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.

At some point in the near or not-distant future, the State of Israel will face the question of nuclear retaliation. Consider the following not unlikely scenario: A nuclear-armed nation, or nuclear-armed terrorists, detonate enough nuclear devices to destroy utterly the land of Israel and most of its people, rendering it uninhabitable.

Israel has been called “a one-bomb state” in that a single megaton-sized bomb detonated in Tel Aviv could accomplish such destruction. Many prefer to live in denial of this possibility. The people of Israel don’t have this luxury. If you don’t think they’ve war-gamed this possibility, think again. Many focus on Iran’s potential nuclear weaponry and the statements of Iranian leaders such as Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani that Iran would “welcome” a nuclear exchange with Israel because while it might lose 15 million people there would be a billion and half Muslims left on earth and no Jews in what was once Israel. But there is less focus on the current reality of the so called “Islamic bomb”—Pakistan’s 60 to 100 nukes, now ever more vulnerable to takeover by Taliban al-Qaida sympathizers. Seizable by or salable to terrorists.

What happens if it happens? A “second Holocaust”? One thing we can be fairly certain of: Israel will have the capacity for nuclear retaliation. Israel has purchased and put into operation at least three German-manufactured (!) long-range “Dolphin class” submarines, capable of being fitted out with nuclear weapons.

There has been all sorts of information and disinformation about the disposition of these subs, but most analysts seem to believe they are cruising the waters of the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea, within range of the most likely targets. And, many believe, they are armed with nuclear-tipped Harpoon cruise missiles. Ready to retaliate.

This is complicated by the potential of an attack from a terrorist “bomb with no return address,” smuggled across any one of three borders, or lobbed in from off shore. Whom to retaliate against? And is retaliation moral under Jewish law?

“How could they not?” is one’s first response. But what is the point, what is the morality of killing 15 or 50 million people in order to carry out a threat that failed to deter an attack? The most famous Biblical verses are divided: “An eye for an eye,” says one but “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord,” says the other.

What have the submarine commanders been ordered to do if they are cut off from the chain of command in what is left of the State of Israel? Will it be up to them in any case? Nations that rely on submarine nuclear capacity as their last line of nuclear deterrence have all devised “workarounds” should their subs be cut off from home base by a decapacitating attack. The United Kingdom, for instance, has a “Letter of Last Resort” locked in a safe in their subs’ control rooms. It purportedly gives the prime minister’s orders about retaliation if he’s cut off. In other words, although they may have orders not to fire without orders, if the ones who give the orders are dead or incommunicado the submarine commanders must have the power to launch in order to give the threat of retaliation “credibility.”

I wouldn’t want that power, that decision in my hands. But what if it were in your hands? Put yourself in the place of an Israeli submarine commander knowing his family has likely perished in the Holy Land conflagration. How many missiles would you launch, how many—and who—would you decide to kill? Is there a “just” number, a “proportional” number? Is any number just? Would it be done to prevent a third holocaust? On abstract “just punishment” grounds?

In the course of writing How the End Begins, which deals with the moral dimensions of questions like nuclear retaliation, I sought to find the state of Jewish wisdom about these questions among the best, most learned Jewish thinkers on this question.

It wasn’t easy.


What is the moral status of such retaliation? A friend familiar with the faculty of New York’s Jewish Theological Seminary offered to put me in contact with three of the sages there most familiar with such difficult ethical questions such as justice and retaliation and the history of Jewish thinking on the question.

I asked them, separately, to put themselves in the place of a Jewish submarine commander who learns of a nuclear Holocaust in Israel, and, cut off from his home base chain of command by the destruction of land-based communications links, must decide for himself what is the just response. What, in effect, would the sages’ Letter of Last Resort say?

The results played out almost as in some biblical story, or perhaps as if I were the wicked son asking the wicked question at the Passover feast. First one sage, then a second, pronounced himself unwilling to confront the question. Almost as if it were an affront to have been asked. One just wouldn’t comment, the other claimed a lack of expertise. I hate to say it, but I had a feeling they were afraid to commit themselves. These are literally explosive issues. Better to stay in their safe tenured little patch of academia than risk saying something on urgent but controversial questions where their purported wisdom might help ordinary people wrestle with huge life-or-death decisions. Academic timidity, don’t get me started. These are the ethics of genocide and you have nothing to say?

