I think if anyone is going to use a nuclear weapon, it’ll be israel.
The US can pull out, president man-baby can write a fanfiction about himself winning the war, and all his thugs can turn their attention to some other debacle, but israel will always be within range of Iranian missiles.
Without US support (and many Americans, even some of the really evil ones, have had enough of israel at this point) it could end up facing an existential threat. They’ve shown again and again that they have absolutely no regard for human life, and they don’t even seem to consider blowback most of the time. I believe israel going “Samson option” is by far the most likely nuclear scenario.
Nuclear weapons are great at leveling cities, but not so great at destroying military infrastructure. On a per-dollar basis they actually kind of suck as weapons of war. From a purely rational strategic perspective, they’re most useful as a deterrent (which is how Israel has been using them). Netanyahu is an imperialist genocidal maniac but he’s not dumb.
Whereas if and when Trump does get his wish to pop a nuke, it won’t be for strategic gain but because he just couldn’t be restrained anymore. This absolute moron wanted to nuke a fucking hurricane FFS. It’s only a matter of time before he gets his wish since the US military has lost all ability to tell him no.
Israel has already shown their willingness to flatten cities and a blatant disregard for civilian life. Their president and a large majority of citizens believe “there are no innocents in Gaza”, and that every child born is “already a terrorist from the moment of his birth”.
Israel would consider a launch far before the US ever would. The US can sail away to safety whenever they choose, but Israel cannot. In the event Israel suffers enough damage, the Samson Option would be considered.
So that’s making a very critical assumption: that Israel’s territory is being existentially threatened. Iran simply does not have the military capability to do that. And Hamas/Hezbollah is not an existential threat to Israel’s existence despite propaganda to the contrary. We’ve already seen the full extent of their military capabilities.
The Samson Option is a one time, last-resort deterrence option for when all other defensive and offensive mechanisms have failed. Israel’s small size and geopolitical situation basically requires such deterrence against a neighbor who might decide to blitzkrieg into Tel Aviv. Iran simply does not possess that capability.
If Netanyahu pops a nuke for any other reason, he fundamentally shifts his neighbors’ calculus in favor of uniting and attacking Israel because nukes are explicitly not a last resort anymore, therefore Israel becomes an immediate existential threat to all its neighbors that must be dealt with accordingly.
That’s the thing with nuclear deterrence: it works, but only if your enemies are clear on the lines they can’t cross. Otherwise you’re just a threat to be eliminated. And ultimately there’s only so much that propaganda can help with there. Israel may have convinced a majority of their citizens that genocide is good, but they can’t propagandize their enemies into believing that preemptive nuclear strikes are necessary. Netanyahu can whine about Iran’s nuclear program all he wants, none of his enemies seriously believe they are close to having nukes.
Using nuclear weapons as anything but a last resort is therefore an awful gamble that very significantly (if not entirely) weakens nuclear deterrence… All for relatively little military gain. There’s very little a nuke would do that Israel can’t do to Iran with conventional weapons. While there’s a whole lot that nukes don’t do to a prepared enemy with spread out military and command infrastructure.
So that’s making a very critical assumption: that Israel’s territory is being existentially threatened. Iran simply does not have the military capability to do that.
Israel already claims that every one of their neighbors is an existential threat to their existence. The truth of the matter is irrelevant, as it is Israel that decides whether or not to launch Israel’s nukes. They do not have enough interceptors to indefinitely outlast Iran’s missiles and drones. Their defenses are failing to prevent direct strikes on targets in Israel, which the Israeli population are largely unaccustomed to. It is unlikely that the idea of suffering a prolonged bombardment would be popular or deemed acceptable. Iran will be hesitant to negotiate, because US and Israel have a history of attacking during negotiations.
Israel’s small size and geopolitical situation basically requires such deterrence against a neighbor who might decide to blitzkrieg into Tel Aviv. Iran simply does not possess that capability.
Last time I checked, there are many small countries without nukes that are doing just fine. For decades, Israel has launched attacks on their neighbors, all while vehemently claiming that they are actually the ones being unjustly persecuted.
There’s very little a nuke would do that Israel can’t do to Iran with conventional weapons. While there’s a whole lot that nukes don’t do to a prepared enemy with spread out military and command infrastructure.
