Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Nuclear Options: When is a Pre-emptive Nuclear Strike Moral?

Israel’s leading military ethicist, Moshe Halbertal, argues that in some cases a pre-emptive nuclear strike might be moral while nuclear retaliation might not

Print Email
Related Content

Half Life

When the Cold War ended, most Americans happily forgot about the real possibility of nuclear annihilation. Ron Rosenbaum didn’t, and his new book argues that the risk is greater today than it’s ever been. A Vox Tablet conversation.

“You construct the principle where you say ‘Well I’m not going to use these weapons [to retaliate] because I’m not going to save my life by killing innocent people, but I shouldn’t tell it to the enemy because this [the threat of use] is the only thing that would protect me.’ ”

“Shouldn’t tell it to the enemy”? Isn’t he doing just that? Not really: He’s not an official representative of the Israeli government. He says he’s not been involved in official discussions of nuclear ethics. And yet he’s not entirely unofficial. He did, after all, co-author the IDF code of ethics and it is the IDF, the Israeli military command, that controls the nuclear weapons capacity everyone knows they have, although they won’t admit it because of nuclear ambiguity.

So he is casting ambiguity on ambiguity? A veil over a veil? A fence around a fence? The entire notion of an “esoteric strategy”—the idea that secretly, esoterically, Israel doesn’t plan to retaliate, at least as Halbertal defines “esoteric strategy” here—something I’ve been reading reference to for decades (recall Thomas Schelling’s parenthetical remark, “Why retaliate once you are wiped out?”) seems more of a construct to make nuclear ethicists feel comfortable with allowing the morality of threatening deterrence without having to weigh as heavily the likelihood that the deterrent threat would be carried out.

The response of the British Ministry of Defence to my inquiry about the Letter of Last Resort discussed in an earlier chapter seems to bear on this: There is no ambiguity in what the Ministry of Defence thinks the letter will say. The Ministry of Defence believes it will ensure retaliation should the submarine be cut off by a “bolt from the blue.” The ministry seems to believe the letter removes ambiguity about retaliation when in fact to most it seems to introduce ambiguity. But the official position is certainty. The American missile crewmen I talked to devised the spoon-and-string work-around to be sure they would not be prevented from launching a genocidal retaliatory attack by some crewman turning peacenik.

Of course there has always been, always will be ambiguity. The point is that no enemy can be certain that they will not be obliterated in retaliation for a major strike by those following well-established orders. It’s unlikely a foe contemplating a surprise attack is going to rely on the existence of an esoteric strategy (if there ever was one).

Halbertal’s doctrine, his thinking on these questions, always returns to the principle of distinction—distinction between military and noncombatant casualties of a military operation—and the way nuclear weapons obliterate the distinction. “The principle of distinction has to stay firm even in moments of supreme emergency. I cannot see a world in which you are allowed to actually kill an innocent person intentionally. I cannot see a world where that is allowed.”

“But you must be allowed to threaten it?” I asked him.

“OK, then it must be allowed to threaten to do this in order for the other side not to do the same.”

“And also you must not reveal to the other side that you will not carry out the threat?”

“Exactly, and so with Walzer we talk about this kind of esoteric morality. But, and here, that’s where my doubts begin with Walzer. And it brings me to paradoxical thinking. There is a way in which the aim of a nuclear attack is to destroy the capacity of collective action of the other side.”

I wasn’t sure what he was getting at exactly. But then he made it specific when he dropped what I regard as a kind of bombshell for an ethicist: “allowing” a preemptive nuclear first strike in certain circumstances.

“Are you talking about a retaliatory attack or possibly even preemption?” I asked him.

“Even preemption,” he said.

I found the fact that Halbertal was making an argument in favor of nuclear preemption a little shocking.

I asked him to elaborate, and he said, “Let’s play out the case of Israel because my thinking now is about Israel. There is, I can see that there is a real threat of nuclear attack on Israel if Iran does get nuclear weapons. I think it a serious problem. They talk about the destruction of Israel and also they might well be outsourcing them and giving them to Hezbollah, it’s hard to know what we have here, but it’s very problematic. Now Israel can be wiped out with one or two bombs. It’s very small. You hit its center, you hit Tel Aviv and the area, there’s no Israel.”

Then he adds another somewhat shocking remark: “I am against—strangely enough—I am against retaliation.”

