Did Israel Use a 'Nuke' On Hizbollah?

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

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

.... and Iran.

It takes quite a few cycles through the centrefuges to get uranium enriched to the level desired (low enriched for reactors, high enriched for bombs). Is it possible that someone simply used less-depleted uranium?

Sponge Bob

Manic Moran wrote:

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.

This is very true.

There is no known rationale , that is convincing, for using EU instead of DU save if there was the intention to create an area denial as well as penetrate and destroy .

Such a weapon would be a hybrid dirty bomb and bunker buster ....if it were to exist.

Wertz

No-one has suggested a low-yield fission device that failed to go off properly, perhaps a trial run for a such a device that fizzled due to a poorly shaped compression charge or some other design fault...

Sponge Bob

fission bombs and dirty bombs are not the same thing. Read the article again Victor is probably the most correct .

Wertz

I know the difference between a radiological device and a fission bomb :rolleyes:

To put my point across better, scenario:

the US/Israel/whoever decide to try their luck at low yield fissile bombs again and what better place to road test them than S. Leb.
To make most fissile material, become fissionable, you usually need to compact that material to reach critical mass, especially in smaller devices,...this is done in most cases by use of a shaped compression charge that crushes the material in the warhead so that fission may start.
Now if you happen to design the thing badly or make a balls up in the manafacture, it's possible that the material doesn't reach critical mass or that it reaches it for too short a period (an event called fizzling) and either the heat of the initial reaction or the blast from the compression charge blows up the warhead and spreads the uranium, in a manner like we seem to have here...

Manic Moran

First question: Would the Israelis really use a nuke in such proximity to their own border unless there were a really, really good reason? (Like half the Syrian Army bearing down on them or something).

Second: A failed bomb would not spread vapourised radioactive debris all over the place, it would leave a fairly sizeable (and detectable) lump or two of fissile material sitting in a crater. There'd be absolutely no doubt about it.

NTM

kokui

jesus is a jew isnt he

Wertz

Hey, I'm hypothesising....so we're back to why anyone would seemingly use enriched (or not fully depleted) uranium in an armour piercing round.

My vote from my first post is for the added radioactive contamination over and above DU. (ie a serendipitous dirty bomb)


Or here's one for the conspiracy forum; Iran sends some of it's first batches fresh from the centrifuges to hizbollah and tells them to scatter it at a high profile target's crater and and thus blame the Israelis for dropping dirty bombs to try and demonise them in the eyes of the west.

Sponge Bob

Wertz wrote:

My vote from my first post is for the added radioactive contamination over and above DU. (ie a serendipitous dirty bomb)

and if in a bunker buster its mainly an underground dirty bomb with no crap blowing back south into Israel.

Or here's one for the conspiracy forum; Iran sends some of it's first batches fresh from the centrifuges to hizbollah and tells them to scatter it at a high profile target's crater and and thus blame the Israelis for dropping dirty bombs to try and demonise them in the eyes of the west.

Highly plausible as a plan to demonise Israel except that every known enrichment process leaves some sort of 'signature' or isotope mix that could clearly identify the source ( ie the plant or even the reactor that produced) the EU and of course the Israelis don't allow inspection of their enrichment and reprocessing facilities so that 'signature' is unknown too much like the Iranian one .

Therefore Israel could allow an inspection to 'prove' it was not theirs as could Iran.

secret_squirrel

I think without more information the jury is still out on this one....

A few alternative possibilities spring to mind, apart from the 'Iranian uranium set up'

The article doesnt mention the total amount of Uranium found at the sites. This could be crucial in determining how the Uranium arrived there. Some possibilities (not all plausable but worth mentioning)

There was also no indication of how refined it was.

1. Naturally occuring deposits. (There has been at least 1 case of a naturally occuring 'Nuclear Reator')

2. Hezbollah Nuke, Radiological, or Dirty Bomb factories. The amount of uranium needed to cause a population long term health rises is fairly small. From a point of view of experimentation it almost makes more sense for Hezbillah to try something with Uranium rather the the Iraeli's who already have the Bomb.

