Snake Featherston
Banned
YOu know several people argued the exact same thing, before world war 1.
Arguably, however, they were actually quite right.
YOu know several people argued the exact same thing, before world war 1.
They were wrong in the sense they assumed nations would actually come to such a conclusion. Of course many also expected their countries workers movements to prevent a war. Now its assumed the bankers will prevent such a war.Arguably, however, they were actually quite right.
Okay back on topic, Peter how would Israel survive a world wide embargo from nations pissed off that it probably closed the Suez canal and nuked the oil fields? Lets not forget those biological weapons you mentioned, the thing about bio weapons is that you can't control the diseases spread, it will hit the rest of the world and its not like the rest of the world will just forgive Israel for that.
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.
I clearly stated that Israel would likely NOT just randomly glass the entire region. It would deploy low-yield tactical warheads against Arab military formations at it's borders. That would devastate only a limited area. Israel is not going to glass the region unless it absolutely has to.
Israel only has a limited area to start with, and how many weapons are going to have to be used? If the attackers are coming in from all the land borders that could mean a lot of weapons and what exactly happens to all the Israeli forces still fighting the conventional battle? Not to mention you seem to assume that if Israel destroys the front line formations the Arabs will give up but since they would have to have known the risk of retaliation to begin with why would that be so?
More likely the Arabs would try to punch spearheads far enough into Israel so that if nuclear weapons are used its a pyrrhic victory for Israel.
But once those spearheads approach Israeli borders, they'll be bogged down in fierce fighting. If they begin pushing the IDF back, they won't get far before the nukes fly. And like I said before, the weapons Israel uses will likely be low-kiloton, so there is a very limited area of damage.
They were wrong in the sense they assumed nations would actually come to such a conclusion. Of course many also expected their countries workers movements to prevent a war. Now its assumed the bankers will prevent such a war.
Okay back on topic, Peter how would Israel survive a world wide embargo from nations pissed off that it probably closed the Suez canal and nuked the oil fields? Lets not forget those biological weapons you mentioned, the thing about bio weapons is that you can't control the diseases spread, it will hit the rest of the world and its not like the rest of the world will just forgive Israel for that.
Didn't I say before that Israel would probably nuke only military formations rather than glass the region?
So essentially you are going to vaporize the IDF in these strikes? Basic point you seem to be missing; if the Arab nations have attacked knowing the Israelis have nuclear weapons then you have to assume they have decided this is a war to the end and allowed for the prospect of nuclear strikes; in those conditions I don't see a few tactical nukes stopping them.
You know several people argued the exact same thing, before world war 1.
That doesn't matter a hill of beans here. If Israel's getting walloped in a conventional war, it would need so many nukes that any gap between strategic and tactical deployment disappears.
Overreaction to defeat.
Who is going to wallop Israel in a conventional, stand-up war?
But the scenario is Israel using small nuclear weapons (say, 155/175mm nuclear arty shells) against army groups, that is not defeat, that is winning, and in this scenario there is no reason to nuke cities.
Back on topic, I think many here overestimate the power of a coalition of the Areab nations, and the importence of nuclear weapons, and underestimate the size of Israel.
Israel is not so tiny that it will hit itself in a case of using nuclear weapons in any situation. Especially if were talking small nukes here. However, it's borders allow it to use it's armed forces to great effect, while Arab forces could not bring thier full numbers to bear at the same time. We saw this in 1973, when on the Syrian front division after division were sent to fight against two armor brigades (7th and 188th), when the focus was on just one (188th). By the time Israeli reservists got to the front lines, the Syrian army was not in a shape to achieve any of it's goals. Thats how Israel punched through in the end and sent a few arty shells at Damascus.
In post #17 i've explained why IMO Israel has the ability to win without the use of nuclear weapons. And since the thread is about a prolonged war, I think we should discuss something other then rocks fall everyone dies.
I disagree. The Israelis and Arabs IOTL were prepared to fight wars where the superpowers both saved them from their own actions/mistakes. Without the superpowers Israel has far less room to afford a prolonged war and like the Germans would have to do far more than it could actually do to defeat an Arab coalition. Israel has as much chance of defeating the Arab coalition in a general, prolonged war as Napoleon did with Russia.