“Really?” It was a remarkably definitive and unexpected declaration coming almost out of context. It was one thing hearing it from a grad student in a Yale seminar room but another from one of the writers of the Israeli military code of ethics.

“Israel is gone,” he said, beginning to elaborate a scenario. “And let’s say we have submarines, and I imagine that we do have, we must have them, strategically, because they [hostile nations] have to have a feeling that we can retaliate even if Israel was destroyed.”

“Right,” I said, wondering where this was leading, which was to a reiteration, almost an incantation.

“I am against retaliation. I don’t see the point in retaliation. But I can see a preventive strike.”

Not that he doesn’t have doubts.

“My doubts about possible preemptive strikes have to do with the following, and I’m saying it after I claim that I am against intentional killing of civilians in emergencies. So I’m working within the two moral boundaries that I have: First of all I am against retaliation, second I am against the collapse of the principle of distinction in supreme emergency.

“And yet I have doubts about a preventive nuclear strike—not whether it would be a good thing or not a good thing”—in other words it can never be a good thing—“but whether it might be necessary and justified.”

I was tempted to say: Wow! I was fascinated following his thought process though horrified at where it seemed to be leading. I remember at this point in the conversation I nervously stopped my tape recorder to make sure I was getting all of this, something that I usually hate to do, then when I started it up I pushed it closer to him. He didn’t seem fazed.

“So the preemption issue is the following,” he said. “There might be a situation in which the only way to prevent a nuclear attack on Israel will be to destroy the Iranian state. By that I mean to destroy its capacity to act like a state. And here it would be a very strange thing to say, but it’s a case almost of a collateral killing of civilians. It’s not aimed at innocent civilians, it’s not Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It might be either aimed at nuclear laboratories, factories, reactors whatever they have. Or the state apparatus that is necessary for ordering and forming such a thing.”

Should such matters even be open for public discussion? Or was this public discussion a kind of warning, a preemptive admonition to those who need to listen up: that Israel’s leading ethicist could find grounds, if not the precise threshold, to justify a preemptive nuclear attack? Don’t give them grounds, don’t approach that threshold. Halbertal, a revered ethicist, giving his blessing however ambiguous or esoteric to a preemptive strike: almost like a mullah blessing a “martyrdom action” in which children will die. Could he have meant it to send an admonitory message, one that might perhaps make such action unnecessary? Perhaps it will just add another layer of ambiguity.

I decided to ask Halbertal about Israel’s nuclear “opacity,” the refusal of Israel to admit officially that it had nuclear weapons. The carefully worded, scarcely plausible statement by the Israel Ministry of Defense that “Israel would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons” into the Middle East. This has often been decoded to mean, at best, a situation in which not all components of Israeli nuclear weapons had been joined together, although readiness to fire was a few bolts and a few minutes away, for an arsenal most estimated at some two hundred warheads ready to “introduced.” Not counting the ones on subs.

One group of Israeli and American nuclear strategists led by Louis René Beres of Purdue, who had formed Project Daniel, a kind of informal extra-governmental Team B for reassessing Israeli nuclear strategy, issued a report in 2007 that argued it was time to end Israeli nuclear ambiguity, that “bringing the bomb out of the basement” would enhance deterrence. Their argument was that declaring Israel’s nuclear capacity would remind the populations of the hostile states surrounding Israel of the consequences of rash acts by their leaders.

Halbertal had what I thought was an important refinement, a middle ground between opacity and full disclosure.

1 2 3 4 5View as single page
Print Email

With all due respect, Ron Roasenbaum discredits and disqualifies himself from intellectually honest discourse by making a moral equivalence between Halbertal and a mullah blessing a suicide bomber. Let us hope that Israel has the necessary means and moral convictions to prevent a second Holocaust.

dani levi says:

They went to Germany and played pimp my sub. And pimp they did.

Part of the extremely interesting panel discussion following airing of “The Day After” in ’83. Elie Wiesel starts in at about 3:30. Prescient in some ways:

http://www.fuzzymemories.tv/index.php?c=1821&m=abc%20viewpoint%20day%20after

What a sick picture with which to open up this gravely serious conversation. It removes all objectivity from a topic desperately in need of it by completely lying about the context of the conversation at hand. If anyone is actually behaving like the Nazis today it is Israel so, for starters, the swastika should replace the star on Israel’s flag or be plastered as the background of the Israeli submarine commander. Lest we forget, it is Israel that has a history of international attacks and acts of piracy, not Iran. Ultimately, this only sets the tone of subjective apologetics. Israel can do what it wants to do because it says it has reason to fear an attack from Iran so it can attack Iran preemptively, or any other nation it puts in that category. Where’s the conversation? Its over. As long as Israel feels threatened, the rest is intellectual masturbation.

Iran’s leaders sponsor and direct Hamas and Hezbollah, who have waged continual war against Israel, even after Israel has withdrawn from their territories in Gaza and Lebanon, provoking the two most recent wars in the region.

Iranian leaders talk about eradicating Israel with nuclear weapons.

Israel is contemplating what its response ought to be, in the event of such a contingency, hence the article.

May none of it ever come to pass.

JCarpenter says:

Would Iran risk killing Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians with a nuclear attack and subsequent fall-out? Hopefully the U.S. hasn’t taught the lesson of “collateral damage” being negligible in attaining the larger goal . . . .

Natan: Both are providing justification for acts of violence are they not? You may think one is wrong and the other right, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t doing the exact same thing …

Tamir: “Lest we forget, it is Israel that has a history of international attacks and acts of piracy, not Iran.” If they paid for the bomb, does it matter if they detonate it? If they pay for the missile, does it matter if it is Iran and not a proxy that launches it? In any case, you seemed to have missed the point of the article. There were no “subjective apologetics” justifying anything based on fear in this article. There were two people having a conversation about a topic that has enormous consequences but no answer.

dani levi says:

Tamir understands nothing. He defends the greatest exponents of 21st century fascism. Iran has bombed and shot its way from Berlin to Argentina, from Iraq to Kandahar to Beirut to Gaza and Egypt. The Iranian Mullahs insane suppression of its own people with its very on SS, the Revolutionary Guards. I encourage you to read a little on the fate of gays and the Bahai in Iran or the Kurds before you out yourself here as a fan of mondoweiss and Finkelstein. Last I heard the second wave of the coming Green Revolution was clubbed and shot to pieces only last week.
There is only one good fascist, a dead one. Read some European history.

Here is a great Halbertal quote from wikipedia:
“Democracy is a non-violent form of adjudicating different ideologies. It’s very easy to be non-violent when stakes are low; in Israel we are in a condition where the stakes are very high. It’s a tribute to Israel that it has managed to maintain democracy under such conditions of diversity and high political stakes. I would like to see other Western states deal with this condition without becoming fascistic.”

I look forward to the day, when people like Tamir and Nir Rosen look back in history and see who they championed.

Shmuel Lifshitz says:

In Syria Assad(the father) destroyed a city and killed 30,000 of his inhabtants when felt an uprising threatened him.
Khadaffi did not hesitate in using his Air Force to strife his protesting citizens.
Ahmandijad is constantly declaring he will obliterate Israel.
The Muslims did not have any scrupulosity when doing their rebelious brothers their due, we have to believe them that their rethoric is not in vain. I do not understand Ron Rosenbaum’s moral pilpuls.
The comment by Tamir and his flthy comparison made me puke.

Ury Vainsencher says:

Disclaimer: I am an Israeli citizen and resident. So I don’t really know that we have nukes. It is all speculation in the foreign press (including Tablet, yes).

Having said that, and assuming for the sake of argument that we do:

Ethics shmethics. Nobody analyzed this better than Dirty Harry: “Well, do you feel lucky today? Do ya, punk?”

Every morning when he looks in the mirror and doesn’t shave, Ahmadenijad has to realize that even if he does get lucky, he won’t get lucky. That from Teheran to Cairo, very little will be left.

We should send all those (alleged) submarine commanders to a press conference and make them swear on their children’s heads that yes, they will push the button. It’s our only chance to ensure they won’t have to.

George Murphy says:

The author wrote-

“I decided to ask Halbertal about Israel’s nuclear “opacity,” the refusal of Israel to admit officially that it had nuclear weapons. The carefully worded, scarcely plausible statement by the Israel Ministry of Defense that “Israel would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons” into the Middle East. This has often been decoded to mean, at best, a situation in which not all components of Israeli nuclear weapons had been joined together, although readiness to fire was a few bolts and a few minutes away, for an arsenal most estimated at some two hundred warheads ready to “introduced.” Not counting the ones on subs.”

Looking just at this phrase-

“Israel would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons” into the Middle East.”

I believe that the Israelis knew at the time that the US had already introduced nuclear weapons into the Middle East on its aircraft carriers. This was not known publicly, as it was denied by the US, but Israel and others knew. Consider that the US always had nuclear arms aboard many of the carriers deployed to postwar Japan, but never admitted it until recently.

So it was a trick statement – since the US had already introduced nuclear weapons to the Middle East, no matter how many bombs Israel assembles and readies for deployment, it can never be the first.

George Murphy says:

Oh, and hell yes Israel should retaliate in the event it is attacked with nuclear weapons.

As a lesson to the others.

The novel “Depth of Revenge” is based on the exact scenario addressed so well in this article by Ron Rosenbaum. Mr. Rosenbaum praised the book during his review of the new generation of nuclear war novels published in Slate.com on May 8, 2009. http://www.slate.com/id/2217899/

Leon Perez says:

Mr. Tamir, you are a disgusting “human being”, to state the State of
Israel is behaving like nazis after offering repeatedly, starting in 1948, to share the land with the Arabs, while ignoring the terrorism
that Iran has conducted in the last 31 years is beyond the pale.
You sir, need a big dose of reality.

Ari Venere says:

why do you think that Israel will be attacked and not the way around? Israel is the one which starts wars in the region. It occupies parts of Syria and Lebanon and don’t forget whole Palatine.

This is the main problem, Ari. What is plainly before us all, namely that Israel is the clear aggressor, as seen through “the facts on the ground”, seems to be constantly ignored. There is this ubiquitous mantra that evil surrounds poor, victimized Israel on all sides and that all these “arab” armies, conveniently indistinguishable from each other, are looming on the borders of this little innocent state, hell-bent on its total destruction. But we should not be fooled that these catch phrases are actually being originally manufactured in the minds of those claiming to defend the terrorist state of Israel. A simple exercise of copying them from these comments and pasting them into a google search box reveals most of them are robotically being rebroadcasted directly from Hasbara sources easily identified on the web. An honest study reveals that little of what is passed for reality when singing the praises of Israel’s government and its rogue military is actually true. For example withdrawing a few hundred radical settlers from Gaza is often called “a total withdrawal of Israel from the territories”, when in fact, “Israel” didn’t withdraw at all. Gaza has not known a single day without total and complete military occupation since this form of world-class Nazism began. What is referred to as heroism when it was meted out by Mordecai Anielewicz and Marek Edelman against the German occupation in Warsaw only a few decades ago is now ignorantly referred to as terrorism by Hamas simply because its against Israel. I don’t support any of Hamas’ violence, but please! They are clearly on the defensive by any standard! All objectivity is completely abandoned and we’re left with hasbarabid bullshit that masks the facts from our minds completely. The consistent and quite deliberate destruction of all Palestinian culture and its deeply rooted history in the land now called Israel is also a work of monstrous proportions with which supporters of the terrorist state refuse to contend.

Shmuel Lifshitz says:

The jews are defending their right to have an independent, democratic and soverein state. The arabs refused to accept the partition as decided by the UN in 1947. This is their original sin.Before that the grand mufti of Jerusalem colaborated with the nazis.No separate Arab state was formed by the palestinians and the war to erase the new born Israel was initiated by the surround Arab states and others and the result was the Nakba. Since then the arabs tried to get even and were repulsed and defeated by Israel.
Israel is defending itself,in spite of it Israel is democratic and the Arabs in Israel have the highest standard of rights and living in all the Middle East.
Ari and Tamir perceptions of history are, maybe, motivated by personal psicological problems, their “facts” are not facts, are delusions.

Palestinian culture? “long” history? did I miss something?

judging by what is going on in the Arab world, it is clear who are the “rogue” states Tamir. Last I checked there were thousands of Tunisians and Libyans crossing the Med to freedom, and thousands of Eritrean’s coming to Israel. None of these people wish to stay in self governed Arab states for lack of a decent future or human rights abuses.

The author was remiss in not asking some leading rabbis about revenge. They have a tradition of making some very tough decisions ,from the times of the Roman wars,through the Inquisition,to WWII. They had to live with the consequences of ther decisions,and did not shirk their responsibility.

You may not like what they have to say,but their response would be well thought out.

Leb: So what? would you ignore the millions that are staying there to ensure their own freedom, to depose, even in the face of death, the dictator that the US has been protecting, along with Mubarak and the Saudis, for years? Libya is rogue because of one man leading it? All Libyans are rogue because of Qadaffi? That monster will be gone in a few days if he isn’t already. Don’t the millions of Libyans that made this nightmare end for themselves and the hundreds if not thousands that must pay with their lives to create a new dawning of self-determination deserve a little more than to be labeled “Rogue”?

tamir
you make your own reality, clearly.
the fact that every day thousands of Arabs risk their lives to cross the Med tells you nothing does it? It is not only the Libyans.
When the young flee in such numbers, one must ask why ? And What sort of places do they come from?
But arguing with you is pointless. Because you clearly have no concept of rational, reality and truth. You make it up as you go along.
Another point. If Israel were the Third Reich, why are there over a million Arab Israelis here? They seem to be in no hurry to leave. In fact more and more Palestinians are applying for Israeli citizenship, because the thought of becoming a citizen of a future Palestine does not appeal to them. Because they know that they will be exposed to tribalism, clanism, corruption and what not.
You should stop reading mondoweiss.

Germany WAS the Third Reich in 1939 and there were more than 200K Jews living there at the time. The Israeli government today tolerates the same kinds of treatment of Arabs who live in Israel as the Nazi government did of Jews in 1935 to 1939. Arabs live in apartheid conditions and are persecuted all the time so pull your head out of the sand and read an Israeli newspaper from time to time. I have many Arab friends who live in Israel, even some who served in Tzahal as did I. They tell me on their own how they’re being treated so forgive me if I decline to entertain your baseless hypothesis.

Not long ago 20K Israeli Jews marched in Israel demanding equal rights for Arabs in Israel and freedom of political expression. Were they inspired by Arabs waving the Israeli flag? I think not:
http://www.peoplesworld.org/thousands-of-israelis-march-against-witch-hunt/

Shulamit Aloni explains on DemocracyNow why she stepped down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsZRGB9mcYk

Notice that, as someone that really wants to know the truth, I refrain from telling you what NOT to read and encourage you to rather read more.

http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html – “They are not ready to hear criticism”
Do you really expect me to take your word over Shulamit Aloni’s? What qualifications to you have?

Read! Understand!
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/are-israel-and-apartheid-south-africa-really-different-1.265580
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3111727.stm

Obviously confusing day and night, right and wrong, Israeli piracy is actually used as a context for removing Arab-Israeli representation from the Knesset
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/interior-minister-seeks-to-strip-israeli-arab-mk-of-citizenship-1.294091

A larger Arab citizenry might demand fair representation in the Knesset. Fully 20% of Israel is Arab yet only 14/120 MKs are Arab. As an Israeli citizen, I defend their rights even if I don’t agree with them! Democracy is better than Nationalism.

Mitch: Yes you did miss something. It was systematically removed from your education because it didn’t fit in with the ideology your education was delivered through:
http://www.palestinehistory.com/history/brief/brief.htm#01

Tamir,
great link. a more political source could not be found. from the bronze age straight to Arafat. Love it. It was bound to be, judging by your earlier comments. And it explains your ignorance about fascist Europe.

History may not be pretty, but at least we have it.

Tamir
You remind of the Palestinian Minister of Uncontrollable Rage
http://www.youtube.com/user/LatmaTV#p/a/8B99644BD8FE4070/0/M87C7i8X09I

Did you ever read the article? Or did you get stuck with the illustration ?

At least we’re clear about our respective sources of news

Tamir
So we have identified three things for you to look up. One is German fascism. One is satire and the third is Hebrew history.
And do read the article, because it is of interest when trying to understand Hebrew thought processes.

Leb;

Thanks for that YouTube link. Absolutely fantastic.

Unfortunately, there’s an aspect the article ignores. Let’s say Israel is nuked, and makes the “moral” choice not to retaliate. Where does that leave extremists in Pakistan and India who see that as an example of what would happen if they struck first? The failure to retaliate could be the spark that causes nuclear deterrence to break down everywhere else.

George says:

Rosenbaum makes a number of quite elemental errors in his analysis, but they all revolve around his unstated assumption that the nuclear exchange ends history–it’s actually rather ironic that a steadfastly secular Jew would embrace eschatology!

If there is a nuclear first strike against Israel, Israel is hurt, terribly. But Israel does not vanish–it can continue, both with its remaining population and the potential influx of future settlers. It is only through inaction following the nuclear blasts, and a resulting invasion of Arab forces finishing the job, that Israel and its Jewish inhabitants are truly extinguished. The nuclear response of Israel is warfighting, nothing more and nothing less.

