to them.

hmmm

[Edited] Stop trolling !!!! Next one I see earns you a ban !!!!

uberpixie

Manic Moran wrote:

Either explanation rather stretches the definition of 'nuke', doesn't it?

Article doesn't go into motive: What would have been the benefits of using such weapons in that case? At least cluster munitions and WP have pretty obvious benefits.

NTM

The article does offer a motive: that the weapons were being tested "in the field".

Maybe the IDF though they knew the location of an underground bunker or two.

Maybe they wanted to give people cancer.

Maybe they had some new kit lying around that they wanted to test out.


You may also note at the the end of the article:

"Many Lebanese, however, long ago concluded that the latest Lebanon war was a weapons testing ground for the Americans and Iranians, who respectively supply Israel and Hizbollah with munitions. Just as Israel used hitherto-unproven US missiles in its attacks, so the Iranians were able to test-fire a rocket which hit an Israeli corvette off the Lebanese coast, killing four Israeli sailors and almost sinking the vessel after it suffered a 15-hour on-board fire."

I think the testing out theory is the most likely.

Hobbes

I recall similar stories in relation to Afganistan as regards to "showing off/testing" new weapons around the time of the war. Blog-o-sphere had conspiracy chatter that a nuke was used in Afganistan around that time because an earthquake happened and the US had stopped anyone from accessing satillite info.

didn't see anything further on it, probably usual tinfoilery.

Capt'n Midnight

Asked by The Independent if the Israeli army had been using uranium-based munitions in Lebanon this summer, Mark Regev, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, said: "Israel does not use any weaponry which is not authorised by international law or international conventions."

The use of white phosphorous stretches legality to the limit. As did the use of plastic fragments that the USA used in Iraq because they are invisible to x-rays and you can be damn sure it wasn't hypoallergenic . (probably used in lebanon since the Isrealias use US munitions in their MRLS rocket launchers)

depleted uranium is used a lot for amour piercing rounds so not supprising if its found (also used as counterbalances on aircraft a 747 has about 1/2 tonne of the stuff) it's waste so not very valuable compared to enhanced uranium. But for radiation it's the radioactive isotopes you want and simply using more depleted U will give you the similar radioactivity to enriched uranium (but not exaclty the same due to different isotope ratios)

bonkey

FTFA wrote:

There are two possible reasons for the contamination

There are far more than two possible reasons for the contamination.

Deliberate pollution of samples, or the contamination being there prior to the attacks, for example, are both possible reasons.

Frederico

The only true measure of a weapon is to test it on the battlefield, think about Nagasaki. I garuntee that just about every fancy new weapon in the US arsenal has been tested in Iraq.

I mean America rushed over some bunker busters to Israel during the conflict, I wouldn't be surprised if they are just newly developed.

Wertz

The use of either depleted or enriched uranium in conventional rounds is akin to state-sponsored "dirty bombs" (and thusly terrorism IMO), especially in rounds the size/caibre that a bunker buster type weapon would utilise.
Such rounds aerosolise during the process of impact and actual work of cracking the armour, leaving a dirty zone of very heavy dust that is toxic and carcinogenic and is not easily cleaned up...
Although I think anything else Israel did is by far overshadowed by the heavy use of out-dated, US-manafactured cluster bombs they dropped in the closing days of the conflict...

gandalf

Well personally I would view the use of cluster bombs to be a punishment for the Lebanese before they wound up their trial run for a bigger operation.

I read yesterdays article in the independent and I tend to agree that they were testing a new munition with an eye on a possible future strike on Iran.

Wertz

Personally I'd see it as indiscriminately mining, from a remote location, swathes of territory, that doesn't belong to you, with the dual intentions of leaving that territory uninhabitable and picking off random civilians for years to come...
Some punishment and far from justifiable IMO...

philologos

if it was nuking surely there would have been thousands more dead like in Hiroshima. I also don't think Israel would have the balls to use a nuke as the international community would sideline them instead of giving them aid and support as the EU and the US did for them when Hamas came into power, but magically didnt do when Yisrael Beiteinu (a party which says it would use facism over democracy if Jewish and Zionist values werent being incorporated into the government)

Sponge Bob

Jakkass wrote:

if it was nuking surely there would have been thousands more dead like in Hiroshima.

no, there are different nukes.

I also don't think Israel would have the balls to use a nuke

Have they redefined what is an 'acceptable' nuke by deploying one that did not reach critical mass which is required for a nuclear explosion.

philologos

its breaking war legislation anyway... although its not like they haven't broken the Geneva Convention before in this conflict. (Article 3 and Phosphorous bombs for example)

Victor

Jakkass wrote:

if it was nuking surely there would have been thousands more dead like in Hiroshima.

Hiroshima - refugee centre. South Lebanon - mostly vacant.

