Nuke used in Yemen

Originally posted by Star428
Apparently, many people don't understand what a tactical nuke is, TI. I guess they think if it's not a city destroyer then it's not a nuke. LOL. Neutron bombs are a type of nuke and they don't destroy the environment around the blast like a standard nuke does. Hopefully, we'll find out soon enough if many people in the area have been killed by radiation or have radiation sickness. I don't think they could cover something like that up if lots of people were affected.

If you actually bothered to read and follow the conversation, you'd know that people know exactly what a nuke is, of any sort. That's not the argument. TI was claiming it was a radiationless nuke, which is different. He's actually arguing something very different to you- you shouldn't side with him just because you perceive he is on the same side as you. Actually pay attention to what people say.

Your last sentence is mostly correct though- except it would be far more immediate. We'd know already. No-one can make a significant radiation release without it showing up globally very fast.

TI- that's just a picture and does not actually answer my points in any meaningful sense.

Honestly, if you are going to make big claims, you need solid points to back them. I don't argue these things out of any sort of partisan feeling, but loose thinking needs to be rigorously opposed.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And as I said before, I'll believe it when people start suffering radiation sickness. If it truly is an Israeli neutron bomb, that should begin soon, and dramatically. Then I can buy you a coke when a thousand people die and you can say "I told you so." Until then, maybe admit [b]the possibility that you and the writer(s) of the articles are just a bit jumpy? [/B]

Yet no one believes people in Japan are dying of radiation because its not being talked about. Its been kept quiet..why would this be any different?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you actually bothered to read and follow the conversation, you'd know that people know exactly what a nuke is, of any sort. That's not the argument. TI was claiming it was a radiationless nuke, which is different. He's actually arguing something very different to you- you shouldn't side with him just because you perceive he is on the same side as you. Actually pay attention to what people say.

Your last sentence is mostly correct though- except it would be far more immediate. We'd know already. No-one can make a significant radiation release without it showing up globally very fast.

TI- that's just a picture and does not actually answer my points in any meaningful sense.

Honestly, if you are going to make big claims, you need solid points to back them. I don't argue these things out of any sort of partisan feeling, but loose thinking needs to be rigorously opposed.

Myself and others have posted news sources, so I'm not making a claim that was not made by others..

Just calling them 'news sources' doesn't cover you.

If you are claiming conspiracy to keep this out of mainstream media, I'll move this to the conspiracy forum. That is the area of the fringe belief.

Meanwhile, this still doesn't answer my questions.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Just calling them 'news sources' doesn't cover you.

If you are claiming conspiracy to keep this out of mainstream media, I'll move this to the conspiracy forum. That is the area of the fringe belief.

Its unfair you can take advantage and change a thread based on your belief. I never said it was a conspiracy.

Since when did something not being reported by the mainsteam media become a automatic conspiracy on this forum?

If you don't think a claim that nuclear weapons are being used and a mass conspiracy is in place to keep it out of mainstream media belongs in the conspiracy forum, you are misinformed. This is nothing to do with my beliefs- it is the simple application of rationality.

I don't see why you see the world as being that way around. A major event like this that belongs in major news sources purportedly occurs and is not in the mainstream media, anywhere, in any nation that has such a media. The rational person's first thought should be "This is almost certainly because it is untrue." When your first thought is instead to create an immensely complex and wide-reaching conspiracy of silence (for example, why don't the Russians raise it in the UN?) instead of that far simpler notion, don't you ever question your rational basis?

I don't consider it that major of news this war in the middle east has been going on for centuries, the world has thousands of nukes, do you really think they have only been used in Japan?

Literally if I was the only one reporting his, yes call me crazy..

But I'm not..

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nuke%20in%20yemen

The only nukes ever used for non-testing purposes I have ever heard of were the ones dropped on Japan.

Originally posted by Robtard
But since Israel is allegedly bombing for the purpose of killing masses of "innocent civilians" as per the story, Israel is now a piece of garbage and no longer "America's greatest ally"?

If this is true yes they are pieces of garbage and shouldn't be our ally. Then again wouldn't we be hypocrites too? Since we've bombed innocent civilians before.

Originally posted by Q99
Also, the radiation would be at the *first* flash, not several seconds in. Radiation does not wait.