Nobody is debating the tactical or strategic usefulness of a nuclear strike. Possession of nukes is strategic, but their use is not. Israel has already used the equivalent of 6 nuclear bombs on Gaza. They target schools, hospitals, cultural sites, journalists, first responders, and everything else which is supposedly held sacred. They have already displayed an appetite for complete destruction.
Using nuclear weapons as anything but a last resort is therefore an awful gamble
Using nuclear weapons on population centers (Samson Option) is always unacceptable.
Israel has already shown a willingness to commit the crimes we associate with the use of a nuclear warhead (and more), and their leadership has an ever worsening victim complex. It would be tragic, but not unsurprising, if Israel launched a nuclear attack against Iran after suffering heavy bombardment from their enemies.
This is not a humanitarian or ethics question. The rules of nuclear warfare aren’t governed by morality but by game theory. From Israel’s perspective nuclear weapons are a last resort for the reasons I outlined. Their leadership and military may be genocidal, but they still have a sense of self-preservation and act somewhat rationally – which you will notice is not at all the same thing as acting morally or honestly. Using nuclear weapons is simply not a tactically rational option for them even if when their explicit goal is genocidal imperialism.
What’s scary about Trump is that none of this applies to him. He is not a rational actor and he does not have everything to lose were he to launch a nuclear strike against Iran.
Bibi and Trump are both desperate and fueled by their own selfish motivations. That being said it’s not a question of stupidity but rather of myopic self-preservation.
That’s the point, I can’t see how it would help Netanyahu with self-preservation. Going nuclear would be unpopular and ineffective as Israelis understand that their arsenal is more effective in a “will they won’t they” deterrence capacity. He wants constant war and doesn’t need nukes to get it.
Now what he might do is convince Trump to send nukes and pretend he had nothing to do with it. It’s not like Trump is hard to manipulate and Miller probably loves the idea to begin with.
Prolongs their prosecutions and distracts public opinion as well as the attention thereof. Introducing a novel geopolitical climate would insulate them further in allowing them to hedge their grips on power to the new realities they introduce and define. In this case, nuclear war. Notably, this environment would allow for institutional and private wealth to make a fortune off of the volatility in global financial markets (which is already occurring) and further consolidate both wealth and power. There seems to be a 18-19 year cycle for this type of thing (Kuznets Cycle/Swing). IMHO If this scenario occurs it’ll be sometime between March 20th-28th or May 3rd-8th.
I think if anyone is going to use a nuclear weapon, it’ll be israel.
The US can pull out, president man-baby can write a fanfiction about himself winning the war, and all his thugs can turn their attention to some other debacle, but israel will always be within range of Iranian missiles.
Without US support (and many Americans, even some of the really evil ones, have had enough of israel at this point) it could end up facing an existential threat. They’ve shown again and again that they have absolutely no regard for human life, and they don’t even seem to consider blowback most of the time. I believe israel going “Samson option” is by far the most likely nuclear scenario.
Nuclear weapons are great at leveling cities, but not so great at destroying military infrastructure. On a per-dollar basis they actually kind of suck as weapons of war. From a purely rational strategic perspective, they’re most useful as a deterrent (which is how Israel has been using them). Netanyahu is an imperialist genocidal maniac but he’s not dumb.
Whereas if and when Trump does get his wish to pop a nuke, it won’t be for strategic gain but because he just couldn’t be restrained anymore. This absolute moron wanted to nuke a fucking hurricane FFS. It’s only a matter of time before he gets his wish since the US military has lost all ability to tell him no.
Israel has already shown their willingness to flatten cities and a blatant disregard for civilian life. Their president and a large majority of citizens believe “there are no innocents in Gaza”, and that every child born is “already a terrorist from the moment of his birth”.
Israel would consider a launch far before the US ever would. The US can sail away to safety whenever they choose, but Israel cannot. In the event Israel suffers enough damage, the Samson Option would be considered.
So that’s making a very critical assumption: that Israel’s territory is being existentially threatened. Iran simply does not have the military capability to do that. And Hamas/Hezbollah is not an existential threat to Israel’s existence despite propaganda to the contrary. We’ve already seen the full extent of their military capabilities.
The Samson Option is a one time, last-resort deterrence option for when all other defensive and offensive mechanisms have failed. Israel’s small size and geopolitical situation basically requires such deterrence against a neighbor who might decide to blitzkrieg into Tel Aviv. Iran simply does not possess that capability.
