Al-Jazeera: USAF Bombed Syrian Nuclear Site
by Richardson ~ November 2nd, 2007. Filed under: Nuclear Proliferation, Syria, U.S. Military.In the latest on WTF happened in Syria on 06 September, Al-Jazeera claims the American aircraft – armed with (unused) nuclear weapons – bombed the site in Syria (via the Jerusalem Post):
The September 6 raid over Syria was carried out by the US Air Force, the Al-Jazeera Web site reported Friday. The Web site quoted Israeli and Arab sources as saying that two US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons carried out an attack on a suspected nuclear site under construction.
The sources were quoted as saying that Israeli F-15 and F-16 jets provided cover for the US planes.
The sources added that each US plane carried one tactical nuclear weapon and that the site was hit by one bomb and was totally destroyed. (emphasis added)
Is it true? If you live in the Middle East and believe all that Al-Jazeera says, then yes, it is.
See the series of related posts on what happened in Syria here.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:37 am
I am trying to understand an/or get clarification. What is the difference between a nuclear weapon and a tactical nuclear weapon? I have not heard a lot about this, and a nuclear strike somewhere would be HUGE news.
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:26 am
That article is a bunch of sensationalist crap. Surprise, surprise….
The difference between a *tactical* nuclear weapon and a *strategic* nuclear weapon is their explosive power, which determines their appropriate use.
Explosive power is measured in tons of TNT equivalent yield. The bombs that destroyed Hiroshima & Nagasaki had a explosive power yield of approximately 13 kilotons and 21 kilotons respectively, to give you an idea.
Tactical nukes are in the sub-kiloton yield range if you want to just take out a military base or an underground bunker while minimizing damage to the surrounding areas. They can be as powerful as the ones that destroyed Hiroshima & Nagasaki. However, the advent of smart weapons has made tactical nukes almost obsolete considering the political cost from merely using a nuke. They were made to take out advancing Soviet armored columns, etc… in the advent NATO wasn’t able to hold the line against overwhelming Soviet numbers advancing on Western Europe.
Strategic Nukes are for completely taking out whole cities, or command centers berried deep in mountains, or hardened missile-silo’s if you want to target the opponents ICBM’s. Generally speaking, their explosive yield equivalent ranges anywhere between 300 kilotons all the way up to 50 megatons. The Soviets had to make their warheads so powerful because their missiles were inaccurate and might only get as close as 2-3 miles to a city. 50 megatons was powerful enough to ensure that city was destroyed if the missile warhead landed that far away.
There used to be a joke in NATO that German towns were about one kiloton apart.
Had a nuke been used on Syria, it would have been detected, reported, and the screams of bloody-murder would still be heard today by the “world-community.” You can’t cover up it’s evidence because the fallout and radioactivity would be plentiful.
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:29 am
Alright, I looked and even started a thread about this, and got some interesting replies. I am not going to post the link here because of the forum’s questionable and seedy content, but this has raised more questions than answers and perhaps you or your readers can make better sense of this.
After reading the Jarusalem Post’s article, I wen to Al-Jazeera’s site and could not locate the story and tried Google. When looking to Google, I ran into this blog entry:
Hot Air Entry
I also found a Wiki entry and the difference between a tactical and “normal” nuclear weapon, but somebody may be better in tune with this too.
Anyway, I am really confused now.
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:42 am
Thanks for the clarification. It is much appreciated. I think I have a reply in moderation with a blog entry I found regarding the issue, and they are just as skeptical along with some people on another forum regarding it. As stated in the reply, it is on a forum that cannot be linked here, others have doubts as well. I will quote one that seemed interesting:
“1. The Russians wouldn’t miss a tactical nuke going off, anywhere, and if one had, Putin would be bleating like a wounded sheep about it.
2. The facility is in Northern Syria, on the Turkish border. The Israelis would take an indirect path to get to it, as to avoid unnecessary exposure to Syrian air defences.
3. The IDF doesn’t need the USAF to do it’s dirty work for them.
4. The Syrians aren’t saying much because they got owned, despite having “modern” Russian air defense systems.
5. NK quickly condemned the rumored raid because they are quite cozy with the Syrians…makes one wonder, doesn’t it?”
This is pretty odd indeed.
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 am
[…] big hat tip to DPRK Studies) Check out more information on the Syrian strike. Apparently, there is an article regarding a […]
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 am
This is a good article on the incident, but read it with a grain of salt.
http://www.defense-update.com/analysis/analysis_191007_airdefense.htm