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 was referencing the linked sources estimating 90-400 when I said that. With that range, there is considerable potential for Israel to have the 4th or 5th largest stockpile. I’m not pulling this out of nowhere, and have been linking to the sources for all my claims.
Thanks for coming to the table with your first source though.
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.
I was referencing the linked sources estimating 90-400 when I said that. With that range, there is considerable potential for Israel to have the 4th or 5th largest stockpile. I’m not pulling this out of nowhere, and have been linking to the sources for all my claims.
Thanks for coming to the table with your first source though.