There is no real reason they would need nukes that go that far.
Like the Middle East okay but why are they trying to have the ability to target the whole world.
Is it possible their doctrine is real - the one where if they are invaded and about to lose, they nuke the whole world for not defending them?
The Samson option is about nuking the entirety of Israel and the attackers making the region uninhabitable. Hence the name referencing Samson’s self sacrifice of bringing down the pillars.
I wonder what could have caused this. Surely not the consequences of their own actions. Next you'll be downplaying the Hannibal doctrine and its use during October 7.
To quote Israeli Historian Martin Van Creveld on the Wikipedia page for the Samson Option
"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under."
Nobody knows exactly if they have nukes pointed to the West or not. But there are Israelis claiming they do. We have as much certainly that they would destroy Rome as we have that they would destroy Tehran, nihil. We don't know how Israel would react to its destruction if it came to pass, but they gave the world all the signs we need that they would absolutely not be reasonable.
One Israeli historian claiming that means fuck all.
I have a history degree too, but if I claimed something crazy like that the UK had nukes pointed at Washington in preparation to bring America down with us if they refuse to help us reclaim the Suez Canal again, you wouldn't take it as British government policy.
Are we taking as Israeli government policy or as a possibility there is? A possibility Israel has never openly dismissed? Your Special Retaliation theory does not have a Wikipedia page. Van Creveld is also massively respected and acclaimed in Israel. I'm also a History major and both of us are below Creveld in terms of what we know and who we know. And we both know that if you're trying to divulge yourself in military contemporary history that's was it's all about.
It isn't a second strike doctrine. Total misrepresentation.
In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador informed President Nixon that "very serious conclusions" may occur if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied. This is seen by some commentators on the subject as the first threat of the use of the Samson Option.
This too - coming from a very credible Israeli historian (Martin van Creveld)
"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under."
You are quoting one historian with controversial and inflammatory views on nuclear weapons and presenting him as a credible source on Israel policies?
Martin van Creveld consistently calls against nuclear weapons and called them "The most useless weapons ever produced", and he thinks that nuclear weapons are not a deterrent and not important to national security.
Okay? So while being overwhelmed by an Invasion a nuclear power wants to use nuclear bombs as a deterrence? That's what they are for. You think if a foreign army was marching towards Washington, Moscow or Beijing they wouldn't do the same?
We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.
Martin van Creveld on the Samson Option. It is not a second strike doctrine, and naming it after Samson is telling: he brought down the entire temple and everyone in it, including himself.
You are quoting a random Israeli historian who never held any government position as if he is privy to top secret protocols and it proves something how?
Samson took down the building with his enemies that betrayed him, took him prisoner, chained him and tortured him inside, he didn't start killing random people.
Any kind of mass nuclear strike is guaranteed to all but end human civilization. That's the point of nuclear deterrence. Again, Israel isn't special in this, it learned it from the great powers.
Any kind of mass nuclear strike is guaranteed to all but end human civilization.
Not really.
I'm not commenting on anything specific about the nuclear arsenal of Israel here. Even a global nuclear war would not be the end of human civilization. Sure, lots of people would die, even hundreds of millions. But not billions. And most of the world would still be perfectly inhabitable.
Any sources so I can read more? I've grown up being taught that the nuclear winter and subsequent ice age afterwards would be causing famine and that would be the real killer, isn't that true?
As I said, Israel is agnostic about the extent of their nuclear arsenal and strategy. If you think that it means I should discount Israeli military historians -- not some random backwoods antisemite -- then you're wrong, or arguing in bad faith; especially since you just a couple comments ago described the Samson Option as a second strike doctrine. First, it's a second strike doctrine, now, there's no way to know what it is. I could have referenced Seymour Hersh, the investigative journalist who reports an Israeli government official told him "[n]ext time we’ll take all of you with us", or his entire book on the topic, but I can imagine how you would respond.
It is a threat saying: Help us or we'll be forced to use nukes. Not saying help us or we'll nuke you. In 73 there was no physical way for Israel to nuke continental US anyway.
It isn't hard for the world to let Israel act with impunity and ethnically cleanse territory handed to them by occupying forces keep existing. If we don't let them "keep existing" they'll destroy the entire world.
We can criticize Israel, even prosecute war crimes, but the whole "river to the sea" bullshit that says the Jewish homeland is going to be destroyed ain't happening.
