One thing that rarely seems to come up when discussing all out war that could potentially result in a catastrophic defeat for Israel is the fact that they have nuclear weapons. While I can appreciate the idea that Israel may not want to use those weapons on regions that are so close to its borders, they lack MAD from any of their neighbo…
One thing that rarely seems to come up when discussing all out war that could potentially result in a catastrophic defeat for Israel is the fact that they have nuclear weapons. While I can appreciate the idea that Israel may not want to use those weapons on regions that are so close to its borders, they lack MAD from any of their neighbors. Surely these various nations and quasi-states are also aware of this disparity, and I'm curious what they think of it.
Israel and it's leaders may decide to use those weapons if they felt there was a truly existential threat of total defeat, no?
i think the point is what we define as "existential". I think the amount of damage that would be inflicted to Israel would make it a place that no one would choose to live in for quite some time after the fact. The military might win in the end, but it'll be a military on a land without a country, in any meaningful sense of the word.
That's a very good point. I suppose, then, the question would be: do we think the leaders of Israel (and I suppose Israelis themselves) feel the salted earth policy to be "worth it" for what would undoubtedly be a Pyrric victory (assuming nukes are used, obviously).
i would imagine the people dont even consider it possible. at least as an american, i think its pretty obvious that the propaganda convinces us our country is invincible (no matter how many terrorist attacks we endure and guerilla wars that we've lost). so i think the israeli people (rightfully) fear war, but they don't really think it'll get as bad as I'm assuming it will. as for the leaders, the same as ours. they're getting paid and/or postponing legal consequences for their actions. they have the money to get up and move if it gets that bad.
If you get a chance, read Noam Chomsky’s The Fateful Triangle. It’s dense but invaluable. Check out the Samson Option. That’s Israel’s ultimate fallback solution to an existential threat.
Nuclear deterrence is exactly what Israel hopes to avoid. That’s why Iran is such a big worry for them. Israel knows that were Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, it (Israel) would no longer be able to act with impunity across the region. It currently bombs Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, & Yemen whenever it wants. With nuclear deterrence, that could no longer happen. Note that Israel is the one Middle Eastern country *against* having a NWFZ (nuclear weapons free zone). All other countries favor it, including Iran (which is not an Arab nation). Says a lot about the mentality of this rogue state.
It’s called The Samson Option. Seymour Hersh wrote a book about it so many years ago that no one today seems to remember it. Except for those who might invoke it.
That's a truly terrifying scenario though. And since there doesn't seem to be any modern rhetoric suggesting that Israel has changed that protocol (or refuted its existence) do you think this is a motivating reason why these various groups and nations haven't done more than Sabre rattle and stockpile? If Isael's nuclear arsenal IS in fact, the key deterring factor against a fullscale war, I suppose the last question is: what would the red line be? How FAR could Israel go before the Axis sees the threat to them as existential enough to risk nuclear retaliation?
One thing that rarely seems to come up when discussing all out war that could potentially result in a catastrophic defeat for Israel is the fact that they have nuclear weapons. While I can appreciate the idea that Israel may not want to use those weapons on regions that are so close to its borders, they lack MAD from any of their neighbors. Surely these various nations and quasi-states are also aware of this disparity, and I'm curious what they think of it.
Israel and it's leaders may decide to use those weapons if they felt there was a truly existential threat of total defeat, no?
i think the point is what we define as "existential". I think the amount of damage that would be inflicted to Israel would make it a place that no one would choose to live in for quite some time after the fact. The military might win in the end, but it'll be a military on a land without a country, in any meaningful sense of the word.
That's a very good point. I suppose, then, the question would be: do we think the leaders of Israel (and I suppose Israelis themselves) feel the salted earth policy to be "worth it" for what would undoubtedly be a Pyrric victory (assuming nukes are used, obviously).
i would imagine the people dont even consider it possible. at least as an american, i think its pretty obvious that the propaganda convinces us our country is invincible (no matter how many terrorist attacks we endure and guerilla wars that we've lost). so i think the israeli people (rightfully) fear war, but they don't really think it'll get as bad as I'm assuming it will. as for the leaders, the same as ours. they're getting paid and/or postponing legal consequences for their actions. they have the money to get up and move if it gets that bad.
If you get a chance, read Noam Chomsky’s The Fateful Triangle. It’s dense but invaluable. Check out the Samson Option. That’s Israel’s ultimate fallback solution to an existential threat.
Nuclear deterrence is exactly what Israel hopes to avoid. That’s why Iran is such a big worry for them. Israel knows that were Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, it (Israel) would no longer be able to act with impunity across the region. It currently bombs Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, & Yemen whenever it wants. With nuclear deterrence, that could no longer happen. Note that Israel is the one Middle Eastern country *against* having a NWFZ (nuclear weapons free zone). All other countries favor it, including Iran (which is not an Arab nation). Says a lot about the mentality of this rogue state.
It’s called The Samson Option. Seymour Hersh wrote a book about it so many years ago that no one today seems to remember it. Except for those who might invoke it.
That's a truly terrifying scenario though. And since there doesn't seem to be any modern rhetoric suggesting that Israel has changed that protocol (or refuted its existence) do you think this is a motivating reason why these various groups and nations haven't done more than Sabre rattle and stockpile? If Isael's nuclear arsenal IS in fact, the key deterring factor against a fullscale war, I suppose the last question is: what would the red line be? How FAR could Israel go before the Axis sees the threat to them as existential enough to risk nuclear retaliation?
Dancing on a razor's edge, to be sure.