I don’t think this contradicts their point. Firstly, saying something is a concern is not the same as saying there are no other concerns. It’s not an exclusionary statement.

Secondly, I would expect that every country with these capabilities is tracking every satellite they can find. Of course this is going to include adverserial nations.

That reads to me as if they blocked an impersonating lemmyusa account that was using your same name.

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.

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 😆.

The second sentence here contains:

Estimates of Israel’s stockpile range from 90 to 400 nuclear warheads,[2][5][6][7][8][9][15][19]

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?

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.

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!

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.

You have some good info in your comment, but I believe the reasoning counters the original claim that the OP is false. Yes, the West created Israel, allowed them to steal and develop technology that resulted in a nuclear rogue state, and continues to supply them. However, I also agree that the circumstances involving Jeffrey Epstein show evidence that Israel is either responsible for, or deeply involved with, a blackmail operation of political elite using pedophile networks and likely whatever else it could. Also, I agree that Israel is currently an illegally-armed nuclear armed country.

Unfortunately, they also have Jericho III missiles with a max range estimated to be 11,500 km (distance to central US from Israel directly). They also have a fleet of Dolphin-class submarines that can be operating along any coastline. Straight from the Jericho Wikipedia page:

After a successful missile test launch conducted in early 2008, Israeli weapons expert General Itzhak Ben-Israel, former chairman of the Israeli Space Agency at the Ministry of Science, said “Everybody can do the mathematics… we can reach with a rocket engine to every point in the world”, thus appearing to confirm Israel’s new capability. Israeli Ministry of Defense officials said that the 2008 test launch represented a “dramatic leap in Israel’s missile technologies”.

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.

Regardless, I do hope countries in the west take action to stop these atrocities. It would be even better if Israel would come clean and make official agreements with other nuclear-armed countries, but I won’t hold my breath. History should judge the west for the involvement in creating this monster. However, at this stage I think it’s an understatement to say “the cat is out of the bag.” Israel’s actions are so atrocious, and they need to be held accountable themselves.

Of course, I agree that most countries would launch nuclear weapons if someone was trying to destroy them (likely with their own nuclear weapons in this context). This is the concept of mutually assured destruction. 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. This is a kind of “you either live with us, or not at all” mentality. I think this is one of the more interesting quotes from the Wikipedia article:

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.

Contrary to your objection, 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. Otherwise, the cornered description falls flat if Israel can just sidestep the threat and continue on it’s way. However, still nobody want’s to take that first step towards anything comparable to a “mad dog”. For example, if the US stopped delivering defensive weaponry to Israel, how can they continue their offensive campaign without fear of retribution by another party? It’s not a stretch to believe some world leaders and their advisors are actually thinking multiple steps ahead and not just on the immediate consequences of their actions.

There’s complete books on the subject cited in the Wikipedia article.

I only put a portion of the quote in the search text to not exclude variations in punctuation between sentences. I wasn’t pointing to the string of characters in the search bar, but the results it yielded. The full quote is in the search results, including the threat on European capitals.

I’m not sure how you can continue to say this policy doesn’t pass the sniff test. The only context in which I have heard Samson option discussed is in regards to Israel taking out everyone with them. There’s been literally books written on the subject, showing Israel’s intent and capability (see the sources in the Samson option wiki page for the books).

They absolutely have the capability. Even without their many aircraft capable of carrying nuclear bombs and fleet of nuclear-missile-carrying submarines, their Jericho III missiles have a range of 11,500 km. From that wiki page:

According to an official report that was submitted to the U.S. Congress in 2004, it may be that with a payload of 1,000 kg the Jericho III gives Israel nuclear strike capabilities within the entire Middle East, Africa, Europe, Asia and almost all parts of North America, as well as large parts of South America and North Oceania.

Regarding the Martin van Creveld quote, check this out.

Here’s another article which contains more quotes from the same book Wikipedia cites:

This doctrine is still in place today, as journalist Kit Klarenberg noted, “Dutch-born Israeli military theorist Martin van Creveld boasted in September 2003” that “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…We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under”.

https://the307.substack.com/p/the-samson-option-how-israel-not

Edit regarding your question: Yes, Isreal has multiple delivery options.

Officials confirm that the nation can now launch atomic weapons from land, sea and air.

Sure, it would include countries which threaten them directly, but it is not limited to that. As per the quoted section, Israel’s government has already threatened to nuke the USA if we did not continue supplying them with military aid. There is a reason this policy is not just called MAD. It’s something entirely different.

The Samson option is far worse than mutually assured destruction. Instead of retaliatory strikes against the sole country which launches nukes first, Isreal plans to nuke major cities all around the globe if they are ever nuked. They have already used this threat to coerce other countries into supporting them.

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

Article is paywalled, so thanks for posting the actual study. This section seems in direct conflict with the article’s title:

Given the … clear evidence that the epicenter of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was at one of only four markets in Wuhan that sold live wildlife from plausible intermediate host mammal species, either the closest-inferred ancestor or the direct ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 likely moved from an area in or around Yunnan province, to Hubei province, via the wild and farmed animal trade.

In sum, the study doesn’t challenge that Covid-19 originated in Wuhan; but instead, explores the genetic backgrounds of the bats with the closest links to Covid-19.

Sure, it’s your community, so you ban who you like. You don’t need to justify it to me.

I tried steering the conversation back to my actual point, but it seems like all that was ignored. I thought your rule exchange was funny and incredibly ironic. You might enjoy banning any dissenting opinions, but don’t be surprised when that earns you an “authoritarian” label.

From your other responses to this post, it seems like your primary beef with Diva was their anti-war stances in their post history. You can’t play the paradox-of-tolerance card in response to that. To make your other strawmen relatable, are you saying Diva’s comments are in any way fascist or transphobic? I haven’t seen any intolerance in Diva’s posts.

What I’m directly responding to is the exchange with the “no dissent allowed” rule suggestion, and you basically saying you already got that covered. Squashing all dissent is authoritarian, and you referenced your “no authoritarian” rule when responding with this. I don’t believed I ever joined in one of these PTB discussions before, but this was just too much. Can you not see the irony?

If you’re openly saying that you don’t tolerate any dissent in your community, then it sounds like you’re acting as an authoritarian. Perhaps it’s time to ban yourself 🤔