Manic Moran

Jakkass wrote:

its breaking war legislation anyway... although its not like they haven't broken the Geneva Convention before in this conflict. (Article 3 and Phosphorous bombs for example)

See the WP/Fallujah thread for the legal status of Phosphorous.

NTM

Capt'n Midnight

Hobbes wrote:

Blog-o-sphere had conspiracy chatter that a nuke was used in Afganistan around that time because an earthquake happened and the US had stopped anyone from accessing satillite info.

Not to mention that most very large explosions produce mushroom clouds.

toiletduck

Sponge Bob wrote:

no, there are different nukes.

as said before, you're really pushing the definition of "nukes"

Frederico

The uranium tipped rounds (standard) that the US use, can these be 'picked up' by radiation detecting equipment?

Prehaps the Israelis used a very uranium heavy bunker buster and this is being picked up..

Manic Moran

The uranium tipped rounds (standard) that the US use,

And the French, British, Israelis, Chinese, Russians, and anyone else that may have bought the ammo...

can these be 'picked up' by radiation detecting equipment?

Yes and no.

DU is an Alpha emitter. It's pretty harmless (Your skin or clothes will stop alphas), and I'm assuming that can they can be detected. However, this also means that Geiger counters won't pick it up, as the Alpha particles won't get through the casing of the equipment, so it depends on what gadgets they're using to detect it.*

Another forum linked to the possibility of a DIME bomb, but that uses dense, non-radioactive metals as well. (It's a pretty clever idea, stops bomb fragments from flying too far). So far nobody's publicly come up with a reason that enriched Uranium would be particularly beneficial and worth the expense compared to other dense metals.

I'm filing this report under 'Interesting thesis' for now. Not discounting it out of hand, but so far I've not seen anything that can give it much credence either.

NTM

* The usual "I am not a nuclear physicist" caveat applies.

Frederico

Manic Moran wrote:

And the French, British, Israelis, Chinese, Russians, and anyone else that may have bought the ammo...



Yes and no.

DU is an Alpha emitter. It's pretty harmless (Your skin or clothes will stop alphas), and I'm assuming that can they can be detected. However, this also means that Geiger counters won't pick it up, as the Alpha particles won't get through the casing of the equipment, so it depends on what gadgets they're using to detect it.*

Another forum linked to the possibility of a DIME bomb, but that uses dense, non-radioactive metals as well. (It's a pretty clever idea, stops bomb fragments from flying too far). So far nobody's publicly come up with a reason that enriched Uranium would be particularly beneficial and worth the expense compared to other dense metals.

I'm filing this report under 'Interesting thesis' for now. Not discounting it out of hand, but so far I've not seen anything that can give it much credence either.

NTM

* The usual "I am not a nuclear physicist" caveat applies.

I don't think it is harmless, something there on the BBC today disputing that, sorry don't have link.

FYI

Manic wrote:

DU is an Alpha emitter. It's pretty harmless

shurely not

Manic Moran

I rephrase.

Alpha emissions are pretty harmless. If you go and breathe in/ingest vapourised DU, you will end up with heavy metal poisoning and all the associated issues that result. It's why you want to stay clear of destroyed tanks that might have been hit with DU rounds.

NTM

Wertz

Further, if you go and ingest or absorb alpha emitters, especially heavy metals like uranium, you run the double edged sword of both HIGHLY damaging particles ripping through the surrounding tissue causing cell and chromosomic damage AND the poisoning characteristics of normal heavy metal exposure.
Several unusual cancers have been linked to DU exposure in warzones, but controversially decried by military interests.

As for the reason to use DU instead of other dense and hard metals? Simple...economics and cost of production V effectiveness....DU is a more or less useless byproduct of nuclear fisson reactors....it's the worst form of recycling you can get IMO...

Manic Moran

This is certainly true for armour. In ammunition, however, DU has a self-sharpening effect which has not yet been replicated by other metals. Tungsten is a more dense metal (and is used by non-DU ammo producers) but less effective because it just blunts when it hits armour. They have been trying to create a tungsten alloy which keeps DU's self-sharpening characteristics, but they haven't had any success yet. Nothing yet has been proven more capable at killing tanks, economically or otherwise.

NTM

Capt'n Midnight

Manic Moran wrote:

And the French, British, Israelis, Chinese, Russians, and anyone else that may have bought the ammo.

well anyone with a reactor will have loads of the stuff to get rid of.

http://home.clara.net/heureka/gaia/du.htm

In a novel method of waste disposal, depleted uranium is being given away free to arms manufacturers for use in armour and munitions.
...
On hitting a tank, or armoured vehicle, the force of impact causes the DU to vaporise, an aerosol of uranium dioxide and uranium trioxide is formed. The vehicle and the surrounding area becomes contaminated with radioactive depleted uranium dust.
...
Depleted uranium when alloyed with titanium forms a dense hard penetrator. The two together are pyrophoric, on impact they combust releasing an aerosol of fine uranium particles. 60% of the particles are less than 5 micron in diameter, 10 microns is a respirable size.