3. Sloppily sold on Partially depleted Uranium. How stringent are the checks made on DU supplied for shells? Is it possible to get DU thats too depleted for usefulness in a reactor but still has enough radioactivity to send the detectors they are using wild.

Its worth noting that if the U is from a failed sub-critical tactical nuke then simple soil analysis should show trace amounts of the the other exotic metals used in Nuclear bombs such as Beryillium or Lithium.

Victor

Has there been any updates on this? [Edit] Lots of articles out there, Lebanon has made a complaint to the UN. No clarity.

kokui wrote:

jesus is a jew isnt he

Maybe "was" a Jew. But hardly relevant. Care to add?

secret_squirrel wrote:

2. ..... The amount of uranium needed to cause a population long term health rises is fairly small.

As I understand it the statisticians, radiologists and public health people say cancers are directly proportionate to global radiation dose, i.e 2kg of uranium in the wild will kill nigh on exactly twice what 1kg will.

Its worth noting that if the U is from a failed sub-critical tactical nuke then simple soil analysis should show trace amounts of the the other exotic metals used in Nuclear bombs such as Beryillium or Lithium.

There will even be trace elements within the Uranium, thereby identifying the source of the Uranium. Not perfectly, but you can make a really good guess (sometimes down to which mine, lab and year).

What if Hizbollah had a nuke in a bunker and the Israelis bombed the bunker? (detonation is highly unlikely because it needs to be timed perfectly, but the Uranium will be spread about)

Sponge Bob wrote:

Victor is probably the most correct

But note, I didn't say for definite which sides centrefuges.

Interesting map here: http://www.samidoun.org/?q=node/325

Frederico

This getting more and more interesting..

It appears they did use something..


http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061111&articleId=3813

Manic Moran

That article fails in one rather large area: It still does not put forward any sort of proposition as to why EU should be used in a non-nuclear buster-bunker. Nobody has. All it claims is that there was a source of uranium at that bunker. It could be provided by the weapon, it could have been from something that was already inside the bunker, or it could have been placed there afterwards. Without any indication of purpose, it's an interesting puzzle, but hardly conclusive.

NTM

secret_squirrel

Frederico wrote:

It appears they did use something..

It appears nothing of the sort. Most of that article is speculation - with the inbuild assumption that it was the Iraeli's.

The only 'facts' in that article are the location and the radioation doseage.

Plus the chief 'witness' needs to be a bit more credible than someone who believes there is a secret magical nuclear process thats been kept hidden for 20 years.

Typical internet bullshít.

If you are going to post stuff like that either comment on it intelligently or dont bother and let the people who read it decide for themselves.

RedPlanet

Being the case that Israel has nukes and Hezbollah doesn't; and the fact that no credible sources have even suggested Hezbolla has radioactive material, and that this comes from an area that sees combat, it would be rational to suspect that Israel is the source of the radiation.

Frederico

secret_squirrel wrote:

It appears nothing of the sort. Most of that article is speculation - with the inbuild assumption that it was the Iraeli's.

The only 'facts' in that article are the location and the radioation doseage.

Plus the chief 'witness' needs to be a bit more credible than someone who believes there is a secret magical nuclear process thats been kept hidden for 20 years.

Typical internet bullshít.

If you are going to post stuff like that either comment on it intelligently or dont bother and let the people who read it decide for themselves.

Excuse me? Its a thousand times more 'credible' than the sheer rubbish I read every single day on 'respected' news sites.

The Senate voted to continue research into deep earth penetrating bombs.. 'bunkerbusters'.. thats the Senate in America, who rushed munitions to their close ally Israel during the war. Hezbollah were very 'dug in'. Sorry what was your theory again on a Hezbollah dirty bomb factory and radiation pixies?

Manic Moran

The Senate voted to continue research into deep earth penetrating bombs.. 'bunkerbusters'

The US has put lots of research into the military use of psychics, that doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot when it comes to real-world battlefield applicability. (though admittedly, the Yugoslav army did try using them against the Americans in the 1990s)

The very same fundamental problem continues to exist: Nobody has as yet put forward a rational theory as to why the Israelis would use such a material in preference to DU for such a weapon.