Shalom Freedman says:

Ron Rosenbaum cites the major moral dilemna which confronts Israeli leaders should there be , God forbid, some kind of nuclear strike against Israel. This underlines of course the absolute importance of preventing such a strike against Israel. It underlines the importance of preventing Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. It underlines the importance of supervising nuclear material in the hands of states which threaten Israel, today first and above all, Iran.
Rosenbaum also makes the point that in order to maintain deterrence one must be inflexible about retaliation. I think that this must be the posture of Israeli leaders. But of course this posture is not a matter of words, but of deeds. In destroying the reactor in Baghdad and in making the strike against Syria in 2007 Israel did show this kind of determination.
With this another point I am not too happy about making. There are those who say that the destruction done by a single nuclear weapon would no more eliminate Israel than the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki eliminated Japan. This is a point to be kept in mind when considering retaliation and its consequences.
On the whole Israel because of its size, and because of the number and size of those who would destroy it faces unique and terrible threats.
It is to be hoped that ‘retaliation’ will not be the means of dealing with those threats, but rather that forms of prevention and preemption will suffice. Here of course Israel needs the cooperation of the United States to be fully successful.
This subject is a terrible and frightening one. I cannot write about it without praying to God that the Jewish people will never know again terrible disaster.

Elliott Tepper says:

I find it strange that professor Habertal can say. “I cannot see a world in which you are allowed to actually kill an innocent person intentionally.” Has he not familiarized himself with the course of human history? War has almost always entailed the death of civilians alongside of their warriors. Wars and their sieges, famines, and plagues have always been the shared portion of a civilization’s armies and its citizens. Perhaps professor Habertal and I would not want to see a world like that, but it has and does and will always exist. That is why civilizations must be very slow to war. Innocents always suffer. That is why most nations have embraced just wars and reserved the right to self-defense and retaliation as a strong deterrent to needless suffering.
There have been some civilizations where different forms of chivalrous codes of conduct have been practiced imperfectly, most notably among Judeo-Christian nations–and very imperfectly so. But Islam hardly embraces any such code and a significant element of Islam is working day and night to ultimately utterly destroy Israel and then work towards submitting the entire world to Islam. It is no exaggeration to note that the vast majority of Muslims in the world, though not directly involved in working towards the destruction of Israel, are rooting for its destruction. Yes, even moderate Muslims. If such a civilization attacks and largely erases the Jewish testimony from history, that civilization deserves to be destroyed–all of it, for judgment’s sake, lest it turn its attention to its next victim.
Let there be no doubt that if even one nuclear bomb is exploded in Israel, those responsible can expect not ten or twenty million of their citizens to dies, but their entire civilization to be turned to glass. They, not Israel will be responsible for the collateral damage. If they grasp that fact, then perhaps no one on either side will need to die unnaturally.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says:

My name is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and I approve this message.

Adam F. says:

Look, you farking monkeys have had 2000 years to try and sort out your differences, and guess what, both sides are not going to give. So let the nukes rain. Look, if I had a nuke, That’s where I would put it. The only difference is I would tell the bastards the date. Give them an opportunity to leave, or stay, it doesn’t matter to me. I would nuke all your retarded religions holy ground into dust, and then if you STILL insist on going back to that wasteland, the nuclear fallout will hopefully sterilize you, preventing you from continuing this cycle of which cultures imaginary friend is better. No one cares. Moses is make believe, Allah is imaginary, and seriously if you think that someone else DRAWING your prophet is an offense punishable by death, get the fuck off our planet. You and your stinky, brown, bearded, women-hating kids should be exterminated like the cockroaches you are.

Adam F. says:

And oh by the way, Jews, you don’t belong in Israel. You got your asses kicked outta there a long time ago. You think you’re any better than the Muslims or the Christians, of course you do, because your the “chosen people”. Its a fucking piece of land. If their is a God, he doesn’t give a fuck about the rocks where Jesus’ blood was spilled, he most likely wants to know why YOU think that 2000 years later it’s ok to still be spilling blood in his name. Look, unless you’re Buddhist, your religion practices intolerance. That’s a fact. And you can tell me all the great things you do with your Church on the weekend, but the bottom line is you think your answer is the ONLY correct answer, and you do humanity a disservice by pretending or even actually believing that you know the answers to the big questions of creation, and what happens after death. Kevin Smith said best, “Don’t have a belief, have an idea. Ideas are much easier to change.”

