| Revision as of 16:21, 30 May 2007 editCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits why article important; a few suggestions on sources← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:01, 31 May 2007 edit undoAnonMoos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers71,937 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| : ] 05:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | : ] 05:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ---- | |||
| If Israel were forced into using this option, nuclear attacks on major European capitals (Moscow, Berlin, etc.) as well as Arab countries is nearly assured. | If Israel were forced into using this option, nuclear attacks on major European capitals (Moscow, Berlin, etc.) as well as Arab countries is nearly assured. ''-- 09:19, 12 May 2007 68.160.11.195'' | ||
| :Please explain. --] 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | :Please explain. --] 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:01, 31 May 2007
This article needs to describe thehow the "Samson option" differsfrom the mutually assured destruction concept that played a part in the cold between Russia and the U.S.. As I understand it, use of nukes against Israel would not be needed for the option to be invoked (unlike the Cold War's mutually assured destruction) or at least that's how I beleive Hersh described it. --Cab88 04:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- No doubt they're somewhat similar in abstract strategic logic, but there are many practical differences of detail, such as that:
- 1) Both the Soviets and U.S. had nukes, while Arabs have not had nukes.
- 2) The Soviets and U.S. never claimed as their overall strategic goal the extirpation of the other nation as a political entity, and the "throwing" of its people "into the sea", while for many decades there was a constant stream of wannabe-genocidal threats against Israel from Arabs (including from official government spokesmen), as there still is from Ahmadinajad of Iran.
- 3) The Soviet Union and the U.S. were completely open and public about possessing nukes, while Israel has not been.
- 4) It has been implicitly understood that Israel could retaliate nuclearly against a (non-nuclear) biological, chemical, or "mega-terrorism" attack which kills thousands of Israelis and/or thows the future existence of Israel as a Jewish state into question.
- 5) It has been implicitly understood that in the case of such an attack, Israel could retaliate nuclearly against ALL surrounding and nearby Arab countries, as well as some of its more comitted enemies (such as Iran). That's why Israel probably has over a hundred warheads, not 10 or 12.
- AnonMoos 05:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If Israel were forced into using this option, nuclear attacks on major European capitals (Moscow, Berlin, etc.) as well as Arab countries is nearly assured. -- 09:19, 12 May 2007 68.160.11.195
- Please explain. --Nucleusboy 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is an important article because the Samson Option is about indiscriminate destruction of people and government who have not attacked and do not support attacks on Israel. Also, any attack on Russia by our ally Israel would result in a Russian attack on the US.
- While Israeli officials have been more indirect in their threats, private supporters have been more forthcoming. A widely circulated quote that I'll include when get around to fixing up article can be found on a number of sites: Prof. Martin Van Crevel, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem: Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. Israel has the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.
- In April 2002 Jewish academic David Perlmutter in the Los Angeles Times inferred Israel under some circumstances would launch revenge attacks against targets worldwide:Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow--it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Sampson in Gaza? With an H-bomb? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away--unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans--have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?
- Right now I'm too busy to update this article with a mass of sources I have on the topic. A few quotes and links can be found on my web page if anyone wants to investigate. Israeli Nuclear Threats and Blackmail
- There have been a couple new books on Israeli nuclear weapons and strategy and a number of new articles since I put that page up in 2005, so there's lots of info out there. Search internet for more info!
- Carol Moore 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc