WI- Yom Kippur war crushes Israel

Would the Soviets nuke Israel if it meant the possibility they could be on the receiving end themselves?

The Israelis wouldn't have F-16s at this point (which could one-way it to Moscow), but they might be able to hit closer Soviet targets.

No way the Soviets would have escalated the conflict by nuking Israel itself. The political and diplomatic consequences would have been disastrous. Militarily the U.S. nuclear forces were already at a hair trigger. A Soviet nuclear response would have too easily tipped over into a general nuclear exchange, and that was the last thing anyone wanted, even in 1973.
 

abc123

Banned
That's fascinating propaganda material, but the lands they were defending where only conquered 3 years ago in a surprise attack and were internationally recognized as part of Syria and Egypt.

As an aside I find the whole mention of nukes being used in conjunction with about half the Israel threads I've seen amusing; if the Israeli were that likely to push the big red button, you can bet there would be endless pressure from the soviets, France and the US to disarm them, and it's quite unlikely they'd have been let to have a nuclear weapons program to this day. Especially if "we're about to lose territory we conquered after declaring war for no particular reason on half the arab world" is their reason to try their hand at becoming one of the most bloodthirsty nations of the 20th century. Any idea that the Syrian-Egyptian attack was intended to somehow "slaughter the Israelis" is ridiculous beyond measure and implies a view of the arab republics that's barely a step up from the moustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash-esque cartoon villain.

If Israel did react this way to your scenario, the rift it would have caused between Israel and the west would probably have been impossible to repair; better to throw those idiots to the wolves than risk WW3 over their asses, especially when Iran is at least stable. Israel's best bet in that scenario would have been regime change and probably temporary occupation and neutralization à la West Germany or Japan.


Fully agreed.
;)
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Would the Soviets nuke Israel if it meant the possibility they could be on the receiving end themselves?

The Israelis wouldn't have F-16s at this point (which could one-way it to Moscow), but they might be able to hit closer Soviet targets.

Israel... tiny country, 3 million people at the time; 20 nukes at best, vs the world's second superpower. There is not going to be nuclear escalation because it would be insanity; if it happens and NATO somehow doesn't decide to throw them to the dogs for this is the only way they even stand a chance and that means we've got an escalated nuclear war, which won't happen. The only country in this scenario that might throw the nukes first is Israel and doing it is not conducive to an independent Israel past 1975.
 
At this point in time the mainstay fighter of the Israeli Air Force was the American F-4 Phantom II. The F-15 and the F-16 were nearing the prototype stage and would not be operational for years. The Mainstay fighter of the Soviet Union was the Mig 21. Although the Mig 23 and 25 were being developed.
 
Israel... tiny country, 3 million people at the time; 20 nukes at best, vs the world's second superpower. There is not going to be nuclear escalation because it would be insanity; if it happens and NATO somehow doesn't decide to throw them to the dogs for this is the only way they even stand a chance and that means we've got an escalated nuclear war, which won't happen. The only country in this scenario that might throw the nukes first is Israel and doing it is not conducive to an independent Israel past 1975.

In this scenario, the world's second superpower pulls the trigger first. What do the Israelis have to lose? They're all dead in 20 minutes anyway.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
In this scenario, the world's second superpower pulls the trigger first. What do the Israelis have to lose? They're all dead in 20 minutes anyway.

There is no way in hell the Soviet Union is going to do a nuclear first strike, ever; it would have been laughed off by the general staff if it came from the secretary general (which it was at least once under Krushchev IIRC, although he was drunk) and it would have led to the gulag or, worse, a quick meeting with a firing squad for anyone less than the secretary general who would have suggested it.

The only way nukes are going to fly in this scenario is if Israeli leadership loses its nerve and doesn't listen to NATO.
 
There is no way in hell the Soviet Union is going to do a nuclear first strike, ever; it would have been laughed off by the general staff if it came from the secretary general (which it was at least once under Krushchev IIRC, although he was drunk) and it would have led to the gulag or, worse, a quick meeting with a firing squad for anyone less than the secretary general who would have suggested it.

Why are you so certain of this?
 
I heard from some people I new in the IDF at that time that the Call Masada has fallen was sent out at less once over the radio and then less then 5 min's later it was sent over the radio Masada has not fallen `. The Battle on the Goldina Hights was a very close thing. I heard that some of the 7th Brig actual Brock and ran .
 
There is no way in hell the Soviet Union is going to do a nuclear first strike, ever; it would have been laughed off by the general staff if it came from the secretary general (which it was at least once under Krushchev IIRC, although he was drunk) and it would have led to the gulag or, worse, a quick meeting with a firing squad for anyone less than the secretary general who would have suggested it.

The only way nukes are going to fly in this scenario is if Israeli leadership loses its nerve and doesn't listen to NATO.

Hitting Arab Cities, ala the Samson Option would certainly qualify as "Israel doesn't listen to NATO". Tactical nuclear weapons would be very bad and lead to intense pressure to end the fighting immediately, which would suffice.

