What makes the Samson option different is that Israeli leaders have expressed the intent to take out the entire world if Israel was ever facing total annihilation.
I think that’s true, functionally speaking, of basically any thermonuclear-armed state.
I don’t believe the OP is at all claiming that if anyone tried to enact sanctions, arms embargoes, ICC warrants against Israel, or otherwise interfere with the genocide, Israel would immediately *nuke the world. It specifically claims Israel would respond in this way “if cornered”. In this context, I interpret “cornered” as in backed into a corner with no way out, by an aggressive party who seeks Israels destruction.
Read the second paragraph again. OP is claiming that Western leaders are not sanctioning Israel in the fairly mild ways described because they’re afraid of nuclear war.
I do think that without Western military assistance (and more to the point deterrence), Israel with its current course of conduct might be destroyed by its neighbors. But that and “stay the course” aren’t the only two options. I actually think that it would be way safer, in terms of global nuclear security, if Western countries forcibly stopped the genocide Israel is conducting. As it is, that scenario where Israel is getting overrun by regional enemies and throwing nukes (at them or at other targets) sounds not too unlikely as years go by and things change, with everyone remembering what they did. And so I interpreted OP as saying that if someone tried for the enforced peace agreement, or the war crimes trials, nukes.
I do think that fear of Israel getting overrun is the source of some of that unwavering military and deterrence assistance that keeps them alive and safe to do whatever they want. I don’t think it is what is stopping Western leaders from punishing Israel for their current genocide. I think they just don’t want to (or don’t have the political will embedded in their systems that it would take to get it done), honestly.
Functionally speaking, yes, nuking the entire world is an option for any thermonuclear-armed state; and even M.A.D. would be incredibly consequential for the rest of the world. However, this is very different from a policy of directly nuking cities of non-involved countries.
I believe the difference between Israel and other thermonuclear states is that the others have officially announced their possession of nuclear weapons, and the vast majority have signed treaties and agreed to restrictions/oversights as outlined in the OP. To copy from my last response in this post:
Israel is acting unhinged: committing genocide, murdering journalists, settling occupied land, and torturing prisoners (all war-crimes). To quote Israeli General Moshe Dayan, “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” This is that ‘mad dog’ behavior. It’s a tool that makes people believe they might actually follow through something as crazy as the Samson option. To me, their leadership seams willing and they absolutely have the means. However, this is only possible because of that ‘mad dog’ image. As soon as people recognize that a ‘mad dog’ is collared, securely chained, and unable to do them harm, they can continue on without fear.
Israel operates with a policy of deliberate ambiguity. Their possession of nuclear weapons has never been formally acknowledged and they have not agreed to the restrictions outlined in the UN’s Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Once they do come clean, and agree to the same terms as other nuclear superpowers, the ‘mad dog’ image will fade. Only then will other countries stop fearing the possibility of being nuked due to the chain of events that would begin with a reversal on global support.
As for re-reading the second paragraph: this doesn’t change my mind on the OP premise. It seems pretty obvious that the western powers have yet to intervene in any meaningful way. As to a one of the many reasons why, this is outlined in the third paragraph, which believe I addressed in the quoted section above.
Yet, I also agree that Israel’s destruction and “stay the course” (which also involves a lot of destruction) aren’t the only two options. My preference is that Israel’s leadership grows a conscience and stops trying to bomb their neighbors into peace. However, in the absence of this, western powers should intervene. Whether it’s through sanctions, embargoes, or other political red lines, steps should be taken to get us away from the two destructive extremes and towards an outcome that minimizes further loss of life and liberty. I believe the post does a good job highlighting these options in the second paragraph. The rest of the post exposes one of the many reasons why countries might want to be cautious with Israeli diplomacy.
Ultimately, I hope for more nuclear-weapon transparency from armed countries and for Israel to come clean and agree to the same inspections and restrictions as other nuclear superpowers. There should be civilian oversight, a “two-key” (minimum) launch protocol, public doctrine, and external inspections as listed in the OP.
I believe the difference between Israel and other thermonuclear states
Israel is not a thermonuclear state, unless I missed something very very big.
It seems pretty obvious that the western powers have yet to intervene in any meaningful way.
To me, too, I just don’t think that OP’s explanation is why.
My preference is that Israel’s leadership grows a conscience and stops trying to bomb their neighbors into peace. However, in the absence of this, western powers should intervene. Whether it’s through sanctions, embargoes, or other political red lines, steps should be taken
Completely agreed. Didn’t OP say that this might result in widespread nuclear annihilation, though? That’s part of why I disagree with OP on the thesis of this post.
It seems like we’re kind of going in circles. The individual elements of what you’re saying generally make quite a lot of sense to me and I agree, I’m just having trouble connecting it to what OP seems like they’re saying. Since they don’t seem really inclined to come in here and defend what they were on about, IDK how productive it is for you and me to talk about it.
Just to be clear, I haven’t used “thermonuclear” in any other of my responses in this post, and was only doing so in this single instance to respond directly to your text here (emphasis mine):
I think that’s true, functionally speaking, of basically any thermonuclear-armed state.
As for the ‘talking past each other’: I can’t speak for both of us, but I don’t see the OP as an absolute claim of cause-effect. Instead, it reads to me as just another one of the many reasons why no serious political actions have been taken against Israel.
In the reasons listed “why?'”, OP also lists Israel being a rogue nuclear-armed state, and that Netanyahu has been acting unhinged. I can’t argue against those claims. Even the mere existence of the Samson-option concept can only add more fuel to this already deadly fire. I can’t reasonable say that after reading this, that I believe the OP is trying to say that any sanction, embargo, or red line would result in the instant nuclear destruction of the world. However, I appreciate that this post calls attention to the inactions of western countries, and lists some of the tangible benefits we would see if Israel came clean and signed the UN nuclear treaties. Also, if the threat of the Samson-option is sincere, people should know about it.
It would be nice if the real OP was available to expand upon their message. However, even without them I don’t think it’s unproductive to try to talk these details out. As someone who mostly lurks, I appreciate reading other’s public conversations here. Cheers!
Just to be clear, I haven’t used “thermonuclear” in any other of my responses in this post, and was only doing so in this single instance to respond directly to your text here (emphasis mine):
I think that’s true, functionally speaking, of basically any thermonuclear-armed state.
Yeah, because not every nuclear-armed state could effectively end the world if they got in an existential armed conflict. I think every thermonuclear state could (and likely would). That’s what I meant by that.
Not much to add to the rest of it, but I said it in the precise way I did for a precise reason.
I agree that not every nuclear-armed state could end the world. However with Israel’s estimated warhead count and delivery options, their actions could get effectively close. They are undisputedly in the top 10 countries by warhead quantity and more likely in the top 5 (but we won’t know for sure without external inspectors). With 200+ of the worlds largest cities bombed and the resulting radiation fallout, life on Earth would never be the same. I don’t believe any imprecision was accumulated.
I’m glad we seem to agree on the bigger concepts rather than the semantics of this one footnote.
I think you don’t actually have knowledge about this stuff and are just kind of spinning out theories… I mean, it’s fine, I am not particularly expert and am just kind of speculating also according to my lack of knowledge. But some of the stuff you are saying is just objectively immediately visible as not true, and it makes me question your judgement about broader and more subjective conclusions.
Yes, Israel bad, nukes bad, crazy people running countries in the Mideast and getting away with mass murder is bad. We should stop having nukes, at some point; if global warming doesn’t get us, something someday is going to be wrong and it’s going to be real real bad.
The 200 estimate is at the lower 1/3 of this range. If they happen to be at the upper end of the range, they would exceed France and the UK and would be in the top 5. Unfortunately, we won’t know for sure because of the lack of transparency with Israels nuclear program. Is there something else you think I’m objectively wrong about?
Look at the chart. You literally pulled “probably in the top 5” completely out of nowhere, and you’ve now admitted that while saying this stuff you had no real idea in mind how many nuclear-armed states there are in the world.
I have no interest in continuing a back-and-forth with you or opening up new lines of argument to bicker about. You’ve stated your case, congratulations. Read more. Study.
I think that’s true, functionally speaking, of basically any thermonuclear-armed state.
Read the second paragraph again. OP is claiming that Western leaders are not sanctioning Israel in the fairly mild ways described because they’re afraid of nuclear war.
I do think that without Western military assistance (and more to the point deterrence), Israel with its current course of conduct might be destroyed by its neighbors. But that and “stay the course” aren’t the only two options. I actually think that it would be way safer, in terms of global nuclear security, if Western countries forcibly stopped the genocide Israel is conducting. As it is, that scenario where Israel is getting overrun by regional enemies and throwing nukes (at them or at other targets) sounds not too unlikely as years go by and things change, with everyone remembering what they did. And so I interpreted OP as saying that if someone tried for the enforced peace agreement, or the war crimes trials, nukes.
I do think that fear of Israel getting overrun is the source of some of that unwavering military and deterrence assistance that keeps them alive and safe to do whatever they want. I don’t think it is what is stopping Western leaders from punishing Israel for their current genocide. I think they just don’t want to (or don’t have the political will embedded in their systems that it would take to get it done), honestly.
Functionally speaking, yes, nuking the entire world is an option for any thermonuclear-armed state; and even M.A.D. would be incredibly consequential for the rest of the world. However, this is very different from a policy of directly nuking cities of non-involved countries.
I believe the difference between Israel and other thermonuclear states is that the others have officially announced their possession of nuclear weapons, and the vast majority have signed treaties and agreed to restrictions/oversights as outlined in the OP. To copy from my last response in this post:
As for re-reading the second paragraph: this doesn’t change my mind on the OP premise. It seems pretty obvious that the western powers have yet to intervene in any meaningful way. As to a one of the many reasons why, this is outlined in the third paragraph, which believe I addressed in the quoted section above.
