Israel loses the 1973 war

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Israel technically does not have any nukes. They refuse to answer any questions and do not deny or acknowledge the existence of them.

Correct Israel is not a signatory of any treaty.

So technically we are only speculating they would use a nuclear bomb that may or may not exist.

What we do know is that they have a nuclear facility and refuse any inspection of the facility.

About a year ago was on a WW1 trip to Junction Station. On the other side of the hill was where Israel would have sited its nuclear warhead production facility if it had one, which it doesn't, for its non-existent deterrent. Checked out by helicopter, then plain-clothed police, finally a couple of F-15s. The map area is just a blank red. Glad we'd got clearance to go there (the station, not the mythical weapons facility).
 
Yep and the thing is I'm not even sure I disagree with India's stance on it (all from the wiki for ease).

India argues that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.

well it didn't beyond we don't Want any more people to have them

of course I also like:



India's then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said during a visit to Tokyo in 2007: "If India did not sign the NPT, it is not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognize the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment."[41]


Well yes everyone's against proliferation after they get them ;)!

Ultimately though we sanction NK because its NK is just even more of an issue that they have a nuclear capability, we don't sanction India or Pakistan.

We did sanction India and Pakistan for years over their nuclear programs.

Strangely enough India declared its first nuclear weapons test a "peaceful nuclear explosion". Think they even named it "smiling Buddha".
 

Lusitania

Donor
We did sanction India and Pakistan for years over their nuclear programs.

Strangely enough India declared its first nuclear weapons test a "peaceful nuclear explosion". Think they even named it "smiling Buddha".
Right the difference is that both Pakistan and India did conduct underground nuclear explosions which demonstrated to world they had both knowledge and capability of producing weapons.

The Israelis have never exploded a weapon. So that is why it is not a confirmed nuclear power.
 
To all those who say that Israel would have nuked Aswan, Cairo, Damascus, etc.
No way they are doing that, most of all because nuking those places wouldn't solve the problem of Big Arab Armies on their way to Tel Aviv, if anything it would make it worse as those arab armies which at first may have wanted the Sinai and Gaza are now going for full genocide.
The most probable use of nukes would be on a tactical level, which would, in fact, solve the problem of Big Arab Armies on their way to Tel Aviv. Moreso, while they would have recieved sanctions they would not get on the Fully-Destroyed-Egypt-Because-I-Didn't-Want-To-Give-Away-Gaza level of pariah.
That's another thing. Egypt and Syria didn't want to destroy Israel nor had the ability to do so in 1973. All they wanted was revenge for past defeats, and that revenge was getting the Golan and the Sinai (plus maybe Gaza) back.
 

Lusitania

Donor
To all those who say that Israel would have nuked Aswan, Cairo, Damascus, etc.
No way they are doing that, most of all because nuking those places wouldn't solve the problem of Big Arab Armies on their way to Tel Aviv, if anything it would make it worse as those arab armies which at first may have wanted the Sinai and Gaza are now going for full genocide.
The most probable use of nukes would be on a tactical level, which would, in fact, solve the problem of Big Arab Armies on their way to Tel Aviv. Moreso, while they would have recieved sanctions they would not get on the Fully-Destroyed-Egypt-Because-I-Didn't-Want-To-Give-Away-Gaza level of pariah.
That's another thing. Egypt and Syria didn't want to destroy Israel nor had the ability to do so in 1973. All they wanted was revenge for past defeats, and that revenge was getting the Golan and the Sinai (plus maybe Gaza) back.
While I agree it more likely they drop nuclear bomb on the armies rather than the cities full of civilians.

As for intentions and ability that is all conjuring and I do not believe it. For all the talk and rhetoric told the israeli that yes that was their intention.

It’s like saying the Iranians don’t mean it when they say they want to destroy Israel. It’s just talk. No at the time people believed it and that was all that is important.
 
To all those who say that Israel would have nuked Aswan, Cairo, Damascus, etc.
No way they are doing that, most of all because nuking those places wouldn't solve the problem of Big Arab Armies on their way to Tel Aviv, if anything it would make it worse as those arab armies which at first may have wanted the Sinai and Gaza are now going for full genocide.
The most probable use of nukes would be on a tactical level, which would, in fact, solve the problem of Big Arab Armies on their way to Tel Aviv. Moreso, while they would have recieved sanctions they would not get on the Fully-Destroyed-Egypt-Because-I-Didn't-Want-To-Give-Away-Gaza level of pariah.
That's another thing. Egypt and Syria didn't want to destroy Israel nor had the ability to do so in 1973. All they wanted was revenge for past defeats, and that revenge was getting the Golan and the Sinai (plus maybe Gaza) back.

