This reminds me of the thread where it was stated that Syria sunk an Israeli submarine and Israel responded by using a tactical nuke against Syria.

Quote from: Matto

This reminds me of the thread where it was stated that Syria sunk an Israeli submarine and Israel responded by using a tactical nuke against Syria.

So, did you believe that story?

1. Israel has been hitting Syria with small tactical nukes.
2. Russia sank a German made Israeli (nuclear armed) spy sub off the coast of Syria.


Tactical nukes are as old as ggreg.
They've been shot out of US Howitzers since the 1950s.



Dolphin class German subs... Israel isn't buying them for their tourist industry.




Israel inagurates 5th Dolphin Class Sub

These are deadly boys... playing with deadly toys.

The only "evidence" of nukes in Syria I have seen was a Youtube video that someone posted here a while ago. It was a large explosion but was clearly an exploding ammo dump. I have seen that type of explosion before and that was definitely it.

What idiots who post on internet forums don't understand is that the tactical niche for nukes is incredibly small. Short of an all-out M.A.D. war, the only use for a tac nuke is:

1. A "Fulda Gap" type scenario when a vastly outnumbered force uses a nuclear airburst over large enemy formation. This was a standard NATO plan during the Cold War (and is probably still in the files somewhere). The idea was that if Russian forces advanced mopre quickly than expected in a hypothetical invasion of Germany, small tactical nukes and  chemical weapons would be utilized to destroy enemy spearheads to buy time for reinforcements to be brought over from the US and other NATO countries (i.e. REFORGER). This was a last resort.

2. To destroy hardened nuclear missile silos. This last has been almost completely been rendered meaningless by the development of bunker-busting conventional weapons which are vastly more inexpensive then even the smallest nuke and much easier to deliver to the target.

If there are any other uses, I am not aware of them.

It makes no sense for Israel to use it's relatively small nuclear arsenal (~200 doesn't sound like much, unless you remember that the US has 5000+ and Russian 8000+) in Syria, especially when the potential international backlash would be enormous. The Jєωs may be powerful but they're not stupid either. Unlike some ignorant posters on here who believe everything they read on the internet.

I can't stand ggreg, but he is mostly right on this one guys. This test may have been conducted as a show of force but it is absolutely ludicrous to claim that this was a shoot down by the Russians.

It makes absolutely no sense for them to launch missiles from Spain. They US government would have been required to get permission from the Spanish parliament to initiate military action from their territory. It would have had to be public and would have had absolutely no tactical surprise at all.

A Tomahawk cruise missile is nearly impossible to detect or shoot down, even for the Russians, it is a tiny fraction of the cost of an SLBM, and it delivers it's payload much more precisely. Plus it is sea-launched, which allows for tactical surprise.

An unannounced ICBM launch would have lit up Russian defence radar like a Christmas tree and initiated a massive retaliation from Moscow. That is why each side announces ICBM tests before they are done, to prevent any misunderstandings. The missiles in this test were not ICBM's and were not launched at Syria.

Only idiots with absolutely no understanding of any of this would believe any of this crap.

Yeah I agree.  I was just posting to show that variations of the S-300 were developed to intercept ballistic missles.  Well that, and to piss Greg off. lol

Russia too, has a robust military R&D program financed by the West.




Russian A-60 High Energy Laser Directed Energy Weapon Testbed

Maybe, just maybe, enough politicians in the UK voted with their consciences against the party whip and decided that yet another war in the middle-east region was neither warranted nor desirable.

Sure as eggs is eggs, the Prime Minister wanted to beat the war drums and oust Bashir.  The MPs decided it was really none of our business and that getting involved in some middle-eastern politics was really not in the best interests of the country, or any sort of interest of the UK, and CERTAINLY not supported by the voters.

Clearly there is NOT overwhelming evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons or we would have seen it already.  It also does not make any sense since they had the rebels and terrorists on the back-foot.  Why rock the boat and risk outside military action?

So if the Joos are running the world, to the extent some posters on here believe they are, then they are screwing up very badly.  From where I am standing it looks like a clever Russia ex-KGB guy who has clawed his way to the top and his middle eastern dictator buddy just made a total fool of the puppet-Negro US President and his dummy-dum-dum administration.

You cannot have it both ways.  Either the "controlling Jooish cabal" wanted Syria bombed and taken over by Islamic nutters or they did not.