Highlander says:

I ve spent the night in a structure full of nuclear weapons. It makes even the youngest, most bellligerent of warriors fall silent, when contemplating their power to harm humanity.

But for Jews, the obliteration of Israel will only be the beginning. Do you, seriously think, the savage barbarians of Islam, will want to stop at incenerating 4 or 5 million Israeli Jews?

Next, New York with its millions of Jews will beckon to them. After that, they can systematically track down the rest of you. Ironically, after 2,000 years Israel is the key stone to the survival of western civilization as well as the Jews.

So,if it comes down to that awful day, you better pray to GOD that, those Sub Commanders do their duty. And don’t just decide to surface, and say, “I read mr Rosenbaum’s book, and now, can’t we all just love one another?”.

History will not end with Israel’s initial bombing of Iran. Nor with an atomic bombing of Israel. But for sure the degrees of hatred aroused may become unimaginably intense if Israel makes the first unprovoked atomic strike and the disgust the world now obviously feels for Israel will become hugely magnified and the Jews around the world may suffer interminably and very horribly. There is no easy solution to the problem but atomic interaction does not seem sensible.

awesome website, very interesting. I like it very much. I come acoss the blog by ASK search engine. I might read your site oftenly and recommend it to my gangs. Please keep it updated. Keep on the good work. – A techie

I’ve said that least 2797781 times. The problem this like that is they are just too compilcated for the average bird, if you know what I mean

Hi! My first comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and tell you I really take pleasure in reading through your posts. Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same topics? Thanks a lot!

The content of your posts are valuable information, great for the knowledge junkie – very interesting reading

Prolific, provocative, this (important modern discussion) should be on the lips of every human being today.
Excellent article, I will share with my nursing students in Houston co/
http://www.nursingschoolsinhouston.info/

Linus

Bob Ritter says:

Morality is an evolutionary strategy. Put morals aside and answer the question of what is the superior survival strategy in the context of your original question. Then come back around and superimpose the morals to justify the select strategy. Isn’t that what “supreme emergency” boils down to. After the strategist figure out the “choice” above with greatest probability of success the only moral question worth debating is which gene pool is superior. And when we get to that question we have become not so different than Hitler. It is all a race. A race to where we all must wonder. And how one goes about attempting to arrive at that answer sets the stage for either the greatest good or the greatest evil humankind is capable of. Notice there was no conclusion in Rosenbaum’s article. Because what I describe is a discussion he dare not consider! Who lacks courage?

I loved this a lot. I hope you stop by and visit me as well. I am going to bookmark your site.

your concept is interesting.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. Keep it guys and more power

I loved this a lot. I hope you stop by and visit me as well. I am going to bookmark your site.
Sorry my language skills not good, but I can say your article make a lot of sense, and I find it very informational too. Hope you can write more of those articles within the future.

Nice Post. the post is very useful for everyone, if you are interested I can create a content for this post, this is really interesting to me, very extraordinary

Mr. Tamir, you are a disgusting “human being”, to state the State of
Israel is behaving like nazis after offering repeatedly, starting in 1948, to share the land with the Arabs, while ignoring the terrorism
that Iran has conducted in the last 31 years is beyond the pale.
You sir, need a big dose of reality.

You may not like what they have to say,but their response would be well thought out.

Im not sure if thats ok but its huge!

great post, thank a lot for your information

The lessons of history are often time forgotten, especially those of our Jewish ancestors. Showing resolve and courage in the face of adversity is paramount. If Iran was to achieve, built and posses the capability of deploying a nuclear weapon towards Israel. The ability to retaliate must be kept, and when needed used. I spent many years in the military and sometime in the Middle East. Iranians in particular are connected to their culture, items, cities and areas have and hold meaning to the Iranians – in other words they have skin in the game of nuclear dice to lose. When a nuclear attack on Israel yields the city of Quom to a pile of smoking rumble and bleached bones; Iranians with witness the true cost of religious zealotry, as did the Germans did in the 1940s, and change away from a theocrary to a republic.

I do not offer an answer but something to think about. Iran sells nuclear material that they bought and cleaned up. Israel processes and cleans up nuclear material for reselling. Their are some Israelis that make much money on the reselling of the nuclear material- my advice to you is to refuse to let them push you into war with Iran so that they will make money on the nuclear material selling. Watch for who exactly is giving the idea that Iran is dangerous to Israel. Give those people each a gun and push them to the border. If they are not willing to die for Israel I say do not listen them. This idea I was told to me personally by Golda Meir, who often said to me: “If I could only die to stop the trouble in my country, I would”. One day Golda Meir spoke in love for Israel- she was killed.

