WI: Yom Kippur War turns nuclear?

Don Grey

Banned
Wouldn't Israel use it's nukes tactically instead of just simple trying to destroy the capitals/major cities of all of those who oppose it?

But this scenaro is one where the israeli army fail to hold there ground and israel is about to fall to ennemy occupation. In such scenario israel has the policie of destroy the attackng nations with nukes. So they cant use it tacticaly.The scenario is one of annihilation.
 
I'm pretty sure even just limiting the deployment of nukes to the destruction of the armies arrayed against them would piss a lot of people off the world over.

But if the situation becomes bad enough that Israel has to deploy nukes, I doubt Israel is going to exist as a nation for much longer no matter what.

Anyways. If they just use them tactically against the armies . . . World mainly has a "Fuck you." attitude for however long Israel manages to last.

If they actually nuked as many capitals/population centers as they could as a final "Fuck you." to the arabs?

I'm pretty sure anti-semitism would come back with one hell of a meteoric rise.
 
[btw, I didn't read the above-two posts before finishing with mine, hence, repetition and redundancy and saying things more than once]


That makes much more sense. Their goal is to destroy enemy armies, not turn the world against them.


I think the alleged "Samson Option" would be, if all is lost, take the pricks who did it with you.


The Jews (what remains of them in the area, plus diaspora) would not exactly be swimming in regret, since, after all, another three million Jews (approximate based on 1973 info) just got slaughtered presuming the ultimate anti-Israel military goal was obliteration. (The Egyptian approach, iirc, seemed to be to grab the canal and hang on; the Syrians were poised to come down the heights and into the populated coastal plain area, and I don't think they wanted to dance.)



here's a quote from the Wikipedia Sampson Option article linked above,

In 2003, Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at Israel’s Hebrew University, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[19]

Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's "The Gun and the Olive Branch" (2003) as saying "I consider it all hopeless at this point. ... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under." He quoted General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."



Fwiw, this Van Creveld fellow is interesting... If you didn't like what he said above, groove on this:


In 2005, van Creveld made headlines when he said in an interview that the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them", a reference to the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, (which actually took place in AD 9). His analysis included harsh criticism of the Bush Administration, comparing the war to the Vietnam war. Moreover, he said that "Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial." [6]


(Incoming personal opinion, three, two, one...) My gracious, I could not have said that better myself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


on a personal note, I would most likely be without a father before my 2nd birthday. my parents moved to the US in 1969, and, my father went to Israel to serve in the 1973 war. In otl, he came back in one piece, and, in 1976, my younger brother joined our family too. In ttl, I'd be most likely an only child and with one surviving parent. (This is presuming my mother wouldn't remarry, and, for me, that's an uncomfortable line of speculation.)
 
Last edited:
Top