That has been suggested. They've had anti-ship missiles for a long time. They severely damaged an Israeli corvette in 2006 using a lower grade Chinese missile. Since then their capabilities have been greatly expanded and upgraded:
Thanks. Interesting to hear such theories. I'm an extreme skeptic of MSM but not convinced of this though I respect people looking into it. Personally I don't see much strategic benefit of Israel using a weapon which can be labeled as a "nuke" when non nuclear devices do the job and the footprint of a nuclear blast is nearly impossible to hide. Complete global consensus on a cover-up seems implausible, like UFOs. Again, I do not disagree on principle and am open to your argument.
Without being pedantic, I feel that you have not replied to my question that was about the differentiating advantage of a nuclear attack, knowing the obvious disadvantages. There is significant evidence and consensus around Israel's record of unrestrained attacks on Lebanon. If this attack used a nuclear warhead, it would create an important global precedent and change a lot of current rhetoric around this red line.
If the Houthi’s can block the Red Sea I wonder what Hezbollah could do? Impose a naval blockade on Israel through anti ship missiles?
That has been suggested. They've had anti-ship missiles for a long time. They severely damaged an Israeli corvette in 2006 using a lower grade Chinese missile. Since then their capabilities have been greatly expanded and upgraded:
https://www.itamilradar.com/2023/10/16/assessing-the-threat-of-hezbollahs-anti-ship-missiles-and-the-ford-csg/
The question, of course, is: Exactly what may the Houthis have up in their mountains that they haven't revealed yet?
"They used a nuclear weapon on Lebanon before and got away with it."
Explain?
Thanks. Interesting to hear such theories. I'm an extreme skeptic of MSM but not convinced of this though I respect people looking into it. Personally I don't see much strategic benefit of Israel using a weapon which can be labeled as a "nuke" when non nuclear devices do the job and the footprint of a nuclear blast is nearly impossible to hide. Complete global consensus on a cover-up seems implausible, like UFOs. Again, I do not disagree on principle and am open to your argument.
Without being pedantic, I feel that you have not replied to my question that was about the differentiating advantage of a nuclear attack, knowing the obvious disadvantages. There is significant evidence and consensus around Israel's record of unrestrained attacks on Lebanon. If this attack used a nuclear warhead, it would create an important global precedent and change a lot of current rhetoric around this red line.