The third sage at least left me with a memorable phrase that I felt justified the quest. When I asked him my forbidden question about the morality of retaliation, particularly in the event of second Holocaust in Israel, he said, “You’re asking something new under the sun.”

“Something new under the sun.” He understood! These are not questions that have had to be asked before the nuclear age. Perhaps the principles applied are older but the alternatives, genocide on each side of the question—this is “something new under the sun.”

And so you’re left with me to think about it and to ask you to think about it. One thing I want to think about is the possibility of nonretaliation. No striking back. Not necessarily to advocate it, but to describe my encounter with an advocate of it.

One of the saddest, most provocative things I’ve heard about the history of the Jews is the notion that while Christians preach turning the other cheek Jews are the ones who, through history, have actually done it. Berel Lang, one of the few scholars unafraid to face such questions, wrote an essay for a Jewish quarterly that he called “Why No Retaliation?” for Hitler’s Holocaust. Some Jews did attempt postwar to poison a few German POWs, a haphazard scheme that didn’t result in many deaths. There were virtually no Jews left in Europe to do any retaliating, and even those who tried to return to their old homes and might have been in a position to do so were forced to flee again by pogroms throughout Eastern Europe.

So it was more by default, not really by choice, that there was no retaliation. There was justice of a limited sort, the Nazi hunting of Simon Wiesenthal for instance. But no retaliation, just memory.

Next time, should there be a second Holocaust, Jews will have the means to inflict massive retaliation, they will have the choice at least, it will be by choice and that choice may well come down to a submarine commander. The last resort of choice.

Should he retaliate, regardless of his orders? Several years ago I gave a talk to a seminar sponsored by the Yale Interdisciplinary Initiative for the Study of Anti-Semitism about the idea of a second Holocaust and the controversy over it. And, at the end, the issue of retaliation came up.

One speaker addressed the question of whether the Israelis had provided for it and shielded their retaliatory forces. He told the story of the Isaiah scroll in Jerusalem’s Shrine of the Book, the repository for the most ancient and revered manuscripts of the Jewish people, and how the Isaiah scroll, after a brief period of being on display in a super-hardened glass case, retracts deep, deep into the earth, into the titanium-steel-alloy silo you might say, that reaches far beneath the surface and is said to be able to survive a direct nuclear blast. They care about books there. You can’t use your library card to get the Isaiah scroll. The point he was making was that the Israelis guarded their retaliatory capacity with the same care as the Isaiah scroll and that was saying something.

Until the very end of the question-and-comment period no voices had been raised to question the fact that there would or should be retaliation. Then a grad-student-looking fellow at the back of the room spoke up and in a halting, tentative voice framed his question this way:

What if the Jews didn’t retaliate at all? What if they, the survivors, somehow declared there would be nothing to be gained, only a preponderance of innocent lives to be lost among the guilty perpetrators? Wouldn’t the Jews—however few were left alive—be honored then and for centuries afterward for this forbearance?

Interesting choice of words: honored. I thought of Falstaff: “What is honor?”

Before I could answer, a fellow on the side of the room spoke up and said such talk, or a public airing of it, would be dangerous because it would undermine the credibility of Israel’s deterrent, which depended on the certainty of retaliation. Not that anyone in that room was going to be giving the order.

It just so happened that on July 3, 2009, the Jerusalem Post printed a dispatch about one of Israel’s nuclear-capable Dolphin-class submarines. Israeli papers are not allowed to acknowledge possession of nuclear weapons by the state and so the dispatch was muted, although the reverberations must have been pronounced for those in the know about the role of the Dolphins as the Israeli launchers of last resort. “After a long hiatus the Israeli Navy has returned to sail through the Suez Canal,” the story said, “recently sending one of its advanced Dolphin class submarines through the waterway to participate in naval maneuvers off the Eilat Coast in the Red Sea.”

A message was being sent. A message about retaliation. And the means to do it. But what about the will to do it, the morality of the choice? And so as I write this a submarine that could start (or end) World War III is cruising into range. And no one knows what the commander thinks about the consequences of a second Holocaust. Or whether he carries a Letter of Last Resort.

