Did Isreal Use a Nuclear Weapon In Syria?

Quote of the Day

In a step that has shocked the entire world, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) carried out an airstrike on the weapons depot in Tartus, Syria on 16 December 2024. Through the massive strike, Israel reportedly destroyed the Scud missile facility located in Syria. However, reports are speculating that the damage caused by the strike was more serious and a small nuclear weapon might have been used by Israel. 

Reports have added that the European Union’s Radioactive Environmental Monitoring found that the amount of radiation increased in Turkey and Cyprus hours after the intense blast, pointing towards a small nuclear attack.

Abhijeet Sen
December 24, 2024
Did Israel explode a small nuclear bomb in Syria? Spike in radiation report says…

I cannot find any confirmation. So, I am going to say it probably is not true. Here is what I did find:

Even if they did not use a nuke, just the speculation will shift the Overton Window. This will make actual use more acceptable.

Prepare appropriately.

Share

13 thoughts on “Did Isreal Use a Nuclear Weapon In Syria?

  1. Assuming this is not a complete fabrication, the other possibility is that there was something radioactive inside the facility. Dirty bomb?

    • Good call.
      And the fact that “daisy cutter”, bombs are up to the size of small nukes these days.
      To me the bomb tech of today is actually making the prospect of large scale war real scary. As thing Oresnick kinetic missiles coupled with thermobaric ones can destroy whole areas without the “mutual assured destruction” of fallout and other complications of atomics.

    • Or just the local soil and rock is a little more radioactive than average, and the blast tossed a lot of it into the air as dust.

      Really, an isotope analysis would be needed to say with any amount of confidence.

  2. “European Union’s Radioactive Environmental Monitoring found that the amount of radiation increased in Turkey and Cyprus”.
    Perhaps that could also have been caused if there was any radioactive material already present at the target site, now floating on the breeze?

  3. I saw that headline, and loaded the article to see the photos. Obviously, none of the people involved in publication has any idea what a mushroom cloud looks like. So, just BS.

    • It wouldn’t matter if there was a mushroom cloud. Mushroom clouds are not unique to nuclear detonations. For example, I’ve made them on a small scale by igniting a handful of black powder on the ground. The US Army used to simulate tactical nuclear weapon use by the Soviets them for training purposes during the Cold War using relatively small explosive devices.

      Many people instantly think “nuke” when a mushroom cloud is implicated, but it ain’t necessarily so.

      • Even dropping a pebble into a shallow sediment pond will make an impressive mushroom formation in the water.

      • Anyone who’s attended a Boomershoot most years will be familiar with the appearance of a bonafide mushroom clod!

      • Except that nuclear detonations are distinctive both in terms of initial explosion (double flash) and seismically. I note they talk about radiation but not type not any corresponding seismic monitoring. Even a fizzle or small tactical weapon will leave a very distinctive “earthquake” footprint and the byproducts of such are likewise distinctive.

        Even with North Korean failures under mountains, US sampling missions demonstrating conclusively the nature, yield and composition of the weapons.

        The lack of corroborating sampling and the fact only Turkey and Cyprus detect this tells me something else is involved. Stuff like this does not remain that local. I suspect what happened is the IDF hit something Turkey had an interest in.

  4. If ANYONE detonates a nuke device anywhere near any populated place there will be no hiding it. What is almost certainly the cause of any increase in radiation is there was something inside the target that was radioactive and the large explosion did a good job of aerosolizing it and causing it to spread.

  5. As you astutely note: no matter *what* the truth is here, this “narrative” moves the Overton Window, which is the *real* problem. Yet another “normalization” of the unthinkable.

Comments are closed.