this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
318 points (96.8% liked)

World News

39096 readers
2865 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

(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

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

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.