I think you missed why it was called the Samson Option


Judges 16:23-31

23 The rulers of the Philistines gathered to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon their god and to celebrate. They said, “Our god has handed Samson, our enemy, over to us.”
24 When the people saw him, they praised their god, saying, “Our god has handed our enemy over to us, the one who ruined our land and killed so many of us!”
25 When they really started celebrating, they said, “Call for Samson so he can entertain us!” So they summoned Samson from the prison and he entertained them. They made him stand between two pillars.
26 Samson said to the young man who held his hand, “Position me so I can touch the pillars that support the temple. Then I can lean on them.”
27 Now the temple was filled with men and women, and all the rulers of the Philistines were there. There were three thousand men and women on the roof watching Samson entertain.
28 Samson called to the Lord, “O Master, Lord, remember me! Strengthen me just one more time, O God, so I can get swift revenge against the Philistines for my two eyes!”
29 Samson took hold of the two middle pillars that supported the temple and he leaned against them, with his right hand on one and his left hand on the other.
30 Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” He pushed hard and the temple collapsed on the rulers and all the people in it. He killed many more people in his death than he had killed during his life.
 
I think you missed why it was called the Samson Option.
I don't really think that the Samson Option would be used at first. More probably it would be a last resort movement: if those tacnukes don't convince Damascus and Cairo to stop moving into Israel then would Aswan be nuked, not before. Maybe also the rest of Arab capitals and major bases, as nuking Aswan would convert you in a stinking pile of toxic debris (in a figurative, diplomatic sense) that harldy any western power would help to get out of the fire.
But for sure they would first go with a "warning" (not much a warnig for those syrians on the Golan, but still).
 
Long-short answer: Expect Cairo, Beirut, Amman, Damascus, Baghdad, Riyadh, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, Khartoum, Rabat, Sanaa, Mascat and Aden to be nuked.
Golda Meir basically told Nixon that she would nuke 13 Arab capitals if they didn't receive military aid from the US.
 
I don't really think that the Samson Option would be used at first. More probably it would be a last resort movement: if those tacnukes don't convince Damascus and Cairo to stop moving into Israel then would Aswan be nuked, not before. Maybe also the rest of Arab capitals and major bases, as nuking Aswan would convert you in a stinking pile of toxic debris (in a figurative, diplomatic sense) that harldy any western power would help to get out of the fire.
But for sure they would first go with a "warning" (not much a warnig for those syrians on the Golan, but still).

That's exactly what it was, a final act of revenge.

If things are bad enough that using bombs for tactical use is considered on your own territory, it's likely that won't be enough to prevent an overrun, Israel just doesn't have any strategic depth. As the War started, the Syrians had a local tank superiority of over 10:1, and that was with many of the Israeli tanks being the upgraded Sherman M-51, that were 2nd best vs the T-55 and T-62 facing them. the fight at the Valley of Tears could have easily gone the other way

As for waiting to be saved by Western Forces, many of them had tattoos on their arms as a reminder on how relying on others worked 20 years before
 
Right the difference is that both Pakistan and India did conduct underground nuclear explosions which demonstrated to world they had both knowledge and capability of producing weapons.

The Israelis have never exploded a weapon. So that is why it is not a confirmed nuclear power.

Well there is the theory that the Israeli's and or the South Africans covertly tested a bomb in the Southern Atlantic at some point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_Incident
 
Just a point concerning Samson, or Israel and the rest of the world. Should the rest of the world stand by and tut-tut at the most IF the Arab armies are overrunning Israel (I agree in 1973 the odds of this are quite slim), there is yet another option for them. If you hit oil fields with gorund bursts, followed immediately by an airburst you blow all of the radioactive crap created by the ground burst back on the oil fields. Not only have you slagged areas, created fires spewing radioactive smoke, but now you have an issue with trying to put the fires out as the area is so "hot" nobody can work there without killing themselves. Wiping out, for the foreseeable future 20% or more of the world's oil supply, will definitely be pulling the temple down.

If you read the documents from the 1930s after the Nazis took over, if you read accounts written during the Holocaust, you see that most folks (jews and others) simply believed that the rhetoric about Jews (and Untermenschen) was so much overblown rhetoric and the "cultured" Germans would never go so far, that the antisemitism was just a redux of the past and would pass in time. We know what that sort of thinking led to. When the Iranian leadership says they will burn Israel out of existence. when Hamas and Hizbollah say that Jews have no right to be in Palestine, when government sponsored imams, news outlets, etc spew that sort of thing how can the Israelis do anything but take them at their word? (1)

(1) A few years ago one of the highest rated shows on Egyptian TV was a serialization based on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
 
That's exactly what it was, a final act of revenge.