It took me a while, but at last I found someone who was an authority on the ethics of the question and the military implications there of someone who was willing to talk about what was “new under the sun.” And for this, I am grateful to Arnie Eisen, head of the Jewish Theological Seminary. After hearing me complain about the timidity of his sages, he helped put me in touch with Moshe Halbertal.

The Determinate Versus the Immeasurable

“Do you think it’s wrong to write about this?” I asked Moshe Halbertal toward the end of our talk.

We were sitting in his office at NYU Law School, where he spends half the academic year teaching ethics and the international law of war; the other half he does the same at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He is one of the most widely respected thinkers on the moral and ethical dilemmas of modern warfare. He was influenced by the writings of Michael Walzer, the author of the influential book Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. And Halbertal has gotten involved in a way that is more difficult and perilous than academic: He has co-written the code of ethics for the IDF, the Israel Defense Forces.

He admitted he had not written about how just-war ethics apply to nuclear war questions. He admitted he felt he was entering into a “no-man’s-land … beyond the law.” Occasionally he would say variations of “but you can’t say that” after he’d said it. Which is why I asked him if I should write about it.

We had been speaking as well about his shocking-at-first notion that a preemptive nuclear strike might be a morally justifiable act under certain restrictive conditions involving “thresholds” and “supreme emergencies.” We had been talking about submarines, the retaliatory weapons of last resort. And so I found myself asking in a guilty way whether deterrence was—or should be—a bluff, something you threaten but aren’t allowed to carry out, as Walzer believes. But of course even to discuss it is to make an attack by a foe more tempting should he think the threat might be a bluff.

“Wrong to write about it?” I asked. “Not that anyone is going to pay attention,” I hastily added, not wishing to risk being held responsible for a nuclear cataclysm, “but—”

“No, not at all, you should, you should definitely—”

“No one in Iran is going to say—”

“No I don’t think you’ll break the  … ”

He trailed off but I think he meant to break the veil of secrecy or the shroud of ambiguity that cloaks Israeli nuclear war plans, even nuclear weapons possession.

Halbertal was just the person I had been seeking to talk to, a much admired Talmudic scholar most well known among the Talmudists for his book on idolatry who had brought his immersion in the wisdom of the sages to contemporary military ethics. He is deeply knowledgeable about the whole tradition of just-war theory but willing to acknowledge that nuclear weapons presented new challenges to ancient conundrums. Something new under the sun.

He is a modest shirt-sleeved 50ish guy who says dramatic things in an offhand undramatic manner and is frank about his hesitancy, uncertainty, and agony on certain matters. He comes across as a someone of genuine humility who admits to being tentative. He’s a serious and courageous man.

I began by asking Halbertal to describe how his military experience led him to his current position. He told me that he had enlisted in the Israeli army and served as an artillery spotter. In other words his task was both military and ethical: to make distinctions—often difficult and immensely consequential ones—between civilian and military targets in the grim struggles of “irregular warfare,” where decisions were not always possible with precision. The artillery spotter is a battlefield ethicist who puts his life on the line getting to the forward-most position for the sake of saving innocents. A position where to make the wrong choice is to risk killing innocents.

He told me our conversation was his “first extended” one on something he had been thinking about but had not addressed formally. “All this has become unfortunately very real,” he said. He’s talking about Iran and what Israel will have to do about it. Ten days after Halbertal and I spoke the following report appeared on a web site called DEBKAfile known to be a conduit for Israeli information and disinformation. It’s not clear which this was, but since Israel does not officially admit to having nuclear weapons, it was remarkably detailed technically. That doesn’t mean the voyage described wasn’t manufactured out of whole cloth. But if so it was designed to paint a picture for the Iranians of a voyage that could take place:

04 Oct. [2009] Western naval sources report that Israel’s German-made Dolphin submarines have been heavily modified: its torpedo tubes enlarged to accommodate missiles, new electronics installed and its fuel capacity expanded to keep the vessel at sea for 50 days without refueling. Eight years after receiving the first three Dolphin subs from Germany and two more last month, naval sources rate them the most modern non-nuclear [-powered] subs in any world navy. Israel has equipped the new Dolphin-class subs with homemade 1,500-km range cruise missiles carrying 200 kiloton nuclear warheads and 135-km range US-made Harpoon missiles also fitted with nuclear warheads. These missiles, fired through the newly-enlarged 650mm-26-inch tubes, can reach Iranian coastal targets including its nuclear sites as well as naval, port and Revolutionary Guards facilities. The Dolphins’ expanded fuel tanks enable them to cover distances of up to 10,000 kilometers from their Mediterranean home port (instead of 8,000 kilometers heretofore) and spend more time—up to 50 days—off the Iranian coast.