The Arab states. As unlike in the OTL wars they won't expect the USSR to bail them out whenever the going gets rough, which means past a certain point the iron law of attrition begins favoring them and producing a compounding set of disasters for the Israelis.
The scenario did not say both sides have no support from the US/Russia, only that neither puts pressure to stop the fighting. So the sale of US/NATO equipment to Israel, and Russian made to the Arabs is still OK.
If the US and Russia do not sell weapons also, Israel is actually in a far better place in 1967 and especially in 1973. Not to mention in the present day. In both 1967 and 1973 the Arab armies lost so much equipment I can't realy see how they could keep fighting any longer with no soviet aid.
Israel cannot make more jets, so it means in 1973 a little less ground support (102 out of ~400 combat jets shot down), but the IAF wasn't realy good at that in 1973 onwards. In 1967 it got a lot of glory for destroying convoys that were stuck in massive traffic jams in the desert. In 1973 most of the fighting was done without air support, especially on the Egyptian front, after on the second day IIRC, when operation Dogman 5 was cancealed, and most air assets were relocated to the Syrian front.
But Israel can repair tanks. In 1967 and especially 1973 you can see a lot of captured tanks being taken, fixed up and on the Israeli side pretty quickly had the wars dragged on. Hell, IIRC, during the cold war Israel was the largest holder of soviet made weaponry outside of Russia.
Now if the Arab armies loose so much aircraft and tanks, without the ability to purchase more, how can they keep fighting?
The iron laws of attrition favour Israel since the Isrealis have more high velocity steel fragments than the Arabs have men. Arab attempts to kill large numbers of Israelis will be mostly unsuccesful whereas the Israelis will be able to slaughter Arabs is sickening numbers.
Then the scenario is self-contradicting as the superpowers never wanted such a scenario to unfold in the first place, so it cannot happen on its own terms. If the superpowers direct both sides, the moment anything tilts strongly in the favor of one or the other the other superpower will scream, whine, and pitch a fit to bring everything to an end.
On the contrary, in a scenario like I'm describing Israel *also* doesn't have an infinite free logistics from US military subsidies making up for *its* losses. As I said we don't know how such a war unfolds, but an over-mobilized Israel is not going to be a very happy Israel if the war lasts long enough for that mobilization to start cutting into its abilities to produce and sustain said steel rain. By comparison the Arabs can afford sickening losses where a much smaller rate of losses is far more crippling to the Israelis. The Arabs tended to also rely a bit too much on the USSR saving them from themselves in military terms as well as on freebie logistics, for there to be a prolonged war you need in Iran-Iraq fashion for neither superpower to be involved.
I agree, but the OP asks if Israel and the Arabs can keep up a fight for longer periods then IOTL. I believe that it is ASB, for exactly the reason you mention, but we are talking about what if?..
I disagree, as I've mentioned earlier, if the Arabs can't get any outside help either, the only advantage they have is numbers. That's not going to help against an army that still has tanks and aircraft. Even if such a scenario will end like Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, with massive human wave attacks, it's not going to help them very much. I believe the opposite, it's the Arabs who can't afford the losses.
In 1967 Arab loses in men were ~27 times those of Israel, in 1973 *only* 10 to 1. If those wars continue, it doesn't look well for the Arabs, considering they only had 2 to 1 advantage in 1967, and a little less then 2 to 1 in 1973.
Iran might disagree with that, given that said human wave tactics were one reason that it spent the bulk of that war fighting on Iraqi soil *despite* Iraq having infinite freebie logistics.........
That being said, without the superpowers the Arabs have no choice but to change their own approaches. Being sloppy was a bit easier to pull when they had the USSR to replace all their losses and shield them from their own mistakes. Without that, if nothing else the fear that another 1948 would produce another round of coups will force the regimes to make actual improvements and plans for a long-term war. Of course how they do with executing those plans.......
Fair point, but Israel in 1967/1973 is not exactly Iraq.
The question is, even if the Arabs get their act together, can they set up an arms indusrty like the USSR in WW2? Will it be enough? I have to say, without Israel *going full retard*, I can't see the Arabs achieving a military victory.