Right-wing Israeli leaders advocate using disease and nuclear bombs against Palestinians
Right-wing Israeli leaders advocate using disease and nuclear bombs against Palestinians
TEL AVIV—Deadly health epidemics deployed as a weapon against Palestinians. Nuclear bombs dropped on Gaza. These are just two of the latest proposals being put forward by influential figures inside and outside the Israeli government as ways to accelerate Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war.
You're viewing a single thread.
The knesset member who suggested nuking gaza is truly one of the dumbest nutcases israel has to offer. Not only will such an act be terribly cruel, it would also hurt places like tel aviv, which is just 50 KMs from the strip, and harm millions of Jewish Israelis (who are presumably the nationality he seeks to strengthen)
Nutcase and cruel yes, not necessarily dumb though.
Modern nukes that react all the fuel in the explosion, are not like the dirty bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that only reacted 10% of the fuel while spreading the remaining 90% around. Then again... if the alternatives on the table are chemical and biological weapons, why not add a dirty bomb, right?
harm millions of Jewish Israelis (who are presumably the nationality he seeks to strengthen)
Some think that having more martyrs is a way to strengthen their side. One could argue that the latest iteration of the original One Million Plan to populate Israel, consisted precisely in creating martyrs (inciting prosecution of Jews in Islamic countries, so they would immigrate to Israel).
Interesting to know. Although, ashkelon, one of Israel's largest cities, is about 7kms from gaza and nuclear missiles are hardly safe to their invironment.
Also, while creating martyrs to manufacture consent for genocide is certainly not unthinkable for Israel's goverment, it would probably require a little more elegance then nuking israeli civilians could provide
Nukes can have a yield anywhere from 10 tons TNT up to... well, turns out there is no upper limit, but this one would be of the smallest ones possible:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54
At that point it's comparable to the largest non-nuclear bombs (10-40 tons TNT), but the point is, one could pick a yield that could be small enough to impact only the intended area. Furthermore... an underground explosion could be even more contained, and still demolish a sizeable chunk of anything built both above and under ground.
As for environment, the US nuked themselves over a thousand times, mostly on the Nevada desert. People in the 1950s used to go to Las Vegas to watch the explosions, nowadays they still go for the casinos, and that's after many of the old dirtier bombs got exploded above ground.
So maybe Gaza itself would turn into a non-colonizable zone for a while, but as far as helping with the genocide, destroying infrastructure, and claiming the natural gas reserves under Gaza's economic influence area of the sea... it could work.
I'm afraid a key part of Israel's population is already fine with the idea of genocide, getting martyrs would be mostly to increase further that approval and save face in front of the international community.
This is a terrible take by someone who has heard plenty of propaganda by the arms industry but knows absolutely nothing about physics. Many of the products of the primary and even secondary nuclear reactions from a nuclear warhead are themselves radioactive and have long enough half-lives to do tons of damage in both the short and long terms. Whether or not there is radioactive material spread around is not simply a question of whether some of the original fuel remains unspent.
If all you're doing is spreading war propaganda, log off and go rethink your life.
EDIT: Folks, start here and read other materials by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Don't let this bullshit whitewashing of the dangers of nuclear weapons, their use, and their testing go unaddressed. And speak up against this kind of propaganda showing up in our communities—especially leftist ones.
Before insulting me, you might want to try quoting the part where I said whatever you are disagreeing with, you might find there is none.
Feel free to log off and take a few deep breaths.
Nah, dude. There's plenty to disagree with in the parts of this message and your other reply down below where you try to imply modern nuclear weapons are clean and pose little to no risk beyond that of conventional weapons. Gaslight all you like, but your words are right there for all to see (unless suddenly they gain an edit timestamp after that of this comment, of course...).
where you try to imply modern nuclear weapons are clean and pose little to no risk beyond that of conventional weapons
I don't. What I said is:
- Modern nuclear weapons are less dirty than the two used so far against any population.
- Israel might not care about the previous point, and actually prefer a dirty bomb.
- In modern nuclear weapons, the yield and area affected (both by the explosion, and by the fallout) can be controlled with high precision, starting at a level comparable to that of largest conventional weapons.
- The US honed that skill by turning nukes into a tourist attraction for its own citizens over 60 years ago.
- The city next to the area they used for that, not only still stands, but has flourished since.
Again, feel free to quote any part of my comments if you think I said something different (don't give me a chance to add "an edit timestamp"... 🙄) or if you just want to discuss it.
PS: I will edit my comments if I feel it can make my point clearer, or if I change my mind, or even blank and delete them if I stop caring about anyone reading them (did that to close to 30K comments on Reddit already, and it's not the first time; if you want to keep anything I've ever said, better make a copy while you can).
As for environment, the US nuked themselves over a thousand times, mostly on the Nevada desert. People in the 1950s used to go to Las Vegas to watch the explosions, nowadays they still go for the casinos, and that’s after many of the old dirtier bombs got exploded above ground....
The US honed that skill by turning nukes into a tourist attraction for its own citizens over 60 years ago.
Here you go, you revisionist, gaslighting piece of shit:
The partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
The fallout from atmospheric tests created a global health crisis. A 1961 study revealed that strontium-90, a radioactive isotope, was building up in the teeth of children living in the St. Louis, Missouri area, hundreds of miles away from the nearest nuclear test site in the Nevada desert. Efforts by thousands of scientists and the international public raised the alarm about contamination from atmospheric nuclear tests and urged global leaders to act.
By 1963, the international community had negotiated the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits carrying out nuclear tests in any environment that would allow radioactive material to spread across a country’s borders, including atmospheric tests, underwater tests, and tests in outer space.
The Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty dramatically reduced and eventually ended atmospheric nuclear testing. But nuclear testing did not slow down. Instead, countries with nuclear weapons shifted to underground test sites.
Just because a particular city nearby didn't suffer the effects of fallout doesn't mean it was under control and didn't have horrific effects on people literally hundreds of miles away. You are literally just spewing "clean nukes" propaganda straight out of the playbook of the U.S. arms industry. Go fuck yourself.
over 60 years ago.
By 1963
It's 2023, let's see: 1963+60=?
you revisionist, gaslighting piece of shit
Go fuck yourself.
Ok.