56
The US stops giving money and weapons to Israel, there's no way they could continue on this path after that.
Of course this is just a hypothetical, the West won't 180 and the US definitely won't cut Israel off, but that'd do it.
Honestly this is it. The US stops providing money and weapons, western powers stop defending Israeli trade ships in the red sea, and the Israeli orphan crushing machine grinds to a halt in under a week.
I agree.
By itself, Israel just isn't a viable state. It's a US/European colony.
Even if the US and European countries would continue their aid, but (for example) crack down on dual citizenship, Israel would implode.
And I do think the 180 is going to come within two decades. We already see that young Americans and young Europeans do not support Israel in majority.
And it's not just aid to Israel, but also aid to Egypt, Jordan and special privileges for Saudi-Arabia.
There are so many expensive support structures to make the colony work, that I honestly don't think Israel will exist in its current form in 2050.
I do think the 180 is going to come within two decades. We already see that young Americans and young Europeans do not support Israel in majority.
America does not care what it's citizens want. Look at how popular healthcare and abortion access is. Doesn't matter one bit.
Right, they don't need to actively do anything to oppose Israel, they just need to cease aiding it.
What the US does best: orchestrate a coup.
This is getting into alt history territory, but how does a coup of a nuclear power play out, frame by frame? I recognize the dissolution of the USSR was a soft coup, but that took years of planning and subverting the Soviet political system, as well as collaborationists taking key positions. Historically, for a coup to be successful they need to have backing in all branches of the military and capture ministries (always get the ministry of the interior). Israel is obviously dependent on the US, but it has a sovereign and home-grown state apparatus that operates independently to the US, and does not need to obey the US when push comes to shove. So it seems like an uphill battle to carry out a coup against them.
the ghost of ronald reagan, confused by a democrat being to his right, possesses biden and tells israel to back down, which they do.
what do nuclear weapons get you when literally everything else in the country is contingent on imperial aid? they can nuke somewhere and become even bigger pariahs, what would that actually accomplish?
One interpretation of the Samson Option is Israel deciding "if we can't exist, we're taking everyone else down with us".
I don't think they have enough strategic nukes to do that.
Maybe they only kill some tens of millions of people then, rather than everyone
I think a few tens of million from direct and indirect damage and then maybe 300 million from famine depending on the soot injected into the atmosphere, so about the same as a decade of deaths under capitalism.
It'll suck if no one trades with you, and you'll run high risks of shortages/famines, but having enough nukes to obliterate the first person who tries to invade you is deterrent enough for independence.
I think a lot of this hinges on the hope that westoids collectively still believe in biblical prophecies.
Blockade any shipment of sun-block cream.
Hint: they won't 180
Might 360 though.
where's our dua lipa emojis @WhyEssEff@hexbear.net
Israel then doing even worse things with their nuclear weapons?
Israel might nuke Rome. Why? Just becuse they can.
The Samson Option (Hebrew: ברירת שמשון, b'rerat shimshon) is Israel's deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against a country whose military has invaded and/or destroyed much of Israel. Commentators also have employed the term to refer to situations where non-nuclear, non-Israeli actors have threatened conventional weapons retaliation, such as Yasser Arafat.
The name is a reference to the biblical Israelite judge Samson who pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and thousands of Philistines who had captured him.
[...]
In 2003, a military historian, Martin van Creveld, thought that the Second Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence. Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:
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.
The best option is that Russia starts extending its nuclear umbrella over the Middle East. I imagine it wouldn't be a blanket protection, but a ratcheting over time. Russia already has a good enough reason to do so for Syria as Syria currently hosts Russian nuclear weapons. Then, Russia could extend the umbrella over Iran to cement its alliance and commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.
From that, it forces one of three options: Bibi doesn't launch, the Israeli government collapses when Bibi tries to give the order, the USA gets rid of the program.
I think it's highly likely that the US knows exactly where all of the Israeli nuclear weapons are, so you lead in with an alpha strike targeting all iron dome-related equipment and missile silos. Then blue helmets come at the country from all sides - the main invasion comes from the coast, but all other borders get big military checkpoints at all crossings to prevent the regime's top officials from escaping.
You don't think the Israelis lash out and nuke someone in that scenario? I can't recall the exact source (and too lazy to go searching rn), but I seem to recall someone here mentioning that a retired Israeli military official said in his memoirs (huge grain of salt, obviously) that in the event of perceived "betrayal" of Israel, the nukes might be pointed at the West.
in the scenario where you blow up all the missile silos for the nukes, how are they going to nuke anyone? though I think assuming the US could get every last silo and warhead before the israelis realize what is happening is a bit optimistic
Israel has submarines capable of carrying nuclear missiles AFAIK
if it's trident crap like the british, the americans literally have the keys to turn those off remotely, it's really funny
Nuke them faster
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
56 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
22586 readers
320 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS