Did the US Nuke Syria?

[Exsubmariner]

Alleged Syrian Site:



Nagasaki:



My problem is with the scale. See those rings on the Nagasaki picture? That first one is 1000 feet away from isocenter.

There is not a scale on the Syria photo, but the damage is very similar. On the Nagasaki picture you can see buildings that are partially leveled at the 1000 feet mark.

On the Syria photo, you can also see a partially leveled building that has debris scattered away from the center crater. I don't know if that is a crater, it's hard to see details on such a small image. I saw another image that suggested the hole to be more square, so I can't say for sure.

We know that Nagasaki was about 11 Kilotons. That's about as low a yeild as you are going to get from a tactical nuke, as well. There is a suggestion on the syria photo of pretty uniform destruction within a certain radius. The two photos are not to the same scale, either. Note the 45 degree structure on the right side. It seems closer to the center in the after image than the before image. Maybe there is rubble in the same shape in the second image, though. There also seems to be evidence of a blast wave rolling down the hills in all directions and at least partially burying the land features apparent in the first photo. Then again, the sun is also at a different angle.

Hard to say. I doubt anyone is going to let anything get out that is more detailed than what we have.

Is it possible?

Yes.

Can't say for sure.

One thing, though. This is an isolated site. If someone wanted to send a message to someone else through a proxy state, this certainly fits the bill.

There is another possiblity, however. That is, an accidental detonation of something on the ground. I don't even want to think about what that means.

Edit: here is a news story from shortly after the alleged incident. The photos suggest the hole in the middle of the picture to be more square.

[Jamougha]

If it were a nuke then there would be easily detected radioisotopes released into the atmosphere. No way to keep it hidden. This has to be a MOAB.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
If we were really going to make a secret nuclear strike, it would definately be either a B-2 or a cruise missile, those weapons have a reasonable chance to make it to their target undetected. If it were a B-52, it would be lighting up radars in Kuwait.

However, no one has the market on seismographs and satellites cornered. There are literally dozens of seismographs around the world capable of picking up a blast. However, since there is no obvious crater, a nuclear strike would have been an air burst. I find it hard to believe that we wouldn't have heard reports from either a neutral nation (wild guess, there are maybe a dozen countries flying satellites capable of detecting the blast) or reports from civilians in the area that they saw a mushroom cloud. Also, I think it would be to Syria's advantage to say if they were attacked with nuclear weapons, it would get them a lot of sympathy.

[/ QUOTE ]

All good points. I'm not advocating any particular position, just looking at the evidence to see if there is a possiblity this is correct. I've got conflicting data. Hell, if you look at the first news stories, they say Syria razed the site themselves.

Without details and scale photos, I'm not going to make any air tight comparisons with the photos.

BTW, Edward Teller sat in Livermore National Labs with a seismograph the day that the first hyrdrogen bomb was detonated. Granted, it was half a world away, but it barely deflected. I'm not so sure that a seismograph would even have a noticable deflection for a small scale weapon being much closer. No one may have noticed.

Edit: Know what else, there have been statements that Syria has "cleaned up" the debris.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
If it were a nuke then there would be easily detected radioisotopes released into the atmosphere. No way to keep it hidden. This has to be a MOAB.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right. Nuclear facilities in Europe would pick something up. Maybe. Depends on the concentrations and the weather.

I'm leaning toward MOAB, too. Al-Jazeera may be half right.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that a level?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
Alleged Syrian Site:



Nagasaki:



My problem is with the scale. See those rings on the Nagasaki picture? That first one is 1000 feet away from isocenter.

There is not a scale on the Syria photo, but the damage is very similar. On the Nagasaki picture you can see buildings that are partially leveled at the 1000 feet mark.

On the Syria photo, you can also see a partially leveled building that has debris scattered away from the center crater. I don't know if that is a crater, it's hard to see details on such a small image. I saw another image that suggested the hole to be more square, so I can't say for sure.

We know that Nagasaki was about 11 Kilotons. That's about as low a yeild as you are going to get from a tactical nuke, as well. There is a suggestion on the syria photo of pretty uniform destruction within a certain radius. The two photos are not to the same scale, either. Note the 45 degree structure on the right side. It seems closer to the center in the after image than the before image. Maybe there is rubble in the same shape in the second image, though. There also seems to be evidence of a blast wave rolling down the hills in all directions and at least partially burying the land features apparent in the first photo. Then again, the sun is also at a different angle.

Hard to say. I doubt anyone is going to let anything get out that is more detailed than what we have.

Is it possible?

Yes.

Can't say for sure.

One thing, though. This is an isolated site. If someone wanted to send a message to someone else through a proxy state, this certainly fits the bill.

There is another possiblity, however. That is, an accidental detonation of something on the ground. I don't even want to think about what that means.

Edit: here is a news story from shortly after the alleged incident. The photos suggest the hole in the middle of the picture to be more square.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the possible crater in the Syria photo?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

A B-52 is usually the kind of vehicle certified to carry tactical nukes. They are vulernable at low altitude, which would increase the accuracy.

I seem to recall an incident recently where a B-52 was carrying tactical nukes over US airspace in violation of a treaty.....

[/ QUOTE ]

The B61 and it's variants can be equipped on B2 stealths and F-16's.

Depending on the variant, it could leave a smaller seismic footprint than conventional weapons.

As for the situation in the OP...I have no opinion, just adding some input on the silver bullet, and it's potential methods of delivery.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm leaning toward MOAB, too. Al-Jazeera may be half right.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way in hell we fly a 130 in on a surreptitious first strike, with Syrian Air defense and radar capabilities at full functionality.

*IF* a situation like this were to happen, it would most certainly be a b2 stealth.....but if you assume the fighter escorts are true, then it either had to be a daytime run, or possibly an f-16 with a heavy bag.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to recall an incident recently where a B-52 was carrying tactical nukes over US airspace in violation of a treaty.....

[/ QUOTE ]

That was actually about 8-10 days before this alleged incident....but they b-53 incident didn't involve "tactical" nukes. They were big time bombs.

[AngusThermopyle]

Any link to the original Al-Jazeera story?