The main problem I have with Israel, is that they are not permitted to retaliate the way they want to. We always stop them just as they are starting to win...
The main problem I have with Israel, is that they are not permitted to retaliate the way they want to. We always stop them just as they are starting to win...
I'd be okay with allowing them to retaliate in whatever manner they see fit, with the condition that if they lose the advantage we don't do a damn thing.
I agree. And it would make for good studying @ West Point...Btw, have you ever heard of the Samson Option?
Nope (just looked it up) so the gist of it is, they'll blow up the world if looks like they're gonna lose.... Yea who are the terrorists again?
Well, they had their finger on the button. It was that close. This is a quote from wikipedia:
In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador warned President Nixon of “very serious conclusions" if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied. This is seen by some commentators on the subject as the first threat of the use of the Samson Option.
We shouldn't have airlifted supplies. We should have let the Israelis use the Samson Option.
Edit: My personal opinion only.
In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador warned President Nixon of “very serious conclusions" if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied. This is seen by some commentators on the subject as the first threat of the use of the Samson Option.
We shouldn't have airlifted supplies. We should have let the Israelis use the Samson Option.
Edit: My personal opinion only.
Last edited:
sounds like the we learned our lesson after the 1967 USS Liberty Incident. Perhaps we should start sending our presidents to hostage negotiator school.
The more I learn about our "alliance" with Israel, the more I begin to sympathize with...well never mind....
While a huge part of me agrees another part fears what would come from allowing that to happen. Say Israel did it but it didn't have the effect they thought it would, how bad would the backlash be? As in how long would it take for Iran, Russia, china & North Korea to start targeting & launching at strategic targets possibly even in America? How fast would the radical Islamic movement flourish after or would it? How bad would our military be damaged from a war of this extent? Would it render us soft enough for a invasion from an enemy?
The thought of how far & bad this could go if the wrong moves are made by ANY side is kinda scary. And the fact that we are watching them in a proverbial pissing match with stakes like this is unsettling.
That was about 1/2 of their arsenal @ the time. 2ndary targets would have been sanitized, if need be. We were preparing to deliver a 3rd, 4th, and 5th nuclear strike on Japan when they surrendered. Also, little is known about Truman's prep to nuke N. Korea. A little research on the net here:
With Truman’s signoff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered A-bomb retaliation if large numbers of fresh Chinese troops entered the fight. In the end, the U.S. military repelled the Chinese push and the weapons were never used. But Pentagon planners retained the option.
In September and October 1951, Air Force B-29 bombers conducted simulated atomic-bombing runs against Pyongyang, dropping dummy weapons on the North Korean capital, according to a newly obtained Army planning document corroborating earlier disclosures.
By early 1953, the U.S., frustrated by stalled armistice talks, pondered launching a new offensive against the north Koreans and Chinese. The Pentagon’s Air Staff recommended using A-bombs to achieve victory “in the shortest space of time,” according to a Feb. 20, 1953, memo from the Air Force director of plans, Maj. Gen. Robert Lee.
Added a top-secret CIA Special Estimate, “The Communists would recognize the employment of these weapons as indicative of Western determination to carry the Korean war to a successful conclusion.”
Then, in a series of memos in May, June and July 1953, Air Force generals reported progress in planning an “atomic offensive” to “destroy effective Communist military power in Korea” if the armistice talks broke down completely.
On July 27, 1953, an armistice was signed. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower would later credit the nuclear threat - conveyed through back channels to Beijing - for pressuring the Chinese into an agreement.
I've read about this before, including how many nukes had been moved to the peninsula, and were readied. Despite what history says about Truman not willing to nuke N. Korea...
With Truman’s signoff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered A-bomb retaliation if large numbers of fresh Chinese troops entered the fight. In the end, the U.S. military repelled the Chinese push and the weapons were never used. But Pentagon planners retained the option.
In September and October 1951, Air Force B-29 bombers conducted simulated atomic-bombing runs against Pyongyang, dropping dummy weapons on the North Korean capital, according to a newly obtained Army planning document corroborating earlier disclosures.
By early 1953, the U.S., frustrated by stalled armistice talks, pondered launching a new offensive against the north Koreans and Chinese. The Pentagon’s Air Staff recommended using A-bombs to achieve victory “in the shortest space of time,” according to a Feb. 20, 1953, memo from the Air Force director of plans, Maj. Gen. Robert Lee.
Added a top-secret CIA Special Estimate, “The Communists would recognize the employment of these weapons as indicative of Western determination to carry the Korean war to a successful conclusion.”
Then, in a series of memos in May, June and July 1953, Air Force generals reported progress in planning an “atomic offensive” to “destroy effective Communist military power in Korea” if the armistice talks broke down completely.
On July 27, 1953, an armistice was signed. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower would later credit the nuclear threat - conveyed through back channels to Beijing - for pressuring the Chinese into an agreement.
I've read about this before, including how many nukes had been moved to the peninsula, and were readied. Despite what history says about Truman not willing to nuke N. Korea...
Being an armchair General, I suspect someone is going to nuke someone - sooner than later. And not necessarily where most would expect. I'm thinking more along the lines of Pakistan cutting loose on India. And then a crippled, uncoordinated retaliation from India.
Hell India is too busy with gang rape cases & trying to figure out where all their women have gone, I'd be surprised if they even knew a nuke was coming before it landed.
Similar threads