If things are bad enough that using bombs for tactical use is considered on your own territory, it's likely that won't be enough to prevent an overrun, Israel just doesn't have any strategic depth. As the War started, the Syrians had a local tank superiority of over 10:1, and that was with many of the Israeli tanks being the upgraded Sherman M-51, that were 2nd best vs the T-55 and T-62 facing them. the fight at the Valley of Tears could have easily gone the other way
I get the impression that a lot of people do not fully get A) How over-the-top the Anti-Zionist rhetoric was and B) How seriously both the Israeli populace and leadership took this rhetoric.

If defeat were not seen as an existential matter but rather a loss of face and perhaps wealth/perceived status/border territory, far fewer would see the Sampson Option as anything but nuts.
 
I get the impression that a lot of people do not fully get A) How over-the-top the Anti-Zionist rhetoric was and B) How seriously both the Israeli populace and leadership took this rhetoric.

If defeat were not seen as an existential matter but rather a loss of face and perhaps wealth/perceived status/border territory, far fewer would see the Sampson Option as anything but nuts.
I insist though that in 1973 the destruction of Israel was not an option, and both Egypt and Syria knew that. At most they could get the 1967 borders, but outright occupation of all of Israel and the establisment of a Palestinian State/partition between the belligerants was not an option.
What I think ot would happen is that when the syirians break through the Golan, after some kind of warning, Israel would nuke either the syrian armies pouring in or their supply lines (but NOT Damascus nor any other city). Then international pressure would either make Israel accept 1967 borders or accept the possibility of retaliation (by the USSR obviously) if any more nuke gets used.
 
Then international pressure would either make Israel accept 1967 borders
The 1967 Border were unworkable, that why the preemptive 6 Day war occurred, and the Israelis just were not going to trust promised International agreements in the future when Arab armored Divisions had punched thru the defenses and are now unchecked.

International Agreements didn't keep the majority of Jews in the Arab States from being ethnically cleansed from 1947-1973, so why would they believe that they wouldn't be shoved into the Sea, as had been promised ever since 1948?
 
High losses and some delay were inevitable because of Israeli preparations--mines, antitank ditch, firing platforms on ground overlooking the approaching armor, obstacles which channeled attackers into kill zones.... Just to get across the ditch the Syrians needed bridging tanks, yet they were high priority targets for the defenders.

None of these necessitate delays on the order of multiple days, particularly given the weak Israelis forces covering them. Mines, obstacles, and the AT ditches could have all been dealt with by engineering units protected by covering fire and smokescreens suppressing or obscuring the firing positions.

Granted Syrian tankers weren't as competent as NATO ones. I note, though, Pollack said they "weren't bad at handling their vehicles" rating them an "8" compared to NATO "10."

Pollack says they weren’t bad at handling their vehicles by Arab standards, but if NATO’s a “10”, then they definitely were not an “8”. Probably more like a 4 compared to NATO or WarPac... or the Israelis.

Consider what happened three years earlier in a situation where both the skill and numbers were vastly more even but the equipment being used by the respective sides and their respective tactical situation were the same. In 1970, the Syrian 5th Division slammed into the Jordanian 40th Armoured Brigade near ar-Ramtha during a brief conflict between the two countries. After a day of fighting the Jordanians were forced to fall back, having lost 19 Centurions while the Syrians lost 10 T-55s.

The 40th Armoured Brigade was dug in along a defended ridgeline in a valley, just as the two Israeil brigades on the Golan were. The Jordanians did have more open flanks than the Israelis, but it didn't matter since the Syrians just plowed right into them and then launched a series of blunt frontal attacks rather than attempting to flank (notably, the Jordanians also didn't try to take advantage of the Syrian open flanks either). The Jordanians also didn't have to worry about fighting at night as the Israelis did (the Syrians had better night vision than either the Jordanians or the Israelis) since they retreated after a single day.

Likewise the accounts of Syrian handling of their vehicles at the Golan do not paint a picture of decent handling. The Syrians just blundered forward in a straight line until the Israelis killed them. There was no use of stalking, no use of fire and maneuver, and only little use of marching fire. Syrian Artillery, although hugely outnumbering and outshooting their Israelis opponents, mostly didn’t adjust their fire on the frontline (although they did in their counter-battery role, so this was likely a breakdown in coordination) and kept hitting the same positions over and over. As I already alluded too, there were no use of concealment (even artificial ones like smokescreens). I’ve even read accounts of several Syrian tanks driving straight into the anti-tank ditch!

By Arab standards, the Syrians were okay. By WarPac, NATO, or Israelis standards, they were gros incompetents.