DEBKAfile’s military sources note: “Their presence outside Israeli waters is a powerful deterrent to any surprise nuclear or conventional attack, endowing Israel with an instantaneous second-strike nuclear capability.”

It seems likely someone in the Israeli high command authorized this leak, wanted to paint a detailed picture for most likely the Iranians—and for anyone else who thought a nuclear strike on Israel would go unpunished. There’s no point in Israel having five German-made submarines unless it were for the purpose of having an invulnerable second-strike retaliatory capacity. I certainly think DEBKAfile’s sources wanted its readers in Islamic capitals to believe that nuclear retaliation was inevitable.

I asked Halbertal, “Does nuclear war change traditional just-war thinking?”

“Yes,” he said. But added: “I must say I’m in agony about it. I don’t have a clear answer to it. I’ll tell you what’s my dilemma. I don’t think that ‘Supreme Emergency’ is a reason for intentional killing of all civilians. I don’t think you are allowed to do it, morally.”

“Now, ‘Supreme Emergency’—that’s Walzer’s term, right?” I asked him.


“And when you say ‘intentional killing of all civilians’ with regard to nuclear war that would mean either a preemptive or a retaliatory strike?”

“Right, but leave nuclear war aside for a moment and look at the difficulty of ‘supreme emergency.’ ”

“Supreme Emergency” is a phrase adopted by Walzer from a 1939 speech by Winston Churchill in an attempt to reconcile just-war ethics with the killing of innocent civilians entailed in the nighttime bombing of German cities. Halbertal began contextualizing his views on nuclear war by tracing the differences he and Walzer have over what recent historical events qualify as supreme emergencies.

He points out that Walzer first used the term “supreme emergency” when discussing Churchill’s decision to bomb German cities and the civilians who lived in them in 1940.

“Here was a supreme emergency,” Walzer writes, referring to the period after the fall of France and before the entrance of the United States in the war, “when the victory of Hitler’s evil seemed assured, where one might well be required to override the rights of innocent people and shatter the [Geneva] war convention” that requires distinguishing between combatants and noncombatants.

Walzer concedes that its morality is not a sure bet: “Should I wager this determinate crime against immeasurable evil [of a Nazi victory]?,” he asks. His answer: yes.

Walzer’s use of the word “wager” is almost shocking in its lack of conviction. It’s just a bet that bombing civilians might be the right thing to do when weighing the determinate against the immeasurable. He chooses his words carefully and tentatively because he knows he’s treading on a minefield. This is the kind of wager in which one just can’t calculate odds. Only in hindsight, but not when the choice is made. Then one must trust in “moral luck.”

Halbertal too is troubled by the fact that “supreme emergency” is a subjective judgment. And there are some moral minefields he’s not willing to follow Walzer into, including Churchill’s decision to bomb those German cities in 1940. It’s not an easy question. In hindsight one can understand the rationale for Churchill’s orders even if one does not accept it: Hitler’s victory in France in 1940 and the paucity of British defenses at the time made it seem like the conquest of England would be short work and would subjugate the entire continent to a thousand-year reign of evil. Does this imminent threat not count as a supreme emergency, even if the purpose of bombing German cities is morale-building mass slaughter? Even if it’s based on weighing the immeasurable more heavily than the determinate? Could England have survived without it? Churchill didn’t think so but he couldn’t know.

“No, you cannot save your life at the expense of actual targeting of innocent people,” Halbertal said, emphatically disagreeing with Walzer—and Churchill.

This is the unshakable foundation of Halbertal’s thinking: “You cannot save your life at the expense of actual targeting of innocent people.” But his thinking can lead to some surprising conclusions such as his argument that in certain cases a preemptive nuclear strike can be moral while retaliation after being struck by nuclear weapons cannot be.

