Israel's nuclear weapons?
Israel is supposed have over 150 nuclear missiles.Israel is such a small country, is it not a tactical mistake to have them all in one small area?
If iran where to acquire a nuclear bomb,then drop it on a known nuclear silo site,the explosion would have a chain reaction.Which would be devastating not just for israel.but all the countries in that region.Including iran's ally's. Is this assessment wrong?
- Its not me Its uLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
The latest estimates are from 200 to 375 nuclear weapons by the end of 2005.
As mentioned earlier, Nuclear weapons are capable of producing two types of explosions,a chemical explosion involving only the conventional “high explosive” charge in a weapon or an explosion with a nuclear yield involving the uranium or plutonium (or both) in a weapon.
Nuclear weapons contain varying amounts of High Explosives, which could explode if it were dropped from a height or be involved in a severe truck, railroad, or airplane crash. If a weapon becomes engulfed in flames during an accident, it is possible that the fire could detonate the High Explosives.
Should terrorists get access to a weapon, it is possible they might detonate the High Explosive with a bullet or hand grenade, but this in itself would not create a nuclear yield.
The steps required to make a weapon give a nuclear yield are classified and the chance of nuclear yield accidents is extremely remote. There is a possibility that the detonation of high explosives could lead to a nuclear yield, but only if the arming and fusing mechanisms are deployed in the weapons. Arming and fusing components are typically not apart of the device until the time of detonation, for safety reasons of course and to prevent unintended nuclear yield.Source(s): true story.... (also lookup SAFFing techniques used to prevent unintended detonations http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm)
- fangtaiyangLv 71 decade ago
Yes, the assessment is wrong. If Iran did indeed have a bomb to drop, and it managed to somehow drop it on a single missile silo,this would not set off all the other nuclear warheads. It would not even set off the warhead on the missile in the targeted silo. The radiation would be from the one bomb and that alone. This would be disastrous for the entire middle east and it is the same if Israel targets Iran. It would be like Nebraska bombing Arkansas or vice verse
- Chances68Lv 71 decade ago
First, a correction. Israel is thought to have around 150 nuclear warheads. None, so far as I'm aware, are mounted on missiles. All, that I know of, are supposed to be gravity bombs.
Second, Israel's weapons are almost certainly disbursed at a variety of sites (airfields) around the country. That way, any strike will not eliminate their ability to launch a counter strike.
Third, nuclear weapons are very complex, and they are very unlikely to detonate unless meant to do so. Unless armed in precisely the correct sequence, nuclear bombs can (and have) fallen from aircraft, or crashed inside of aircraft carrying them, and not detonated.
Finally, if Iran were, hypothetically, to launch a nuclear missile attack on Israel, the Israeli defense forces would have at least some home of knocking the missile down. Moreover, due to both US and Israeli early warning systems, it's fairly likely that they would have nuclear armed aircraft up and on their way to Iran long before the missile struck home. Lastly, is such an event, I consider it at least somewhat likely that Israel would strike its most threatening Arab neighbors at the same time as launching the counter strike. As such, one could say that there would be serious fallout for the Syrians and other Arab neighbors of Israel and allies of Iran in the event of an Iranian first strike.
- Mohammed FLv 41 decade ago
I have to disagree with your assessment for a few reasons.
This first is that Israel has never admited to possessing nuclear weapons. it would be difficult to deny having these weapons if they had missile silos dotting the countryside. It is doubtful that Israel has any static nuclear weapons emplacements. I would wager that any weapons they do have are in the form of aircraft deliever bombs or submarine launched cruise missiles.
The other reason, as pointed out by a previous answer, is that a nuclear weapon destroyed by an atomic blast would not result in the other device's detonation. At most you would get a slightly increased level of radioactive fallout.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Yes I believe that's wrong. There wouldn't be a chain reaction involving the targeted weapons Setting off a nuclear explosion is a bit too much of a precision operation for that to happen. It's not like setting a match to a pile of gunpowder.
The targeted weapons would be destroyed, that's a risk.
But I'm not an expert. You should go ask this over in physics maybe.
- oscarsix5Lv 51 decade ago
Any assessment based upon assumed information would be nothing more than idle speculation....