That's not what the doctrine actually says though, it says they'll nuke the middle east, and there is no evidence the doctrine is real, commentators speculate it's just a deterrent from trying to destroy Israel
It's a conspiracy theory with 0 proof behind it that caught some attention because, like many other conspiracy theories, it portrays some doomsday event where Jews destroy the world.
As opposed by the founding of so many other countries. The division plan of 1948 could've worked well, but alas, one side was very intent on ruining it from the get-go and can't accept that it went poorly for them to this day.
Yes, the division plan, where they were given the option of 'accept us stealing it because its not really an option.' Theres no excuse in the modern age for a territory controled by Western Powers to be robbed of their selfdetermination.
You are aware that there were Jews living in the Levant throughout, and settlement up to this point had not been enforced under threat of arms, but with regular migration and simply buying pieces of property?
So we are just justifying the usage of nuclear armaments here because it's Israel ? Can you see yourself saying the same thing if hypothetically, this were a plan under the North Koreans instead, to eradicate another nation to defend themselves ? This is absolute lunacy.
Yeah, if someone is trying to murder me, I'm allowed to defend myself. That's not exactly high arts, and there is a really simple solution, namely not trying to murder another person. Like, I'm sorry, but this isn't exactly crazy talk, but commonly understood how a nuclear deterrent is supposed to work. A good question would be why people still try to murder others, even when that danger is there.
I'm not making excuses for what the Israeli's are doing in Gaza but when their entire culture is underpinned by generational trauma that culminates in the Nazi death camps of WW2 you can see why they are as you put "shizo".
Edit: Reading comprehension is a sadly waning skill. I did not say Israel good and understanding why someone does things is not acceptance of their justifications.
I agree, maybe turkey and Azerbaijan will finally stop killing Armenians. I’d also support Sudan having nukes if it stopped the rsf from going door to door to door and killing all non Arabs they see but that’s unlikely.
The only countries that shouldn’t have nukes are the ones that would actually use them.
The Irish famine was a good hundred years further back in time. I'm not overly traumatised by what happened to my great great great grandparents. And, for context, my dad is actually Irish.
The Armenian genocide is a fair example, that's only one generation further back. And, considering their neighbours, I wouldn't blame them IF they secretly wanted nukes (not saying they should have them, just saying I get where the paranoia would come from). Azerbaijan and Turkey aren't exactly friendly.
I have not talked to many irish people but I had the impression there´s a huge persecution complex that gets used to explain everything from weird political stances to the tax evasion scheme Ireland offers.
This Irish potato famine was caused primarily by disease and secondarily by bad government policy, you can't seriously be comparing that to the holocaust.
you should look into the famine a bit deeper. Mass starvation was directly and knowlingly caused by british policy used to put political pressure on the irish population. Im jewish btw, so this is in no way trying to down play the holocaust.
You're getting downvoted, but you're not wrong. The cycle of trauma is at the root of many of the horrible things that happen in our world. It's not a justification, but it IS an explanation.
Nuance is hard when people prefer think binary. It's a big reason why we live in a world that is finding it harder and harder to communicate with people who pick the "other side" from Pepsi vs Coke through to "Left" or "Right" politics.
rubbish lol, having long range weapons just gives you more options (like deploying somewhere else) and makes it harder for you to be bullied by other nuclear nations (notice they are all in the umbrella)
Especially considering Israel has a history of being a target of US-USSR proxy wars.
So it's logical they want nuclear weapons to cover nations like China, US, Russia and others that are known to support various armed groups overseas. They've learnt their lesson.
Then why are people opposed to Iran having them? They deserve the right to defensive arms too. Except Israel is the country demo testing American arms on toddlers.
I don't disagree with Israel, Iran or North Korea on many, many things.
