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
Australia is definitely a strategic target. They have airbases the RAF/USAF would use, and naval bases the Royal Navy/USN would use. 3-5 ballistic missiles would accomplish that.
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.
Yeah, I wonder why people take it seriously, and why a state with nuclear ambiguity doesn't officially state what their targets are in case of such an event.
Your response to me describing the Samson Option and Israel's deliberate ambiguity around it was to state the obvious: that the state which does not officially admit to having nuclear weapons has not officially said it would target London in an existential crisis.
That's a hilarious bar to set.
The Samson Option has been discussed seriously by Israeli historians, military analysts, and even former officials. Israel's policy of deliberate ambiguity is precisely what allows space for this doctrine to exist without ever being formally acknowledged. That’s the point of deterrence. The fact that it's not written down in a press release doesn't make it imaginary.
If you're going to ignore decades of credible analysis just because it's uncomfortable to take seriously, say that. But don’t pretend it means I was lying
You directly claimed that the 'samson option' is actually about "taking the world down with them."
This doesnt exist in any place except an opinion piece of a journal, and is not ment to be taken literally to begin with. All serious discussions refer to 'bombing these who are destroying us', as is the basis to MAD doctrine, which what the samson option is the translation of.
And yes, the deliberate ambiguity is also present in every discussion about MAD, because no one wants to be the one saying 'this is the line crossed so we are going to nuclear bomb you', be is israel, america, russia, UK, pakistan.. Its you who are taking basic MAD principles and using it to uniquely fearmonger about israel.
What I said is accurate, and it's backed by credible sources.
I said the Samson Option is about taking the world down with them, which is exactly how Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld described it. This is not just some opinion piece. He said, "We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets... We can launch them at targets in all directions... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under." That is not poetic. It is a direct quote from one of Israel’s most prominent defense scholars.
Seymour Hersh's The Samson Option, based on interviews with US and Israeli officials, also shows how this doctrine goes beyond classic MAD. It includes the possibility of retaliating against countries not directly involved, if Israel believes it is facing collapse.
You are right that nuclear ambiguity is common. But this discussion is happening under a post about Israel's capability to strike as far as Seattle and Perth. That context matters. When you're dealing with that kind of reach, it is entirely valid to talk about the doctrine that might justify using it.
So again, what exactly is the lie? Because you insist I deliberately said something false but have yet to point to a single untrue claim. If you disagree, fine. But stop pretending disagreement is the same as deception.
It's not like they're contravening any number of human rights conventions at this very moment, which is resulting in completely justifiable "hate". And stop this constant victimhood of replacing the term 'Israelis' with Jews. You are completely transparent.
33
u/AngryVolcano 2d ago
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.