Yet, I also agree that Israel’s destruction and “stay the course” (which also involves a lot of destruction) aren’t the only two options. My preference is that Israel’s leadership grows a conscience and stops trying to bomb their neighbors into peace. However, in the absence of this, western powers should intervene. Whether it’s through sanctions, embargoes, or other political red lines, steps should be taken to get us away from the two destructive extremes and towards an outcome that minimizes further loss of life and liberty. I believe the post does a good job highlighting these options in the second paragraph. The rest of the post exposes one of the many reasons why countries might want to be cautious with Israeli diplomacy.
Ultimately, I hope for more nuclear-weapon transparency from armed countries and for Israel to come clean and agree to the same inspections and restrictions as other nuclear superpowers. There should be civilian oversight, a “two-key” (minimum) launch protocol, public doctrine, and external inspections as listed in the OP.
Israel is not a thermonuclear state, unless I missed something very very big.
To me, too, I just don’t think that OP’s explanation is why.
Completely agreed. Didn’t OP say that this might result in widespread nuclear annihilation, though? That’s part of why I disagree with OP on the thesis of this post.
It seems like we’re kind of going in circles. The individual elements of what you’re saying generally make quite a lot of sense to me and I agree, I’m just having trouble connecting it to what OP seems like they’re saying. Since they don’t seem really inclined to come in here and defend what they were on about, IDK how productive it is for you and me to talk about it.
Just to be clear, I haven’t used “thermonuclear” in any other of my responses in this post, and was only doing so in this single instance to respond directly to your text here (emphasis mine):
As for the ‘talking past each other’: I can’t speak for both of us, but I don’t see the OP as an absolute claim of cause-effect. Instead, it reads to me as just another one of the many reasons why no serious political actions have been taken against Israel.
In the reasons listed “why?'”, OP also lists Israel being a rogue nuclear-armed state, and that Netanyahu has been acting unhinged. I can’t argue against those claims. Even the mere existence of the Samson-option concept can only add more fuel to this already deadly fire. I can’t reasonable say that after reading this, that I believe the OP is trying to say that any sanction, embargo, or red line would result in the instant nuclear destruction of the world. However, I appreciate that this post calls attention to the inactions of western countries, and lists some of the tangible benefits we would see if Israel came clean and signed the UN nuclear treaties. Also, if the threat of the Samson-option is sincere, people should know about it.
It would be nice if the real OP was available to expand upon their message. However, even without them I don’t think it’s unproductive to try to talk these details out. As someone who mostly lurks, I appreciate reading other’s public conversations here. Cheers!
Yeah, because not every nuclear-armed state could effectively end the world if they got in an existential armed conflict. I think every thermonuclear state could (and likely would). That’s what I meant by that.
Not much to add to the rest of it, but I said it in the precise way I did for a precise reason.
I agree that not every nuclear-armed state could end the world. However with Israel’s estimated warhead count and delivery options, their actions could get effectively close. They are undisputedly in the top 10 countries by warhead quantity and more likely in the top 5 (but we won’t know for sure without external inspectors). With 200+ of the worlds largest cities bombed and the resulting radiation fallout, life on Earth would never be the same. I don’t believe any imprecision was accumulated.
I’m glad we seem to agree on the bigger concepts rather than the semantics of this one footnote.
Of course they’re in the top 10, because there are only 9 nuclear armed countries.
And to be in the top five they’d have to have a bigger arsenal than India, Pakistan, and the UK, which no estimates suggest.
The sources cited on Wikipedia estimate up to 400.
Good call on the 9 max though! Maybe I should gotten to bed a little earlier last night 😆.
They definitely are not.
I think you don’t actually have knowledge about this stuff and are just kind of spinning out theories… I mean, it’s fine, I am not particularly expert and am just kind of speculating also according to my lack of knowledge. But some of the stuff you are saying is just objectively immediately visible as not true, and it makes me question your judgement about broader and more subjective conclusions.
Yes, Israel bad, nukes bad, crazy people running countries in the Mideast and getting away with mass murder is bad. We should stop having nukes, at some point; if global warming doesn’t get us, something someday is going to be wrong and it’s going to be real real bad.
The second sentence here contains:
The 200 estimate is at the lower 1/3 of this range. If they happen to be at the upper end of the range, they would exceed France and the UK and would be in the top 5. Unfortunately, we won’t know for sure because of the lack of transparency with Israels nuclear program. Is there something else you think I’m objectively wrong about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
Look at the chart. You literally pulled “probably in the top 5” completely out of nowhere, and you’ve now admitted that while saying this stuff you had no real idea in mind how many nuclear-armed states there are in the world.
I have no interest in continuing a back-and-forth with you or opening up new lines of argument to bicker about. You’ve stated your case, congratulations. Read more. Study.