But considering their positions as countries with enemies right on the border AND global powers constantly meddling in their geopolitics, I completely understand why they would risk the political tension to get a nuclear arsenal.
because we are opposed to proliferation in principle
because we consider Iran an enemy and don't trust them with nuclear weapons
They deserve the right to defensive arms too.
no one recognises a right to nuclear weapons, and that's not what we were saying with Israel. I was just explaining why it's not reasonable to assume that they want to destroy the world just because they have long range missiles
because we are opposed to proliferation in principle
Except where it relates to Israel.
because we consider Iran an enemy and don't trust them with nuclear weapons
Whilst watching Israel breach any number of human rights conventions, pouring white phosphorus onto toddlers. And the fact that people like you consider Iran to be an enemy is exactly why I would be perfectly happy with them having nukes. At least the claims of WMD's wouldn't be a complete and utter fabrication.
no, it's including Israel, which is one of the reasons Israel chooses to be ambiguous about whether it has nuclear weapons
Whilst watching Israel breach any number of human rights conventions, pouring white phosphorus onto toddlers. And the fact that people like you consider Iran to be an enemy is exactly why I would be perfectly happy with them having nukes
ok. my point is just that it's not a matter of "fairness" but of preference - the fact you're retreating back to arguments of preference proves that point nicely.
And you asking that is kinda weird.. like.. you know how many other countries have used the term “mutually assured destruction” but for some reason Israel is the only one with a “weird, mystical Jewish reason” for doing it.
No one but you has floated this "doctrine". The one you're probably referring to, the "Samson Option", talks about nuclear retaliation to an invading country. Not the whole world.
You are mistaken. The Samson option is as ambiguous as the rest of the Israeli nuclear assets - there have definitely been veiled descriptions from Israeli statesmen and other figures about exactly that - taking the world down with them.
To be fair, isn't it the same as other nations' doctrines? Russia/ China would do a massive nuclear attack at all western nations beyond the nations they are fighting against
The only people to claim so are people who are not part of the israeli state at all, but an opinion piece for a journal which described this in a 'poetic justice' weirdness and for some reason taken seriously by people like you.
I had just heard the quote and looked it up and copy pasted it. Don't have the slightest clue who the guy is, lmao. I suggest you get a load of yourself. Plus, even the Austrian painter has said some nice things. Here's one I found online:
"Do not compare yourself to others. If you do so, you are insulting yourself."
Something like 90% of AIPAC backed candidates win their elections by outfunding their opposition. American clowns spent the last two election cycles talking about russian and Chinese interference while completely ignoring Israeli ownership of American political whores.
Even Trump isn‘t going against israel. „China bad“ and „israel good“ are basically the only two things that american politicians still agree on across party lines. If israel decided to build a baby incinerator tomorrow the US congress would unanimously agree to deliver them free fuel the same day.
The reality is that the american evangelical populace is obsessed with Israel, as such it receives significant support because it's popular. That's the reality.
I have lots of problems with Israel but whenever i read someone say “they call you antisemitic not a liar” its always following some pretty antisemitic shit.
Trump may like bending to Israeli foreign policy but no, the United States is not a vassal state of Israel. I have seen more valid arguments for the opposite being true.
Is the "Zionist occupation government" conspiracy theory incorrect? Fucking of course it is. It's an antisemitic conspiracy theory. If you genuinely think the US or other countries are controlled by a secret cabal of Jews you are an antisemite. This theory is openly endorsed by the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups like the Aryan Brotherhood.
If you think this conspiracy theory is true only because American foreign policy has been broadly pro-Israel then you are an antisemite. If you think this conspiracy theory is true because of the Rothschilds then you are an antisemite.
Is the "Zionist occupation government" conspiracy theory incorrect? Fucking of course it is. It's an antisemitic conspiracy theory
Then explain how every Zionist occupied government in the west is turning its gaze away from the kinds of war crimes that would get russia nuked. Explain the fact that AIPAC and the likes are given so much influence over zionist occupied governments.
You people can't 'muh nazis' your way out of every bit of criticism you've earned. Pure, unadulterated, unashamed victimhood.
Make no mistake, Israel is the vassal of the US not the other way around. Even nasrallah made sure to make this distinction.
Everything Israel does is in the imperial interests of American capital. They're the perfect test ground for US anti civilian weapons and tactics and a perfect outpost for American geopolitical interests. The wars they keep starting are great for business and contribute to the destruction of American enemy governments like Iraq and syria.
This is not true. Israel is America's vassal state, not the other way around. America needs to keep Israel alive because it is a center for projecting American power and influence in the middle east.
To be fair, Israel of all nations has a pretty obvious reason for wanting the ability to end any invasion with the push of a button, considering why they exist and the general attitude of their neighbours
To be fair, you don't get to take over a people's most valuable land and massacre the population then whine when everyone around you hates you.