If Netanyahu pops a nuke for any other reason, he fundamentally shifts his neighbors’ calculus in favor of uniting and attacking Israel because nukes are explicitly not a last resort anymore, therefore Israel becomes an immediate existential threat to all its neighbors that must be dealt with accordingly.
That’s the thing with nuclear deterrence: it works, but only if your enemies are clear on the lines they can’t cross. Otherwise you’re just a threat to be eliminated. And ultimately there’s only so much that propaganda can help with there. Israel may have convinced a majority of their citizens that genocide is good, but they can’t propagandize their enemies into believing that preemptive nuclear strikes are necessary. Netanyahu can whine about Iran’s nuclear program all he wants, none of his enemies seriously believe they are close to having nukes.
Using nuclear weapons as anything but a last resort is therefore an awful gamble that very significantly (if not entirely) weakens nuclear deterrence… All for relatively little military gain. There’s very little a nuke would do that Israel can’t do to Iran with conventional weapons. While there’s a whole lot that nukes don’t do to a prepared enemy with spread out military and command infrastructure.
Israel already claims that every one of their neighbors is an existential threat to their existence. The truth of the matter is irrelevant, as it is Israel that decides whether or not to launch Israel’s nukes. They do not have enough interceptors to indefinitely outlast Iran’s missiles and drones. Their defenses are failing to prevent direct strikes on targets in Israel, which the Israeli population are largely unaccustomed to. It is unlikely that the idea of suffering a prolonged bombardment would be popular or deemed acceptable. Iran will be hesitant to negotiate, because US and Israel have a history of attacking during negotiations.
Last time I checked, there are many small countries without nukes that are doing just fine. For decades, Israel has launched attacks on their neighbors, all while vehemently claiming that they are actually the ones being unjustly persecuted.
Nobody is debating the tactical or strategic usefulness of a nuclear strike. Possession of nukes is strategic, but their use is not. Israel has already used the equivalent of 6 nuclear bombs on Gaza. They target schools, hospitals, cultural sites, journalists, first responders, and everything else which is supposedly held sacred. They have already displayed an appetite for complete destruction.
Using nuclear weapons on population centers (Samson Option) is always unacceptable.
Israel has already shown a willingness to commit the crimes we associate with the use of a nuclear warhead (and more), and their leadership has an ever worsening victim complex. It would be tragic, but not unsurprising, if Israel launched a nuclear attack against Iran after suffering heavy bombardment from their enemies.
This is not a humanitarian or ethics question. The rules of nuclear warfare aren’t governed by morality but by game theory. From Israel’s perspective nuclear weapons are a last resort for the reasons I outlined. Their leadership and military may be genocidal, but they still have a sense of self-preservation and act somewhat rationally – which you will notice is not at all the same thing as acting morally or honestly. Using nuclear weapons is simply not a tactically rational option for them even if when their explicit goal is genocidal imperialism.
What’s scary about Trump is that none of this applies to him. He is not a rational actor and he does not have everything to lose were he to launch a nuclear strike against Iran.
Bibi and Trump are both desperate and fueled by their own selfish motivations. That being said it’s not a question of stupidity but rather of myopic self-preservation.
That’s the point, I can’t see how it would help Netanyahu with self-preservation. Going nuclear would be unpopular and ineffective as Israelis understand that their arsenal is more effective in a “will they won’t they” deterrence capacity. He wants constant war and doesn’t need nukes to get it.
Now what he might do is convince Trump to send nukes and pretend he had nothing to do with it. It’s not like Trump is hard to manipulate and Miller probably loves the idea to begin with.
Prolongs their prosecutions and distracts public opinion as well as the attention thereof. Introducing a novel geopolitical climate would insulate them further in allowing them to hedge their grips on power to the new realities they introduce and define. In this case, nuclear war. Notably, this environment would allow for institutional and private wealth to make a fortune off of the volatility in global financial markets (which is already occurring) and further consolidate both wealth and power. There seems to be a 18-19 year cycle for this type of thing (Kuznets Cycle/Swing). IMHO If this scenario occurs it’ll be sometime between March 20th-28th or May 3rd-8th.
edit: goddamnit this timeline fucking sucks
If they beat the India-Pakistan tension. Both of them have nukes and could get very desperate with a war about resources, like water.