He accepts the supreme-emergency exception but locates the moral problem, the one that may be impossible to find an objective answer to, in the “threshold” issue. What is the threshold of a supreme emergency? What makes an ordinary emergency so supreme, so urgent that it justifies lowering the threshold of the distinction between combatants and noncombatants? Is it timing, the imminence of threat, or is the magnitude of threat or some algorithm that links them? Alas, problems of morals are not soluble the way problems of mathematics are.

“Now when it comes to nuclear weapons,” Halbertal said, “that’s where I think [Walzer] is rightfully very critical of the way nuclear weapons were used to end the Second World War.” He’s talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “He’s right that there could have been a cease-fire, or a treaty without actually the absolute surrender of Japan.” What Walzer says is that “to use the atomic bomb without even attempting such an experiment was a double crime.”

Halbertal takes issue as well with another argument in favor of dropping the bomb—that it would save the lives of soldiers who would otherwise die in an invasion of the Japanese home islands. “Something [Walzer] doesn’t raise, but I don’t think he’d approve of, is the argument that you save even a hundred or two hundred thousand soldiers of our stripe by absolute indiscriminate intent of killing Japanese children.”

Actually most estimates are higher for U.S. invasion casualties. (And those numbers don’t include the million or more Japanese civilians who might die in an invasion, five times more than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) Note though, the uncompromising language of his description of the indiscriminate killing of the innocent in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—“absolute indiscriminate intent of killing Japanese children.”

It wasn’t really the main intent, to kill children, but it was the effect. And Halbertal’s way of thinking about these things demands that states take responsibility for the effect as well as the intent of their acts—as if the effects were included in the intent.

So it didn’t entirely surprise me when he said, “So when we come to nuclear war things are a little bit changed. Now when it comes to strategic deterrence, you might threaten it as a strategic thing, that’s fine as long as you’re not going to use it—or then you’re going to have an esoteric morality for strategic reasons.”

An “esoteric morality?” I asked him.

“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.

“I think what should be known is that there is a submarine [nuclear] capacity. Because then they know that we will retaliate. I think the problem is they might be tempted to think that nobody will survive to retaliate.”

Notice that he says it’s important “they know that we will retaliate,” even though he opposes retaliation. He seems to be saying, “It’s going to happen whether I like it or not.” It’s almost a fatalistic admission that it will. A feeling similar to the one I have about the U.S. Those missile crewmen will turn the keys.

“I would allow for the preemptive nuclear attack aimed at the capacity for a state to form a nuclear attack, while being also against retaliatory attacks because I don’t see much point. Though this should be secret.”

“This should be secret”—the esoteric strategy of nonretaliation. One he does not say exists but one he favors. It seemed to me his views would make news. I feel it is news: Leading Israeli military ethics adviser calls for disclosure of nuclear capacity. Defends preemption. Opposes retaliation.

Again: Should this be talked about? I’m conflicted. But I feel the case against retaliation has not been discussed openly enough. That the case against retaliation has not been made precisely because of the argument that it must be kept secret, “esoteric,” which has lulled some people into a belief that it’s not going to happen, an attack, then a choice. But it is going to happen, an attack, then a choice. A choice to retaliate or not. I’m in favor of bringing whatever is esoteric out into the open in a case like this.

I asked him if the fact that a nuclear attack on Israel, the one or two bombs that would be necessary for the destruction of Israel, would represent a second Holocaust affected the threshold. Meaning crossing the bright line to nuclear use. He had previously discussed the threshold across which one is in “Supreme Emergency” territory and the ordinary just war restrictions don’t apply.

“Yes. Sure,” he said without hesitation.

“The decision about the threshold is affected [by the secondness of a second Holocaust]? Should the threshold be more clearly defined?”

“Yes. I don’t think we can only think about it in the abstract. It means a particular commitment to Israel growing out of its history, facing a sworn enemy that is using and abusing the Holocaust in a very complex way. [He’s referring to Holocaust denial by would be Holocaust perpetrators in Iran who use the denial as strategic weapon, an excuse to perpetrate a Holocaust.] Yes, it factors in. And it’s not merely emotional, I can see the moral weight.”

“It [that secondness] becomes a strategic fact?”


