I’m not suggesting they actually use those nukes. I’m suggesting that Iran or such will not actually launch an attack strong enough to credibly threaten to destroy Isreal, because it would be suicide to do so. The use of having nuclear weapons is that if you have them, it never makes sense to push you into condition where you feel you have to use them. Using them offensively in Gaza or the like would not be in Isreals interest for a number of reasons.
If someone’s suggestion sounds so obviously flawed that you feel the need to say that, perhaps you should take a moment and consider if they’re really implying what you think they are.
By literally justifying the removal of Israel’s ability to defend themselves with conventional means because they have nukes the obvious conclusion is you expect nukes to be the means to defend oneself. Considering Israel is commonly believed to have obtained Nukes in '66-67, and the numerous wars that have been fought since then, the belief that ‘the possession of nukes alone is a sufficient deterrent’ is unreasonable.
Have any of those wars come close to actually threatening the state of Israel itself, rather than just their control over territories they’d occupied from someone else? In any case, you’re also making a false assumption that ending US military aid to Israel leaves it conventionally defenseless, or that US weapons have to be stopped from going there in perpetuity. Israel has both a domestic arms industry and other countries it could acquire weapons from, it would just be at increased difficulty and expense. Further, when the objection to sending US arms there is that they are using them to commit genocide, that objection would naturally end should Israel cease those operations.
The point is not “Israel should have nothing left but the nukes, because they can just use those”, but rather “Israel’s nukes mean that a full scale invasion of the country is not likely, so we have room to revoke our current military assistance in order to pressure them to behave better, without much risk of destroying them in the meantime by doing so.”
I’m not suggesting they actually use those nukes. I’m suggesting that Iran or such will not actually launch an attack strong enough to credibly threaten to destroy Isreal, because it would be suicide to do so. The use of having nuclear weapons is that if you have them, it never makes sense to push you into condition where you feel you have to use them. Using them offensively in Gaza or the like would not be in Isreals interest for a number of reasons.
If someone’s suggestion sounds so obviously flawed that you feel the need to say that, perhaps you should take a moment and consider if they’re really implying what you think they are.
By literally justifying the removal of Israel’s ability to defend themselves with conventional means because they have nukes the obvious conclusion is you expect nukes to be the means to defend oneself. Considering Israel is commonly believed to have obtained Nukes in '66-67, and the numerous wars that have been fought since then, the belief that ‘the possession of nukes alone is a sufficient deterrent’ is unreasonable.
Have any of those wars come close to actually threatening the state of Israel itself, rather than just their control over territories they’d occupied from someone else? In any case, you’re also making a false assumption that ending US military aid to Israel leaves it conventionally defenseless, or that US weapons have to be stopped from going there in perpetuity. Israel has both a domestic arms industry and other countries it could acquire weapons from, it would just be at increased difficulty and expense. Further, when the objection to sending US arms there is that they are using them to commit genocide, that objection would naturally end should Israel cease those operations.
The point is not “Israel should have nothing left but the nukes, because they can just use those”, but rather “Israel’s nukes mean that a full scale invasion of the country is not likely, so we have room to revoke our current military assistance in order to pressure them to behave better, without much risk of destroying them in the meantime by doing so.”