Not least, you also have the issue of the amount of positive samples. If it's such a great bunker-buster, why did they only use it on one bunker? If it was part of an exploding munition, why isn't the uranium found spread out, as opposed to showing up in all of two sample sites out of ten?

A theory on its own is fine, but without anything to back it up, it has no more credence than any other idea. Yes, I think that in this case, Israeli culpability is just as likely or unlikely as the other two possibilities.

NTM

Frederico

Manic Moran wrote:

The US has put lots of research into the military use of psychics, that doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot when it comes to real-world battlefield applicability. (though admittedly, the Yugoslav army did try using them against the Americans in the 1990s)

The very same fundamental problem continues to exist: Nobody has as yet put forward a rational theory as to why the Israelis would use such a material in preference to DU for such a weapon.

Not least, you also have the issue of the amount of positive samples. If it's such a great bunker-buster, why did they only use it on one bunker? If it was part of an exploding munition, why isn't the uranium found spread out, as opposed to showing up in all of two sample sites out of ten?

A theory on its own is fine, but without anything to back it up, it has no more credence than any other idea. Yes, I think that in this case, Israeli culpability is just as likely or unlikely as the other two possibilities.

NTM

You are right, the evidence is flimsy.

Whatever about the internet and knowledge-sharing, there are still weapons in development by various militaries around the world that we have little or no clue about.

I can't remember the name of the bomb but it was used once in the gulf, it scatters midair projectiles which suspend from parachutes and shoot down copper darts on armored vehicles, as far as I know that was only used once in combat. I think most militaries regardless agree that the battlefield test is the only true test of a weapon.

I am pretty sure that if they are picking up radioactivity in Lebanon it is most likely the result of a new type of bunker buster used by the Israeli's. It will probably leak out in dribs and drabs over the next few months/years anyway.

nacho libre

Frederico wrote:

Excuse me? Its a thousand times more 'credible' than the sheer rubbish I read every single day on 'respected' news sites.

The Senate voted to continue research into deep earth penetrating bombs.. 'bunkerbusters'.. thats the Senate in America, who rushed munitions to their close ally Israel during the war. Hezbollah were very 'dug in'. Sorry what was your theory again on a Hezbollah dirty bomb factory and radiation pixies?

You fool don't you know anything coming from a left-wing source on the internet is not credible where as it if it comes from a right-wing source it's more likely to be credible.

Manic Moran

Frederico wrote:

I can't remember the name of the bomb but it was used once in the gulf, it scatters midair projectiles which suspend from parachutes and shoot down copper darts on armored vehicles, as far as I know that was only used once in combat.

CBU-97/105. The concept (speaking as a tanker) is rather scary, but I'm not sure I see the relevance to this thread. The system is best used against concentrations of armoured vehicles, which is something the Iraqis generally did not present as a target. Hence it wasn't used much. It had been available for use in the Kosovo campaign, but the same lack of a suitable target resulted in its non-use.

I am pretty sure that if they are picking up radioactivity in Lebanon it is most likely the result of a new type of bunker buster used by the Israeli's. It will probably leak out in dribs and drabs over the next few months/years anyway.

Well, you can be sure without anything to back it up. I'm going to wait until something more definitive shows up. (Remind me never to be on trial when you're a juror). Until that happens, I maintain that the preponderance of logic does not indicate any benefit to Israel for the use of EU which was detected in such a manner on a single Hezbullah bunker.

NTM

secret_squirrel

Manic Moran wrote:

Well, you can be sure without anything to back it up. I'm going to wait until something more definitive shows up. (Remind me never to be on trial when you're a juror). Until that happens, I maintain that the preponderance of logic does not indicate any benefit to Israel for the use of EU which was detected in such a manner on a single Hezbullah bunker.

NTM

Finally someone talking some sense.

Just because the Israeli's are the most capable and likely to be able to create and use an EU bunker buster - doesnt mean they did.

