![](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/81a6b56e-f126-4c1c-b80d-fcb93f996b66.jpeg)
![](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/0c75f921-976b-48fb-a266-5edd5a1c6e1c.png)
AFAIK the total destruction by conventional bombs in the Gaza Strip is equivalent to at least a couple atomic bombs; most buildings especially in the north have been destroyed and conditions for civilians are unbearable.
I think the reason why Israel hasn’t nuked Gaza is that a) it’s a major taboo which would massively isolate them even beyond their current growing isolation, and b) doesn’t actually solve any problems for them. Hamas exists in tunnels underground and nukes won’t kill them, and Israel is already killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (and perhaps a million or more will be dead by the time Israel collapses) by blocking off aid and starving the population to death. And as you say, the radioactive particles would probably hit Zionist-occupied Israel too. Might also provoke Hezbollah and others, depending on what exactly they have planned in the event that most of Gaza’s population dies.
Similar reasons why Russia probably won’t nuke Ukraine. Not to say that Russia = Israel, if anything it’s the other way around when talking about the Donbass, but: what problem does nuking Ukraine solve which is unattainable with conventional explosives? And is that problem being solved worth the potential international isolation?
if voting for my own interests comes with the cost of implicitly accepting that tens of thousands of children will be killed in bombing raids abroad, then I refuse