Well, there would be an initial burst and then there would be some more that kept coming (but not nearly as intense) for a long time. So, yes, a large initial burst when the radiation "front" hit and then some more radiation that just keeps coming and coming.

I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you, though.

By the way, it would continue to mess with imaging electronics for years afterwords, not just the initial burst.

I don't want you to think I'm making this up so here is an image of the elphant's foot taken many years after the Chernobyl meltdown:

Neutron bombs are very "dirty", by the way (you know this so I'm just saying this in general).

So let's put this to bed:

This very well could be a low-yield nuclear weapon.

For footage of the smallest low-yield nuke*, view this video:

YouTube video

*It was so small and difficult to make in a controlled fashion that it would often detonate with far too much force which greatly diminishes the "tactical nuke" aspect of the deployment.

The explosion in the video is well within the range of a Davy Crockett type of nuke.

HOWEEEEEEEVVVEEEERR...

Yeah, that initial radiation is a mother****er. That blast is bigger than Davy Crockett type nukes. We could easily detect the radiation in the atmosphere and from satellite imaging. The US Military knows, with 100% surety, whether or not that was a nuke or just a regular explosion. If someone is brave enough, they could use FoIA to obtain whether or not this was a nuke.

So who's up for that? Anyone?

But I don't think it was a nuke because the initial burst would nearly wipe out the imaging on that cellphone (or possibly shut it down). And then the radiation would continue to bombard the phone and show up in the recording.

My conclusion is it is not a nuke.

So if we got confirmation it was a nuke then what then?

Originally posted by dadudemon

My conclusion is it is not a nuke.

What do you think it was then?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
What do you think it was then?

A large-sized bomb.

Something smaller than the BLU-82:

YouTube video

But clearly larger than the explosive yield of something like a hellfire missile.

I thought of that one, just didn't seem as big as the one on video..but maybe.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I don't consider it that major of news this war in the middle east has been going on for centuries, the world has thousands of nukes, do you really think they have only been used in Japan?

Literally if I was the only one reporting his, yes call me crazy..

But I'm not..

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nuke%20in%20yemen

Not a single reputable news source, so my points above stand.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not a single reputable news source, so my points above stand.

Which news sources would you call "reputable"? CNN, Fox, Sun News, National Post? etc... All of the ones that are censored and/or corrupted.

Again, that's conspiracy talk. You cannot just dismiss the journalistic value of the western free press like that- that is an irrational fringe belief. We have a massive free media in this world that would leap on stories like this in an instant if there was the remotest chance of them being true.

The links above are no better than saying "I saw it on Youtube".

Media censorship are real.

Different subject but my case and point.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/censorship-is-alive-and-well-in-canada-just-ask-government-scientists/article8996700/

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/16/canadian-scientists-government-censorship

I am sure you believe that, but regardless, a claim that there has been an enormous global campaign of silence about the use of nuclear weapons that has somehow managed to affect every major news outlet is in the realm of the ridiculous, and it is somewhat disturbing that I have to explain that.

Particularly when compared to the simple explanation- this is not a nuke.

And as there is not the remotest bit of evidence in the first place that it IS a nuke, trying to frame the conversation in that direction is intellectually dishonest. It's trying to reshape the underlying logic in a very Orwellian sense. Any discussion like this- about real world, evidence-based events- has to start on a rational basis and rest on that foundation.

An extraordinary claim requires proof. If instead of proof you are merely offering 'a conspiracy of silence has shut all that down', you have left the realm of the rational behind.

EDIT AFTER ABOVE EDIT: You really think pressure from the Canadian on government for some of its scientists not to talk to the press about certain subjects- a very believable idea- has any relation to the scale of things required here? Aside from that not being press censorship- it is employee censorship, the press is not affected at all- and aside from it being reported by one of the very media sources that would have to be silenced for this conspiracy angle to pan out, that is a tiny, one- dimensional mini thing that is a tiny droplet in a tsunami compared to 'the global press has been censored from talking about nuclear weapons'. And it still got reported in the press, so sensitive are they to such things, so it also has nothing to do with questioning the legitimacy of the western free press.

Again, there has to be some rationality here.

It was a mini nuke or else the person taking the video would be dead.

They're saying Saudi Arabia dropped it and Israel armed it. It's a bad time for Yemen especially when there is no really government.