If Israel decides to launch a massive nuclear strike to kill as many Arabs as possible, I think the Soviets have little choice but to stop them however they can. Given the circumstances of what has happened, NATO can't support Israel's massive carnage, which is how the crisis would end.

But the Soviet Angle is more of a matter for the Israelis to keep in mind--they can't send everyone to hell because they'll get taken for that ride as well. I agree that Israel can panic, but the idea that Israel would dare attack in such a way as to demand a nuclear reprisal sounds doubly insane.

There is still hell to pay with Israel even deciding to use nukes as battlefield weapons, but the results are likely to mean that the Soviets and the Americans are likely to be more cautious in their dealings with each other...
 
I've read, with a grain of salt, that Israel was a keen as mustard to get a nuke phantom to Moscow on a one way mission as a goal of the Sampson option. They wanted to hold the Ardas' benefactor to ransom as the final garuntee.
 
I've read, with a grain of salt, that Israel was a keen as mustard to get a nuke phantom to Moscow on a one way mission as a goal of the Sampson option. They wanted to hold the Ardas' benefactor to ransom as the final garuntee.

I've read this in several sources as well; it looks like they actually planned on it. Sounds just cocky and not-thought-out enough for the Israelis to actually attempt.

"Yeah, so, use your tactical support/air superiority training to fly your one (1) fighter through the largest integrated air defense system on earth. Your target has the highest AAA density on the planet, but it's cool, you'll get there hours after they know you're in a nuclear war with them."
 
I've read, with a grain of salt, that Israel was a keen as mustard to get a nuke phantom to Moscow on a one way mission as a goal of the Sampson option. They wanted to hold the Ardas' benefactor to ransom as the final garuntee.

This would partly explain their wish to develop true long range ballistic missiles (Jericho II+III).
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I've read this in several sources as well; it looks like they actually planned on it. Sounds just cocky and not-thought-out enough for the Israelis to actually attempt.

"Yeah, so, use your tactical support/air superiority training to fly your one (1) fighter through the largest integrated air defense system on earth. Your target has the highest AAA density on the planet, but it's cool, you'll get there hours after they know you're in a nuclear war with them."

Sounds like a Red Mage plan "so absurd it has no chance of failure".
 
Well, to try to take this forward, say we assume that, say, King Hussein of Jordan doesn't make his final attempt to warn the Israelis on the 25th of September, so they don't listen to the final warning they received on October the 5th, and so don't start mobilising.

This leads to heavier initial losses, and that, combined with their complete failure to correctly predict the Arab invasion leads them to panic, and to go nuclear.

Now, I strongly doubt that the Israelis are desperate enough to make strategic strikes, but lets say they make tactical strikes on the rear of both the Syrian and Egyptian forces, followed up by immediate counter-attacks on the front lines.

What happens next?

I very strongly doubt that the Soviets will retaliate on behalf of their clients, although they will have to so something to retain credibility. The threat to supply nuclear weapons to Egypt may well be made, and is likely to be decisive one way or the other.

The oil embargo will become absolute and the price of oil will shoot up even more than iOTL.

This will be very damaging to NATO. I expect the UK and France to completely disown Israel, and put significant pressure on the US to do the same. They have no interest in being annihilated thanks to what they see as a rogue US client..
 
Would the Soviets nuke Israel if it meant the possibility they could be on the receiving end themselves?

The Israelis wouldn't have F-16s at this point (which could one-way it to Moscow), but they might be able to hit closer Soviet targets.

Why are you so certain of this?

As has been stated, only if Israel nuked them first. Because the idea that Moscow (and Russians in general) really give half a damn about what happens to Arabs is quite baffling. They’d (rightfully) call the Israeli government an insane and genocidel one assume Israel nuked the Arab states, whilst energetically pointing out it’s close links to the USA/puppet status maybe dropping hints that the nukes were US made and Washington greenlighted the whole thing. Also anti-Soviet agi-prop aside the U.S.S.R wouldnt launch a first-strike on Israel for teh evulz.

So if Israel commits suicide by nuking Baku or Tbilisi, thier whole country burns and the wasteland is turned over to the Palestinians. The USA wont do jack-shit beyond rhetoric, as the Soviets would be incandescent with rage and couldnt be pushed any further.
 
Last edited:
I would have though that was reason to discount it as nonsense, along with the rest of the ‘Samson Option’.

Well, yes, but so does throwing your entire airforce at a numerically superior enemy without holding back a reserve. Between 1967 and 1973 the Israeli military leadership- by their own post '73 admission- had a serious case of victory disease, and in their defense, insanely risky gambles had done nothing but pay off for them to that point.

Furthermore, considering the personality-driven nature of Israeli decision making, some pretty crazy ideas could get floated and gain a lot of traction, and a lot of claims could get made and policies be set that were the ideas of just one or two people.

Take a look at the 1973 war declassified war room documents- Ha'aretz has a few good summaries. Moshe Dayan's swings between smug confidence and histrionic panic are kind of amazing. The "sampson option" is an illogical policy that would lead only to national suicide for Israel, but who knows what kind of decisions could have been made in a pressure-cooker room in Tel Aviv....
 
Top