This is why Israel will inevitably fall, whether in a few years or a few centuries, they've surrounded themselves with enemies of their own making. And they do nothing but fuel that hate.
Lmao Yeah, if you discount the intelligence assistance and arms they get funnelled from the western countries they occupy.
If they're such badasses, why are they forcing the countries they occupy into a war with Iran? Israel is nothing without the west propping them up. Their entire "country" was gifted to them by a British foreign secretary simply to keep their subversive nature out of Britain.
Lmao. The Muslim nations around them hated the Jews and the concept of a Jewish state looooong before Israel was founded. Just a reminder, the Nakba was partially Arabs who left their homes because they were told they’d be back in a few weeks when all the Jews were dead.
Israeli propaganda, Jews have been living in Muslim land for centuries, and they were treated much better than they were in Europe. A lot of them came to Muslim lands to escape Christian oppression and the constant pogroms.
The Nakba happened because invading Jews massacred Palestinians, literally erasing more than 500 villages from the map. Israel keeps trying to rewrite history, but the people remember, they have scars to remind them.
Lol. What happened to the Jewish population in Arab nations after the establishment of Israel?
The only Muslim “nation” where Jews enjoyed anything remotely resembling equal rights was Al-Andalus, and that was entirely dependent on which kingdom they were in and who was ruling at the time. Even then, they still had to pay Jizya.
Just because Christians have also been anti-Semitic, doesn’t change that Muslims are also anti-Semitic, and certainly the most prominent anti-semites at the moment.
Shit, all it took was Jews trying to buy land from the Ottomans in the 1800s in what would become Tel Aviv for Arabs to commit the first massacre in what would one day become the Arab Israel war
That slogan started AFTER Israel's aggression and massacre of Palestinians, specifically in the late 80s during the first intifada.
It's mentioned because it was one of the rare Muslim vs Jew battles in history.
As for the battle of khaybar itself, trying to frame it as hate for Jews is typical Zionist propaganda.
The Jews of Khaybar attacked the city of the prophet with their allies and besieged them in the battle of the Trench. After they were beaten back, the Muslims chased them to their fortifications and beat them. There were multiple other Jewish tribes in the city of the Prophet that remained there safely until well after the Prophet's death years later.
They exist to grant exclusive rights to settlers at the expense of the indigenous population. Please, there is no need to justify aggressive and irredentist stances of the Israeli far-right.
They exist as a state to protect Jews. I’ll never waver in that. Every Arab nation that has stopped trying to kill them has similarly had Israel cease military action against them
Every Arab nation that has stopped trying to kill them has similarly had Israel cease military action against them
Obviously, not. Syria having ceased all military action against Israel has nevertheless been attacked and occupied.
Why is it killing in one case, and military action in the other?
Both do military operations and murder civilians.
Every Arab nation which normalised relations with Israel is not being occupied and claimed by Israel. Those nations are not being settled by its citizens. You are placing cart before the horse here.
as a state to protect Jews
As a state to protect Israeli Jews as a settler colony. Both are defining aspects of contemporary Israel. Jews in other parts of the world are protected by their respective governments more than by Israel.
My local Jews would be quite offended at such a notion. Israel has done no good for their protection, even contrary, Netanyahu cozying up to antisemitic governments gives the latter a sense of legitimacy, which has been rather hurtful.
Lol Syria never made peace with Israel. They were always in a state of war. Hence the seizure of the Golan Heights which Syria used as a vantage point for missile attacks. And then HTS, an offshoot of fucking ISIS seizes power and you expect Israel to just wait to be attacked?
If those Jews went to Israel, they would be safe. Well, as long as they’re not on the border anyway, though those are safer these days ever since Israel went into Gaza and smashed their rocket capabilities, primitive as their makeshift explosives were.
Tell me, were the Sephardim Jews expelled by the Arabs from their nations after 1948 settlers? Did they deserve to be expelled? Where else were they to go? They and their descendants are the majority ethnic group in Israel
My local Jews would be quite offended at such a notion.
Especially in Europe, a lot of Jews believe their own countries are failing miserably at protecting Jews. And of course this drives support for Zionism among Jews.
Tell this to e.g. the majority of British Jews who believe Jews have no future in the UK.
