Did Israel use a mini Nuke in Syria on 4th/5th May 2013?

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Is there any other reason to believe it's a nuclear device other than the fact that it created a mushroom cloud (which is not a good reason to believe it's a nuclear device BTW)?

I think your getting confused with a nuclear bomb and a mini nuke, tactical bunker busters are "mini nukes" and as this next artical from 2001 says it's hard to differenciate between a mini nuke and a conventional weapon.



Critics argue that adding low-yield warheads to the world's nuclear inventory simply makes their eventual use more likely. In fact, a 1994 law currently prohibits the nuclear laboratories from undertaking research and development that could lead to a precision nuclear weapon of less than 5 kilotons (KT), because "low-yield nuclear weapons blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war."
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

That 1994 law has since been done away with by the US under GW Bush, which now allows mini nukes to be used in conventional warfare.

Another article on the subject:

From a practical standpoint, the advantage of a small nuclear bomb is that it can pack so much explosive force into such a small space. (See How Nuclear Bombs Work for details.) The B61-11 can carry a nuclear charge with anywhere between a 1-kiloton (1,000 tons of TNT) and a 300-kiloton yield. For comparison, the bomb used on Hiroshima had a yield of approximately 15 kilotons. The shock wave from such an intense underground explosion would cause damage deep in the earth and would presumably destroy even the most well-fortified bunker.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/bunker-buster3.htm

Another reason is the smell of gas in the air reported after the strike, people claiming it was like an earthquake, lightening in the cloud a few moments after the huge blast and the fact that the said target was a research facility which more than likely would have underground fortified bunkers.

Colgem wrote: »

If there was signs of radiation in the atmosphere any country in the region could tell it was a nuclear explosion.

Most conventional weapons, even bullets used now by Israel and the US contain depleted uranium (DU), which is radioactive, most of Iraq is now a nuclear wasteland, the US used 100's or even 1000''s of tons of it in Iraq

In a three-week period of conflict in Iraq during 2003 it was estimated that over 1000 tons of depleted uranium munitions were used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

EDIT:
Striking evidence of the use of American EPW (Earth Penetrating Weapons) nuclear weapons in Syria has come to light. Experts say the proof is irrefutable.

Submitted for analysis, the footage was compared with tests of the 37,000-pound MOB (Massive Ordnance Penetrator), designed by Boeing to be used against Iran’s underground facilities. There was no similarity whatsoever noted between the Syrian “event” and a conventional “bunker buster” including the GBU 57, the largest conventional weapon every to be used.

More Proof
Colonel James Hanke, former Defense Attaché and Liaison between the Pentagon and Netanyahu’s government , reviewed the footage.
He indicated that the GBU 57 is considered too high a risk for use because of its danger to the earth’s crust.

The Syrian/African fault line spreads into Israel. Were it to be subjected to this kind of explosive power, the threat of an earthquake doing significant damage in Israel is a reality. The nuclear bunker busters have far less penetrating power and, I am not saying that this was a nuclear device, not until more evidence is in, but the ‘event profile’ shows striking similarities.

The other problem with the GBU 57 is delivery. Only two aircraft are capable of delivering this weapon, the B-52 and B-2 Stealth Bomber. Israel does not have these aircraft.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/10/302772/was-syria-nuked/

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

None of your post has any relevance to what I posted, so I wonder why you quoted me?

Here's 2 reasons in my earlier post.

Another reason is the smell of gas in the air reported after the strike, people claiming it was like an earthquake, lightening in the cloud a few moments after the huge blast and the fact that the said target was a research facility which more than likely would have underground fortified bunkers.

The Syrian/African fault line spreads into Israel. Were it to be subjected to this kind of explosive power, the threat of an earthquake doing significant damage in Israel is a reality. The nuclear bunker busters have far less penetrating power and, I am not saying that this was a nuclear device, not until more evidence is in, but the ‘event profile’ shows striking similarities.