:) It's my understanding, based on what I've read, that Syrian SAM deployment sufficed to cover the whole Golan even before the war started. Assuming the Syrians sought to take just the Golan, it should've been adequate where it was.

But the Syrian plan wasn’t to stop at the Golan. They weren’t going for a measured and scripted advance as the Egyptians were. They were aiming for a breakthrough-exploitation into Israel’s heartland. Had they intended to just seize the Golan as the Egyptians did the Suez, they would have mimicked the Egyptians meticulous planning, scripting, and rehearsel. Instead, what they did basically amounted to a mechanized wave attack. What’s more, the Syrian AD net didn’t adapt even as the Israelis did and hence was eventually neutralized. Almost ten years later, in ‘82, they still hadn’t evolved their AD tactics... and got soundly thumped as a result.

In light of bitter experience before October 1973, the Syrian (and Egyptian) decision to hold their MIGs back, mostly, is understandable. Syrian MIGs almost never fared well in air to air combat. This had been demonstrated a number of times even before the clash of September 1973, which cost the SAF around 12 MIGs whereas Israel lost a single Mirage.

That just illustrates my point. The Arab defects in ‘73 were the same as in the previous wars and they paid for it. The Egyptians came up with some measures to mitigate it, even those proved temporary.

The chronic weakness of the arab interceptor arm--for which inferior Soviet equipment was at least partly responsible--explains the arabs's great investment in ground based AD. Rather wisely, I think, fighters were committed (en masse) only as a last resort.

“Inferior” Soviet equipment, which wasn’t remotely inferior, bears no responsibility at all, as can be seen by the fact that Arab states have suffered just as badly when flying Western aircraft. Vietnamese flying the same MiG-21s against the Americans over North Vietnam scored almost 1:1 against the same F-4s the Israelis were flying for most of the Vietnam War.

It is a poor user who blames their tools and the historical rule, proven over and over in every major air war, has been that skill decides with technology only tipping the scales when all else is equal.
 
Last edited:
We did sanction India and Pakistan for years over their nuclear programs.


Kind of, but there are sanctions and there are sanctions, most of the sanctions on India were about aid and certain military materials, and most of them lasted 6 months, and the last of them were removed 3 years later after we looked to tie ourselves more closely in alliance

The sanctions were symbolic as much as practical, the officials said. Lifting them now would remove a significant irritant to closer ties. But it would also signal that the United States -- after being surprised and chagrined by India's nuclear test three years ago -- had little choice but to accept that India, the second most populous nation, had elbowed its way into the nuclear club.

Says it all really!

Pakistan's were lifted at the same time*. And it's not like they weren't getting lots of aid and closer ties from us pretty soon either!

So yeah better to ask forgiveness than permission.


Recently there have been some company targeted sanctions against a few Pakistani companies, but that's over Pakistan wanting to get in on being part of the NSG

i.e. Pakistan didn't have to resort to "eating grass"



Strangely enough India declared its first nuclear weapons test a "peaceful nuclear explosion". Think they even named it "smiling Buddha".

They did, but they were selling it all as defensive only, same with boths avowed no first strike policy
 
Last edited:
Right the difference is that both Pakistan and India did conduct underground nuclear explosions which demonstrated to world they had both knowledge and capability of producing weapons.

The Israelis have never exploded a weapon. So that is why it is not a confirmed nuclear power.

Yep, letting one off was always the traditional way of announcing it, simply because there's no faking it, hiding or denying it after that
 
Last edited:
I get the impression that a lot of people do not fully get A) How over-the-top the Anti-Zionist rhetoric was and B) How seriously both the Israeli populace and leadership took this rhetoric.

If defeat were not seen as an existential matter but rather a loss of face and perhaps wealth/perceived status/border territory, far fewer would see the Sampson Option as anything but nuts.

This is true, but of course there was rhetoric (and actions) on both sides feeding off each other.

Either way your right and even if it wasn't actually physically possible for victorious Syrian and Egyptian armies to drive Israel (and it's population) "into the sea", are we really expecting the Israelis to trust in that once in that situation with no ability to do anything?
 

Lusitania

Donor
This is true, but of course there was rhetoric (and actions) on both sides feeding off each other.

Either way your right and even if it wasn't actually physically possible for victorious Syrian and Egyptian armies to drive Israel (and it's population) "into the sea", are we really expecting the Israelis to trust in that once in that situation with no ability to do anything?
Also if the Israeli army was defeated could the Syrian or Egyptian military command control the soldiers who in heat of battle and heightened emotional state not carry out massacres or that Palestinians in the refugee camps around Israel not drive to the Israeli border to extract their revenge.
 
Top