• 41 Palestinians killed, 5,000 injured since March at Gaza border protests
    75 replies, posted
Perhaps in ancient times, but modern Israel was thought up in the 1890s as part of the growing hyper-nationalist zietgiest of the day and to build a place for Jews to flee persecution. In fact, Palestine wasn't the only "option" for Jews to build a nation in the early days. Places such as Patagonia in South America were also considered.
If Israel was under actual existential threat, why won't they use nukes? Would you be willing to let yourself be wiped out just to not wipe out someone else?
Honestly that is kind of extremely selfish. It's pretty much "suicide by cop" in which yeah, you get killed, but you end up harming others. Any nuclear attack made on another country, even in retaliation for "getting wiped out" is going to hurt the entire planet, and specifically innocent civilians of the attacking nation. A nuclear attack on Iran, for example, is going to affect Afghanistan, Pakistan and maybe even India with fall out, as well as indirectly kill thousands of civilians that may not even care about Israel's existence or not.
Because it wouldn't work, the punishment following said attack would overrule the immediate effect of stopping said invasion. They'd have to nuke every single attacker to truly stop this hypothetical war and in which doing they'd have made even more enemies Unless you follow Nixon's madman theory
If you don't actually use your nukes once their deterrence effect stopped convincing your enemies, what's the point? Is it all a big bluff? Sorry, I'd rather see Tehran burn in radioactive ash than have Hezbollah patrols swoop into my village to slaughter my entire family while the country is on fire. My unwillingness to see others die only extends so much. I don't care if I make 100 new enemies and lose the support of the entire world, it doesn't matter at that point, because the alternative is all of us being fucking dead.
You would murder countless innocents in nuclear hellfire on the off chance it might scare some zealous insurgents from raiding your village? And this line of thinking doesn't bother you?
It's the ultimate last resort, one reserved for a country already kneeling in the face of destruction, but no, it doesn't. If the people of Iran don't care that their country and its proxies are about to destroy own my country with the millions of people inside it, then their lives aren't a high priority on my list when it comes to the survival of my family and friends and culture and society. If the conventional military failed to stop an invasion and the only possible chance to save Israel would be through nuclear weapons, then use them. For what it's worth, I was thinking more about nuking large military targets with smaller nuclear weapons than dropping 20 megaton thermonuclear weapons on population centers. "Tehran burn in radioactive ash" was just me being dramatic.
Of course, assuming dropping a nuke smack dab in the middle of Iran doesn't give legitimacy for every single country on the planet to invade and ties the US from intervening with help at all, which is a stretch to say the least. Ignoring for a second the fact you would consider an entire population of civilians as acceptable targets because in your mind nonchalance is collaboration, which is the exact mindset of hamas, why would you think dropping a nuke is in any way a tactically smart move? I really think you're overestimating the usefulness of nuclear weaponry in causing anything more than casualties and terror. Is it not more likely any and all zealous insurgents about to raid your village would actually be boldened by this confirmation of the necessity of jihad?
Why are we keeping a nuclear arsenal, if not to use it once Israel has already been mostly destroyed? What is the point of deterrence if you don't actually act on it when push comes to shove? Should we not dish out severe repercussions to a country that has almost succeeded in destroying us? Should we honestly lay down and take it? Is the Samson Option just a bluff? I'm amazed that you think in the event of Israel's destruction, it should just let itself be destroyed without trying anything it can to survive. Honestly, I'd say you seem to be underestimating the usefulness of nuclear weaponry, because I don't see how anyone seeing an enemy actually drop a nuclear bomb (of which he has more of) would react to it by trying to push harder. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. You have me doubting myself and reading stuff online. It took me a while to type out this reply. I still don't see the point of having a nuclear arsenal and not using it to survive when all else failed.
I'm not saying we should lie down and take it, I'm saying dropping a nuke won't somehow stop destruction of the land and will give every other country not already partaking in it a reason to join in. Do you think time just stops after we drop a nuke? What this, and the Samson Option in general be, is an insane act of retribution, nothing more. You're willing to gamble the life of huge numbers of innocent, unrelated people on the possibility that maybe their mind, already twisted by years of propaganda and religious ideology, would work the way you want it to. Of course I believe the Samson Option is a bluff, because I have no reason to believe our political and military leadership is both so stupid and so deluded as to think it anything more than a good talking point to people disconnected from reality. What keeps people from assaulting and murdering indiscriminately after our one deterrent, the nuke, has already been launched? What, are they gonna unlaunch it? When your punishment is already given all they have left is to either go forward or lie down like bitches and let us desecrate both the dead and the living. What would you choose in such a situation, hmm? It's not the nuclear fallout I'm worried about. It's the political one.
Millions? Hundreds of thousands? You nuke the invasion force with a low yield warhead. Not their major civilian population centers. This was considered the basic opening tactic for most of the cold war.
No. It's MAD. Israel would supposedly retaliate with nukes only in case it was on the verge of total annihilation. Israel also supposedly reserves the right to use non conventional weapons if attacked by such, so stuff like neutron bombs is also on the table. But I think the idea is that nukes are Israel's last line of defense against being wiped out, which is why they were never used even when Israel was on the verge of defeat during the 1973 war. How is any of this relevant to the OP?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.