No, it doesn’t. Saying it has a “no first use” nuclear policy would be admitting that it has nuclear weapons, which it refuses to officially do. It would also either 1) render any pledge of “no first use” a blatant lie or 2) its ownership of nuclear weapons completely meaningless because none of its enemies have a nuclear weapon to use on Isreal first.
I won’t use nuclear weapons first, either. The fact that I don’t have any, in fact, guarantees that I won’t use them first.
The nation of Israel has never had a “no first use” policy regarding the nuclear arsenal that they have never officially acknowledged having, and in fact their strategic objective is to be the only nuclear power in the region such that there would be no effective response to their use of nuclear weapons.
Stranger
It depends. The US weapon was made specifically to penetrate as much ground as possible before the conventional boom. Many nukes are designed around the concept of skyburst to do that fusion or fission thing that they do above ground for better range and also to not deeply contaminate the ground. Ground burst nukes means more radiation forever in an area plus a less effective nuclear event in terms of destroying and killing. So skyburst seems to be the preferred method, however that gives the least penetration.
Airburst (not “skyburst”) is used on soft targets. It maximizes the surface area of effects strong enough to destroy cities, industrial complexes harbors, military airfields or vehicle parking areas, etc. That would be largely ineffective against a well-designed bunker even if detonated directly overhead.
Groundburst is used against hard targets where maximizing ground motion and crater size is essential for success. The weapon goes off just as it contacts the ground. As you say, that maximizes fallout, but that’s not really the goal.
All current US nukes can be fuzed at any altitude from zero on up to city-appropriate airburst altitudes.
There have been sporadic efforts to develop a nuclear warhead that could also be a ground penetrator allowing for underground detonation. But IIRC the last of those efforts were cancelled 15-20 years ago.
They’re about 80 years late for that, then. When it comes to nuclear weapons, the “region” is the entire planet.
“The region”, with regard to Israel, is the Middle East. Israel is not in strategic conflict any of the existing nuclear powers (the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, the Peoples Republic of China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) and doesn’t have any expectation of nuclear retaliation by these parties for its use against a its enemies in regional conflict.
Stranger
The NY Times is wrong here.
The B-52 bomber had a payload of 30-35,000 pounds as designed in 1949, and with current engines & modifications is now rated for up to 70,000 pounds of ordinance. And we have a whole airfield in Arizona full of mothballed B-52s we could sell to Israel. Probably cheaply.
Not being stealth, a B-52 would need fighter escort to avoid Iran’s defenses.
But I believe Israel has a fair number of experienced fighters available.
But the prevailing winds will carry that dust into Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, & Afghanistan.
So who will care?
This is undoubtedly true; however, there are potential strategic alliances to take into account. As a historical example, towards the end of the Yom Kippur war, Sadat pleaded with the Soviet Union for help. While it is improbable, to say the least, that sending tens of thousands of Soviet troops to the Middle East was seriously considered, and it is not clear (to me anyway) that the Soviets had actually delivered nuclear weapons to Egypt, one way or another with all the bluffs the U.S. did go to DEFCON 3.
Israel itself had reportedly readied tactical nuclear weapons to be used as a last resort from the very beginning, or at least it wanted to put pressure on the superpowers by making them consider the possibility.
Yes, the C-130J can transport one M1-Abrams tank, which is about double the weight of this bomb. The bomb is about 20 feet long x 3 feet in diameter. So actually, a C-130J could very easily stow and transport one of these with plenty of room and weight limit to spare. I can’t find anything about the bomb bay dimensions of a B-25, but it looks to be around 20 feet.
But digging in, I keep seeing source after source saying only the B-2 can deliver this bomb. So this must not be purely an issue of stowing and transporting, there must be something about the way this bomb needs to be mounted in the bay and commanded from the cockpit in ways that only the B-2 is designed to handle.
With Isreal establishing air superiority over Iran now, it seems like this is a more plausible strategy. No need to involve the US and all the baggage that brings, no messy nukes, precision destruction of the target with all collateral environmental risk contained under a mountain.
Though any Israelis willing to undertake a commando raid into Iran for that purpose are clearly badasses. Frankly the recent military and intelligence actions of their government are really impressive.
Agree. Who knows what other cards they have yet to play. Their whole posture is “Don’t F!CK with us!!”
Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity, never officially denying nor admitting to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that “Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East”. Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia
Hasn’t the US actually deployed these bombs via C-130 before? I seem to recall hearing about that during, I think, Afghanistan.
Not a bunker-buster type. A surface-clearing bomb referred to as a daisy-cutter. All the way back to Viet Nam, for creating landing clearings for helicopter assaults.
ETA: The GBU-43 MOAB @Francis_Vaughan mentions is a follow-on weapon of the same type as a BLU-82, an airburst surface clearing weapon (but more valued because it’s hella intimidating).
The GBU-43/B MOAB (aka Mother of all bombs) was used in Afganistan. I suspect that is where the confusion comes from. The MOAB weights 9800kg versus the MOP’s 13600kg.
The MOAB is deployed out the back of a C-130 - being pulled out by a drogue chute. The MOP at close to 50% heavier may well simply not be able to be safely so deployed. When the bomb gets to the back of the plane before exiting there are going to be some pretty serious centre of gravity questions to answer.
In general deploying bombs isn’t a trivial undertaking.
While it’s certainly possible that there are unique features to this bomb that makes it completely impossible to drop out of anything except a B2 bomber…
If the US and/or Israel came up with a way to drop the bomb out of a different sort of plane, I expect we wouldn’t hear about it until the bomb actually landed.
Just as we didn’t hear about the drop tanks that have apparently been developed by Israel for the F35, if rumors are true.
That said, the fact that the site at Fordow is still there implies to me that there isn’t a way for Israel to drop that bomb on its own at this time.
Of course.