Most of the it forms uranium dioxide, but some forms uranium Trioxide, hexavalent uranium compounds being more toxic. Yes it is a heavy metal and just like lead or cadmium it is toxic. Also it's a fire hazard. So radiation is not the only concern.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/dhap/dhap99f.html

The uranium compound used for ordnance is DU-metal. When it burns it forms uranium dioxide or less likely, uranium trioxide. Particles of these compounds smaller than 2.5 microns are usually deposited deep in the lungs and pulmonary lymph nodes where they can remain for years. According to research done in the UK by the NRPB, the ceramic uranium formed when uranium ignites through friction, as happened in the Gulf War. In this form, it is twice as slow to move from the lungs to the blood than would be the non-ceramic uranium dioxide. Of the portion of inhaled uranium oxide which passes through the gastro-intestinal tract, only 0.2% is normally absorbed through the intestinal wall. This may be an even smaller portion for ceramic uranium. This fraction of the inhaled compound can, of course, do damage to the GI tract as it passes through because it emits damaging alpha particles with statistical regularity. The residence time of the insoluble uranium compounds in the GI tract (the biological half life) is estimated in years.[ibid.]

The chemical action of all isotopic mixtures of uranium (depleted, natural and enriched) is identical. Current evidence from animal studies suggests that the chemical toxicity is largely due to its chemical damage to kidney tubular cells, leading to nephritis.

The differences in toxicity based on the solubility of the uranium compound (regardless of which uranium isotope is incorporated in the compound) are more striking: water soluble salts are primarily renal and systemic chemical toxicants; insoluble chemical compounds are primarily lung chemical toxicants and systemic radiological hazards. Once uranium dioxide enters the blood, hexavalent uranium is formed, which is also a systemic chemical toxicant.

Sponge Bob

Had it been a DU weapon I would not have started the thread. Go read the original article again

Dr Busby's initial report states that there are two possible reasons for the contamination. "

The first is that the weapon was some novel small experimental nuclear fission device or other experimental weapon (eg, a thermobaric weapon) based on the high temperature of a uranium oxidation flash ...

The second is that the weapon was a bunker-busting conventional uranium penetrator weapon employing enriched uranium rather than depleted uranium."

A photograph of the explosion of the first bomb shows large clouds of black smoke that might result from burning uranium.

A DU weapon is not a nuclear weapon because the all the nucular goodness is gone out of it and you are simply left with an ultra heavy metal and a few alpha particles. While there is an argument for banning it worldwide the Israelis are hardly the worlds leading DU user and do not deserve to be singled out for using DU .

The question remains, did they use enriched uranium and did they , in effect, militarily deploy a nuclear device for the first time since Nagasaki ......albeit one that did not reach critical mass .

arybvtcw0eolkf

Victor wrote:

Hiroshima - refugee centre. South Lebanon - mostly vacant.

You've been there?.

Capt'n Midnight

Sponge Bob wrote:

Had it been a DU weapon I would not have started the thread. Go read the original article again
..
The question remains, did they use enriched uranium and did they , in effect, militarily deploy a nuclear device for the first time since Nagasaki ......albeit one that did not reach critical mass .

I just don't get it.
If it did not reach critical mass then there would be no explosion, a bit like the "tickling the dragons tail" experiment that killed Louis Slotin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin Look at the picture, anything less than critical mass is relatively safe to handle.

Enriched uranium is very valuable, so much so that any device with it should also have a lot of DU to dilute it. small atomic bombs are very inefficient, in a bunker buster most of the uranium would not be fissioned and probably still be in/near what's left of the bunker. If the bomb did not fission then it's easy to recover the material even from a conventional explosion.

the previous post was also about the other toxicity of the dust and metal, remember at one time it was suggested (in a SF story) that you could just disperse plutonium dust instead of making a bomb as the kill rate would be similar and a lot lower tech.

Manic Moran

Sponge Bob wrote:

Had it been a DU weapon I would not have started the thread. Go read the original article again

The question remains, did they use enriched uranium and did they , in effect, militarily deploy a nuclear device for the first time since Nagasaki ......albeit one that did not reach critical mass .

The problem is that so far nobody has managed to come up with a convincing argument as to why EU would be used in those situations. It seems that in both suggested possibilities, DU would have been as effective, and they wouldn't be 'wasting' nuclear fuel: They can use the EU for their reactors, and then put the DU into munitions. Why bypass the fuel bit? The stuff is expensive enough.

NTM