anasawad wrote:@foxdemon
Heard about the claimed testing, but never thought of reading about it or looking it up.
Doing so now.
Why ?
Ok. After some reading, didn't finish it but what got my attention is that the radioactive fallout though slight and didn't have much if any notable effects but managed to reach all the way up to Australia due to the wind.
That pretty much confirms what i stated and what many scientists state and what the entire concept of a nuclear winter is based on.
That the fallout usually cover large and extended range of surface.
Thats why i said that the fallout from a 100 megaton nuclear weapon specially if was detonated on the ground rather than an airbust bomb would be able to destroy much if not most of Europe or the US or China or good parts of Russia and same as for other countries.
The amount of the fallout which is highly radioactive is far larger in a ground explosion and if accompanied by strong enough wind and weather patterns like for examples the ones Europe has.
It would spread into most of Europe. And thus destroy it.
The interesting thing about the Vela Incident is the insight it provides to the mysterious Israeli nuclear program. They have been rumoured to have nukes for many years now. The Vela Incident is widely believed to have been an Israeli test. What it shows is that the likely nature of Israel's nukes is that they are neutron bombs. This tells us something about what they might want nukes for.
What is a neutron bomb and what strategies does it imply?
There are several forms of energy release which make up a nuclear explosion. The proportion of each to the total yield depends on design. Much is released as heat, physical blast, residual radiation and ionising radiation. The last is the neutrons emitted. That is a brief burst of short lived radiation, limited by air. A special design of thermonuclear warhead that maximises neutron emotion as a proportion of the yield results in a weapon that is lethal to organisms but with a much reduced blast radius for the other components of released energy.
Neutron bombs were originally by America to use against massed Soviet armour in German, allowing engagement with much reduced collateral damage. The Soviets, and today the Russians, use the principle in their ABM system. The neutrino blast can cause fission in near by warheads thus degrading their ability to reach critical mass and explode. The Russian A35 ABM system (replaced by A135 system) is designed to intercept incoming warheads with an endoatmospheric explosion to neutralise warhead before they can explode.
But what are the Israelis thinking? They started they nuclear program not long after Pakistan. Could it be they felt they needed an ABM system like the Russian's have? Neutron bombs could well be defensive. Alternatively, they might be thinking about stopping massed armour. Neutron bombs could be used immediately next to or even within Israel as the residual radiation, heat and blast are minimised.
Anyway, whatever the Israelis are up to, neutron bombs indicate a different strategy. Starategic nukes indicate a MAD doctrine (eg: Indian strategy versus China), tactical nukes show a doctrine of deterring large ground forces (eg: Pakistan strategy versus India, US 1950's 'first offset' strategy versus USSR). Neutron bombs are odd. Nobody else bothers with them apart from Russia's defensive application. If Israel was looking for weapons to target Iran, they would use a different warhead type.
It seems to me that Israel wants nukes for some defensive purpose.