Until actual evidence comes in it makes sense to keep an open mind. Just because someones believe the Israeli's are the root of all evil doesnt make it true in this case.

A little sceptism in most cases doesnt do any harm. Infact it may just stop you falling for every myth and fantasy that comes along.

There's a reason its called healthy sceptism.

If and when this is proved to be a US/Israeli weapon then I will be shouting "Down with this sort of thing" with the best of them.

Until then the jury is out, and only those with a partisan agenda would claim otherwise.

Manic Moran

Careful, now...

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

The US has put lots of research into the military use of psychics, that doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot when it comes to real-world battlefield applicability. (though admittedly, the Yugoslav army did try using them against the Americans in the 1990s)

Ermmmm?

Frederico

Manic Moran wrote:

CBU-97/105. The concept (speaking as a tanker) is rather scary, but I'm not sure I see the relevance to this thread. The system is best used against concentrations of armoured vehicles, which is something the Iraqis generally did not present as a target. Hence it wasn't used much. It had been available for use in the Kosovo campaign, but the same lack of a suitable target resulted in its non-use.

You said somewhere above, that if something was so good why only use it once, I was just trying to give an example of such a weapon.

Manic Moran

But there was more than one hezbullah bunker not going anywhere until it was hit. In Iraq, you had to have both the rare occurrance of a group of armoured vehicles in proximity (and not currently being dealt with by tanks, which are good at that sort of thing) and an aircraft overhead with the appropriate ammunition. The Iraq usage was far more opportunistic/coincidental.

NTM

Frederico

Manic Moran wrote:

But there was more than one hezbullah bunker not going anywhere until it was hit. In Iraq, you had to have both the rare occurrance of a group of armoured vehicles in proximity (and not currently being dealt with by tanks, which are good at that sort of thing) and an aircraft overhead with the appropriate ammunition. The Iraq usage was far more opportunistic/coincidental.

NTM

It seems quite plausable that a particularily deep Hezbollah bunker may have required the use of a new prototype better/stronger bunker buster than those currently used by the Israeli's. A one-off prototype isn't unheard of, especially in such a short war. Speculation I know.

You can't just spend months maybe years working on something and then not want to see it fulfilling its purpose.. that goes against the military grain..

I'm not sure what the name of that huge conventional bomb, the Mohaab right? something like that anyway, has that been used already? you can have all the beaucratic moral jargon you want.. but every grunt to technician to commander in the military would love to see that used on the battlefield.. even just once.

Manic Moran

MOAB.

Mother Of All Bombs. (Actually Massive Ordnance Air Burst)
And no, it hasn't been used operationally.

I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions about battlefield testing. Yes, a system is never truly deemed to 'work' until it works operationally, but that means more than just a single use. If they want to know whether the system can hit the target or whether it has any sort of effect on the target, that sort of thing can be tested at home. What really needs testing is the 'soldier-proofing' and reliability: Can the average grunt/pilot use it correctly in combat, with all the various distractions of people shooting at them? Is the system reliable enough to work in all sorts of weather conditions with limited backup? That sort of thing. A single operational drop does not address these issues any more than a drop at the test range in Nevada because it has no sample size to result in any meaningful data.

NTM

nacho libre

They used white phosphorous and a huge amount of cluster bombs in built-up aeras of Lebanon so i don't see any moral qualms stopping them from using an EU Bunker buster.
I suspect what would stop them using it is its usage being detected.
As we all know Israel denied using white phosphorus only then to later admit it.
So it's hardly surprising if people are a little unsure about their denials about this given their track record on telling the truth.

Manic Moran

Brings us back to the same problem. The benefits of using WP are known. It's a very effective system. Nobody has yet put forward a viable reason for the use of EU. Proving a crime without proving motive or intent is pretty difficult.

NTM

Frederico

Manic Moran wrote:

Brings us back to the same problem. The benefits of using WP are known. It's a very effective system. Nobody has yet put forward a viable reason for the use of EU. Proving a crime without proving motive or intent is pretty difficult.

NTM

I know, its quite the mystery, I can't really find anything about it on the net.