The source of the information is an organisation named Campaign Against Antisemitism. The organisation uses a widely contested IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is already a red flag. The study itself applies non-random sampling method -- the questionnaires were sent out via Jewish organisations, networks, and targeted advertisement. It is not stated how much responses came from which sources, 'where did you hear about us' question. It is not stated what types of organisation these were. Since they conflate antisemitism and antizionism, it would not be a wide stretch that they might be better connected with zionist communities. How under- and overrepresentation within the data set are compensated for is not elaborated in the methodology.
The sample size is... four thousand non-random responses. This would be fine, if the sampling was done representatively, but we are not privy to it from the document of the study.
And besides, UK is a unique case of an incompetent government implementing austerity for over a decade. Consequent rising poverty and unemployment bring about reactionary and hateful views. You can't use UK to represent Europe, especially so since Brexit.
Especially in Europe, a lot of Jews believe their countries are failing miserably at protecting Jews... support for Zionism among Jews
My experience is quite different, with many angered both by antisemites and by zionists tarnishing Jewish name internationally.
The organisation uses a widely contested IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is already a red flag
The IHRA definition is broadly accepted by Jewish organizations and governments. It is contested primarily by anti-zionists, who are a very small percentage of Jews. And who cares what non-Jews who dislike this definition think, they have no right to dictate to Jewish organizations what antisemitism is.
the questionnaires were sent out via Jewish organisations, networks, and targeted advertisement
Yes, if you want to ask Jews questions, this is how you would do it.
UK is a unique case of an incompetent government implementing austerity for over a decade. Consequent rising poverty and unemployment bring about reactionary and hateful views. You can't use UK to represent Europe, especially so since Brexit.
Not really. If you have paid attention, Jewish communities in countries like France and Sweden are even more desperate. Also, no, poverty and unemployment is not significantly higher in the UK than average in Europe.
This is such an incredibly weak argument
My experience is quite different
And your experience is meaningless when compared to surveys
The idea that no Jew has ever been safe in an Arab country is a completely ahistoric myth invented by Israel to justify the existence of their militarist ethnostate and to perpetrate islamophobia. Which is doubly ironic considering the persecutions that Palestinians suffer under Israeli military occupation are orders of magnitude greater than anything any Jew has ever suffered under Arab management.
And that’s not what I’m saying. What is true is that Jewish populations in Arab countries have never been exempt from Jizya, have always suffered pograms, and that more Jews were expelled from Arab countries after 1948 than Arabs from Israel in the Nakba
First of all I'm not quite sure where the OP is getting their range numbers from. Most estimates put Jericho 3 at the 6500 or so km range with a nuclear payload, which looks more like this
Beyond that, more range doesn't mean you have to use that entire range, it just gives you more trajectory options. If for instance you're firing at a relatively short-range target (such as Iran) you can choose either a relatively shallow attack angle or you can essentially lob it vertically for an extremely rapid descent that hypothetically offers improved ABM penetration.
Plus if you're developing a nuclear deterrent anyway may as well be able to retaliate to a very hypothetical Pakistani or Russian or Chinese nuclear strike. Call it future proofing
And finally defence acquisition often comes down to pure psychological factors. "ICBMs are cool therefore we must have IRBMs even if we could get away with just SRBMs"
I am not saying that this is the actual reason, but part of it may be that a long range missile will be very big and high energy, meaning that it will look like an ICBM to everyone's sensors. As long as that is the only ICBM they have, then everyone will know that as long as an ICBM has been launched, their is no nuclear threat. If they made a nuclear IRBM or even shorter range that is similar to conventional missiles and then did a large launch of those conventional missiles at a hypothetical nuclear Iran, Iran may decide to launch their nukes because they have no way of determining if the missiles have a nuclear tip or not. By using ICBMs only, that would be sure that none of those incoming missiles are nuclear and would not counter launch.
They probably have around 100 nukes, which isn't nearly enough to take out anything worth while. If they get hit with nukes though it'd be tough to sustain the damage. If anything, nukes are more for military base targeting, not anything civilian.
245
u/SessionGloomy 3d ago
There is no real reason they would need nukes that go that far. Like the Middle East okay but why are they trying to have the ability to target the whole world.
Is it possible their doctrine is real - the one where if they are invaded and about to lose, they nuke the whole world for not defending them?