Could Israel win a Prolonged War?

The Samson Option, which it will use in this kind of situation, *is* glassing the region.

Except I clearly stated that I very much doubt Israel will use the Sampson Option as we know it without first using tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield, accompanied by chemical weapons, which will almost certainly stop any invasion. The Sampson Option comes if there is absolutely no other way.
 
Except I clearly stated that I very much doubt Israel will use the Sampson Option as we know it without first using tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield, accompanied by chemical weapons, which will almost certainly stop any invasion. The Sampson Option comes if there is absolutely no other way.

Tactical nukes are a fairy tale, there's only strategic use of them.
 
You could almost call the period 1967-73 a prolonged war, there was the 6 Day war, the 3 year War of Attrition and then the Yom Kippur War. I think this would be typical of how Israel would fight another prolonged war; large offensives to give a good position for prolonged, efficient defensive fighting then another cataclysmic battle with more crushing offensives. This was how Germany managed to fight 2 world wars against superior opposition.

If the shit really hit the fan Israel could turn up the heat by forcing out the refugees to secure it`s conquests more effectively.

There would be no requirement to glass anybody unless they were nuked first.
 
But now that is still different then "Samson option". A "Strategic" nukeing of an armored division is not the same as leveling every major Arab city.

The purposes of having nuclear weapons and going to extreme efforts to preserve a monopoly on them is so that they're there but never used.
 
You could almost call the period 1967-73 a prolonged war, there was the 6 Day war, the 3 year War of Attrition and then the Yom Kippur War. I think this would be typical of how Israel would fight another prolonged war; large offensives to give a good position for prolonged, efficient defensive fighting then another cataclysmic battle with more crushing offensives. This was how Germany managed to fight 2 world wars against superior opposition.

If the shit really hit the fan Israel could turn up the heat by forcing out the refugees to secure it`s conquests more effectively.

There would be no requirement to glass anybody unless they were nuked first.

Didn't German lose both world wars by those methods? That hardly recommends them.
 
The purposes of having nuclear weapons and going to extreme efforts to preserve a monopoly on them is so that they're there but never used.

Now I'm confused, how does that connect to your conclusion that in a scenario of Israel vs. All the Arab nations, Israel will glass the region?
 
Tactical nukes are a fairy tale, there's only strategic use of them.

There's a difference in the size and power between tactical warheads and strategic ones. As stated previously, if Israel limits itself to tactical warheads against enemy concentrations, it will lessen the upcoming heavy damage Israel's international standing.
 
There's a difference in the size and power between tactical warheads and strategic ones. As stated previously, if Israel limits itself to tactical warheads against enemy concentrations, it will lessen the upcoming heavy damage Israel's international standing.

It's not the size, it's how you use it.

Using a "tactical" nuclear weapon on the Aswan dam is not as using a "strategic" one on an army group.
 
Now I'm confused, how does that connect to your conclusion that in a scenario of Israel vs. All the Arab nations, Israel will glass the region?

Well, we tend to be speaking about two different things. My statements reference a Cold War-era prolonged conventional war, the one about glassing the entire region refers to the Samson Option, which the Israelis *will* react to things with partially because there's no psychological preparation in their society to lose wars to Arab armies.

There's a difference in the size and power between tactical warheads and strategic ones. As stated previously, if Israel limits itself to tactical warheads against enemy concentrations, it will lessen the upcoming heavy damage Israel's international standing.

A statement made without the least concern for the ramifications of a nuclear war here regardless of how the particular bombs in questions are employed.

It's not the size, it's how you use it.

Using a "tactical" nuclear weapon on the Aswan dam is not as using a "strategic" one on an army group.

Use them at all and Israel forfeits any international friendship it ever had.
 
As stated previously, Israel can still sustain viable international trade, and it's pariah status will wear off eventually.

This debate has gone from a question on whether or not Israel can survive a prolonged war to a debate on how isolated Israel will be if it used nukes. The side that said Israel couldn't survived seems to have conceded defeat, because Israel can survive with it's nuclear and chemical weapons, and gone on to how isolated Israel would be in that case.

I myself don't doubt that Israel would be isolated, but my argument is that Israel could survive that isolation.
 
My statements reference a Cold War-era prolonged conventional war, the one about glassing the entire region refers to the Samson Option, which the Israelis *will* react to things with partially because there's no psychological preparation in their society to lose wars to Arab armies.

But if you use a nuclear weapon (or several) on your enemy's armies, you don't need to use it on his cities (NOTE:, even if all your cities are nuked, you don't need to retaliate, you want to). I just don't see a reason for Israel to nuke Arab cities. How exactly do you see that happenning in this scenario (Israel attacked by an Arab coalition, uses it's army and tactical nukes to win the war)?
What is the reason to glass cities?
 
Israel couldn't win a war, but neither could the Arabs.

Frankly, I am not sure if there is a country on Earth that could win a prolonged high-intensity war between powerful nations. A country would go bankrupt very quickly under such a scenario with how much weapons systems and ammunition cost these days.
 
As stated previously, Israel can still sustain viable international trade, and it's pariah status will wear off eventually.

This debate has gone from a question on whether or not Israel can survive a prolonged war to a debate on how isolated Israel will be if it used nukes. The side that said Israel couldn't survived seems to have conceded defeat, because Israel can survive with it's nuclear and chemical weapons, and gone on to how isolated Israel would be in that case.

I myself don't doubt that Israel would be isolated, but my argument is that Israel could survive that isolation.

My argument is that it's really not going to be able to last without the subsidies and the like from outside, the moreso when it's nuked its neighbors to green glass.

But if you use a nuclear weapon (or several) on your enemy's armies, you don't need to use it on his cities (NOTE:, even if all your cities are nuked, you don't need to retaliate, you want to). I just don't see a reason for Israel to nuke Arab cities. How exactly do you see that happenning in this scenario (Israel attacked by an Arab coalition, uses it's army and tactical nukes to win the war)?
What is the reason to glass cities?

Overreaction to defeat.
 
Israel is only likely to use nuclear weapons as a last resort, that is it's facing imminent destruction. If in that situation it used them tactically; that is against enemy military formations then it's likely it would be dropping bombs on or very close to its territory. Depending how many bombs are used and exactly where the enemy armies are the collateral effects might not be much better for Israel than a conventional defeat.
If it uses them against strategic targets behind the armies, be it military facilities or cities then those armies are likely to plunge on into Israel, angry and vengeful, with fairly obvious dire consequences.
Essentially the only useful roles for the Israeli nuclear arsenal are deterrence to any conventional attack or first strike in the event they know such an attack is coming, the latter probably guaranteeing a long term terrorist campaign against Israel that dwarfs OTL.
 

Spengler

Banned
Israel couldn't win a war, but neither could the Arabs.

Frankly, I am not sure if there is a country on Earth that could win a prolonged high-intensity war between powerful nations. A country would go bankrupt very quickly under such a scenario with how much weapons systems and ammunition cost these days.
You know several people argued the exact same thing, before world war 1.
 
Top