I would hope the subs would not only wipe out the Islamic world they would have enough to get rid of Europe and, Russia, also.

I Eidus says:

The world must know that Israel is both able and willing to retaliate. The shared consequences of such retaliation are a crucial part of deterrence. Knowing that Israel will launch a massive retaliatory strike that will have multiple impacts and consequences on many countries, and likely start a much broader war, is key to having those countries participate in deterrence. Everyone must understand that destruction will be mutually assured.

ShalomFreedman says:

There is one real question and this is not seriously addressed by this article. i.e. How to prevent Israel from suffering a nuclear attack.

Hard Little Machine says:

So here it is a year and a half later and the leftists and other fellow travelers still haven’t seen the dreaded Jew menace attack the peaceful peaceloving Persians of peace like you’ve been promising us virtually every day since sometime way back in the mid to late 1990′s.

What’s your prediction now?

brynababy says:

Where do you get the outrageous accusaation that Israel is selling nuclear materials?!

bobbydias says:

By the way you replied you have added your opinion that Israel does sell nuclear material- you do protest too much. Golda Meir did teach me many ways of jews trying to get around the truth, especially with the slight bullying added as you did.

JS4136 says:

Very stimulating article with a lot to consider and digest. That said, there should be no debate. In the nightmare that is the nuclear destruction of Israel, a complete retaliation nothing short of the evaporation of Iran would be acceptable. The destruction of Israel would be the end of the historic vision of a reborn Jewish homeland, and for that the perpetrators would have to pay with their lives.

Anyone following Israeli news today can see this thinking exists on a smaller, non-nuclear scale. Leading IDF generals have gone on record to say that the next time Hezzbolah threatens Israel with rockets — there will be no leash to rein in Israel. Lebanon will, for lack of a better term, be destroy by the IAF. And should Assad have the backbone to start a war with Israel, Syria will come close to annihilation, if not total.

JS4136 says:

Very stimulating article with a lot to consider and digest. That said, there should be no debate. In the nightmare that is the nuclear destruction of Israel, a complete retaliation nothing short of the evaporation of Iran would be acceptable. The destruction of Israel would be the end of the historic vision of a reborn Jewish homeland, and for that the perpetrators would have to pay with their lives.

Anyone following Israeli news today can see this thinking exists on a smaller, non-nuclear scale. Leading IDF generals have gone on record to say that the next time Hezzbolah threatens Israel with rockets — there will be no leash to rein in Israel. Lebanon will, for lack of a better term, be destroy by the IAF. And should Assad have the backbone to start a war with Israel, Syria will come close to annihilation, if not total.

Gershon says:

The responsibility of the last surviving Jew after a nuclear or any holocaust is not easy. (This is not new: I believe a similar problem happened in Carthage.) I would have no problem: I would fire my last weapon and if still alive continue with sticks and stones.
Man differs from animals in that we have a much more sense of morality. This is not always absolute: Greek logic, I think, is absolute, but one should be humble about religious absolutes and I can say with certainty only what is right for me. A civilization that violates Greek logic deserves disaster: G-d has shown no mercy on innocent by standers and neither should we. If the good guys are too weak to overcome our evil brethren, G-d gets a result for his noble experiment that we regard unfortunate, but certainly possible.
I want to remark on Truman’s decision. It probably saved many Japanese lives and some American lives. Had we not seen those endless fields of ashes, the US and the USSR almost certainly would have conducted the experiment and the death total would have been a thousand or ten thousand fold higher. We speak of the atrocities in Asia, but the net result may have been saving countless innocents from a horrible death.

Crazy esquizofrenic point of you!!! It only gives fuel to the antisemites!! except they would be right concerning this pseudo reflection on nuclear preeptive attack. But we ask What about a nuclear attack on a country that is brutalizing another people and occupying their land as with much brutality as the nazis did!!?? and there is no sign , on the contrary that the expansion on foreign land is coming to an end!! After all the jews complain that they begged to some countries to bomb the railroads and concentration camps at the time of the nazis

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Nuclear Options: When is a Pre-emptive Nuclear Strike Moral?

Israel’s leading military ethicist, Moshe Halbertal, argues that in some cases a pre-emptive nuclear strike might be moral while nuclear retaliation might not