“When it comes down to the decision: has the threshold been crossed—”

He spoke about past instances in which nuclear use by Israel has been contemplated. “I would be very, very careful with this threshold,” he said. “Very careful. Here is another scenario. This was quite real in 1973. Moshe Dayan had big doubts about what should be played out in 1973.” Halbertal was talking about the Yom Kippur War in October of that year, which began with an Egyptian surprise attack that along with a Syrian attack from the north seemed about to overwhelm the state of Israel. “At least in the eyes of Moshe Dyan, you know, and others in the military and political leadership of Israel, there was a feeling that we are on the verge of collapse. The first few days. Now let’s say that you are on the verge of collapse and you know the Syrian forces are already entering the Galilee and soon taking Haifa. Can you, at last resort, use a nuclear bomb?”

Last resort here—in the 1973 example—means a situation in which the nuclear decision is not one of preemption (too late) or pure retaliation (too soon), but one made in the fog of war, one that crosses the nuclear threshold in the heat of battle, not an opening but a closing act. He is discussing what others, most recently Benny Morris, have reported as well about the opening days of the 1973 war, an actual moment of nuclear decision, much closer than we came in Cuba.

“This is clearly ‘first use’ if not technically preemptive,” Halbertal says. “It’s preempting being completely destroyed, but the preemptive level of the threshold is clearly serious because now we have lost our capacity to defend ourselves.

“And the question is whether it’s justified. Now what we are speaking of here is not really preemption of nuclear attack. But preemption against loss of independence. Loss of the state. If not loss of existence itself, then a homeless people again, perhaps vulnerable to slaughter again.” What a choice.

“An existential threat,” I interposed.

“Right, to the state, to the Zionist project, etc. etc. etc. And I read somewhere that Dayan gave the order to be ready with them [the nukes]. Whether that was the case or not there is a dispute. But it’s a dilemma, a real dilemma.”

He was speaking about then but he was of course speaking about now as well. A real dilemma, no good answer. No good choices.

Halbertal became particularly eloquent when I asked him the “species” question that Daniel Ellsberg had raised. Is there something fatally flawed in human nature that brought us to this point? A question I had asked scholars of Hitler and the Holocaust: “Do you wonder about the nature of human nature when you contemplate these kind of questions?” I asked him. His answer was both memorable and tragic.

“I think, you know, I didn’t realize what I always knew, but it’s become more clear: that humans are capable of the best and the worst, and the gap within humanity is so big. I mean I’m not—I didn’t turn cynical, because I see cases of goodwill and piety and altruistic sentiment that are so genuine, and then you know, just to see manifestations of radical evil.

“And then what I learn is, I come back in that respect to the Jewish teaching that the options are open. There are very different options and choices that are open to human beings and what they should do and they can shape themselves in very different radically diametrically opposed directions, and that humans have a choice in how they do it. But when you confront the spectrum of humanity you understand the potential of freedom that exists, and human responsibility for what it makes out of itself.”

At the end of the interview I must admit I found myself feeling somewhat emotional. I had been searching for someone in a position of responsibility, or at least inside knowledge, to entertain the notion that I had fixated upon that nuclear retaliation was immoral. I thought his willingness to speak frankly was courageous, not least because he was likely to die in any nuclear exchange.

“It’s rare to find someone,” I found myself telling Halbertal, as I prepared to leave, “who takes the question of the morality of retaliation seriously. I’ve always thought that in focusing on this that I was an outlier or something like that, or beyond the pale, whatever, but retaliation never made any sense to me. On the other hand there is the paradox that one shouldn’t talk about the possibility of an esoteric morality because it invites an immoral attack.”

This was when I asked him if it was wrong to write about this, and this was when he said I should.

From How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III by Ron Rosenbaum. Copyright © 2011 by Ron Rosenbaum. Reprinted by permission of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

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:

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 on May 8, 2009.

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”?

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:

Shulamit Aloni explains on DemocracyNow why she stepped down:

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. – “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!

Obviously confusing day and night, right and wrong, Israeli piracy is actually used as a context for removing Arab-Israeli representation from the Knesset

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:

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.

You remind of the Palestinian Minister of Uncontrollable Rage

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

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.


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/


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


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

More on Tablet:

Online and Unabashed: Orthodox Rabbis and Scholars Take to the Internet

By Shulem Deen — A universe of blogs has sprung up where issues of Jewish law and rabbinic authority are discussed in unprecedented ways