Samson Blinded is one of those blogs you probably will not locate unless you specifically look for it. The posts at Samson Blinded are pro-Israel on the militant side of political incorrectness. The Jewish authors are not necessarily friendly to Christian Zionists as me; nonetheless the irony is I often agree with the Samson Blinded author. Below is a cross post with the theme of nuclear weaponry as a credible defense for little Israel to survive being surrounded by a sea of Jew-Hating Muslims that are actually acquiring sophisticated offensive capability thanks to both the USA and Russia.
JRH 2/11/13
****************************
Nuclear weapons replace depth of defense
By Obadiah Shoher
Email sent: 2/8/13
Peace, and even neutrality, have protected no state, ever. Small irrelevant states are tolerated, but they are rolled over without remorse when military needs arise. Germany occupied Belgium, and Italy annexed almost all the lands of the Vatican. Belgium was neutral, and the Vatican was even culturally indispensable for Catholic Italy. Israel cannot hope to convince the Muslims of her peaceful intentions and enjoy peace with them.
Hong Kong and Switzerland provide different examples. The evil empires of Communist China and Nazi Germany tolerated them out of utter economic necessity. But Hong Kong and Switzerland were indispensable for their imperial neighbors only because the evil states were isolated from the rest of the world. Muslim oil economies are very open, and do not need Israel as their gate into the world. Muslims won’t hesitate to wipe Israel off the map.
Could Israel possibly rely on outside protection, such as a mutual defense treaty? No country rose to defend Poland in WWII. Protection—however unreliable—could only come from the US, but its behemoth army wouldn’t be able to deploy in Israel before the Muslims overran her forty-mile depth of defense and annihilated the Jews.
Whatever are the peace arrangements, Israel would have to maintain military preparedness. Israel cannot conduct a defensive war in the current borders. Arab enemies could repeatedly mobilize at Israel’s borders without attacking her; Israel could either respond by mobilizing every time and eventually ruining her economy, or gamble that the Arabs won’t attack—and only once lose the gamble.
A peace treaty with the Muslims won’t help. Every war violates a peace treaty. Muslims fight their brethren, and won’t hesitate to attack Israel if her military might dwindles.
Israel is left with two choices. One is to maintain military capability indefinitely. That path is economically unsustainable. Another is to discourage the Arabs from encroaching on Israel. For that approach to work, our threat of must remain extremely credible; bluffing does not work long in international relations. Arabs must be unable to test Israeli defenses to see how Israel would react to this or that provocation, or to look for the breach in the retaliation doctrine. Israel should treat any clearly dangerous acts as casus belli. Israel may not tolerate Muslim acquisitions of WMD, modern aircraft and air defense systems, tanks and anti-tank missiles, or mobilizations. Confronting Syria over its military upgrade now makes more sense that defending Israel from a fully revamped Syrian army a few years later. Israel won’t need to fight very often. Once the credibility of Israeli response is established, Arabs will stop provoking her.
Israel must maintain a credible threat, but not an expensive, economically unbearable army. How so? Nuclear retaliation is the answer. Israel should not hesitate to employ nuclear weapons. Extensive and costly bombing of Lebanon could be replaced with pinpoint strikes with 10kt nuclear microcharges. A weapon of that size won’t even destroy a medium-sized village, and would cause no fallout dangerous to Israel. Numerous nuclear mushrooms, however, would terrify our enemies.
Attacks by regular Arab armies should be similarly countered with 20–50kt nuclear microcharges. Even the small 20kt weapons would not endanger the Jewish cities ten to fifteen miles away from the battlefield; the populations that have been exposed to the moderate levels of radiation around Hiroshima and Chernobyl are not particularly unhealthy. Israel could emulate the depth of defense by striking deep into the enemy’s territory. Large-scale bombing raids against Damascus, Cairo, or Tehran are prohibitively expensive, but 100kt nuclear bombs offer a practical solution: large enough to damage and frighten the enemy, yet small enough to avoid exposing Israeli cities to a radiological threat. Enemies will know that they cannot succeed even if they overrun narrow Israel.
Would the Muslims escalate in response to the Israeli nuclear threat? Yes, unless Israel proves the escalation to be a dead-end. During the Cold War, the US answered similar challenges with a doctrine of gradual escalation. Likewise, Israel would employ nuclear microcharges against the guerrillas, their supporters, and regular armies, and small bombs against the attacking enemy’s cities. If attacked with WMD, however, Israel would immediately demolish the Dome of the Rock, employ nuclear weapons against Mecca and Medina, and drop really large bombs on the enemy’s capitals.
That sounds like madness, but MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, prevented the Cold War from becoming WWIII. Arabs won’t attack a dangerously mad Israel. A country prepared for total war will live in total peace. Besides, Israel has no choice economically other than to rely on nuclear weapons.
_____________________
Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict, by Obadiah Shoher, abandons moralizing to view Israeli-Muslim struggle in terms of raw realpolitik. FREE BOOK DOWNLOAD
Google banned our site from the AdSense advertising program for “unacceptable content,” “advocating against a group,” and “sensitive content.” Yahoo/ Overture restricted our ads to a few odd keywords. Adbrite closed our account. Amazon deleted all reviews to stop the discussion. Russian ad provider Begun rejected our ads as “extremist.” Many other sites and conventional media outlets refused our ads. China blocked our site. We depend on word of mouth. Please help us to bring Shoher’s message: tell your friends about this site. Link exchange suggestions are welcome. For the link code, please visit www.samsonblinded.org/banners.php If you only add text links, ours is www.samsonblinded.org/blog
Why Samson Blinded? Biblical Samson, blinded by the Philistines, killed thousands of them in suicide attack. Israeli nuclear weapons are aptly called the Samson Option.
Obadiah Shoher is a pen name for veteran politician. Obadiah lived in the USSR, and sufficiently hated socialism to emigrate. It was quite a disappointment to find that Israeli socialism is in many respects worse. Obadiah contends that socialism, combined with quasi-liberal leftism – the infamous political correctness – spells Israeli destruction, as it has destroyed other societies before. Shoher despises Israeli ostriches who keep their heads in sand preferring not to see the uncomfortable questions: changing demography of the ostensibly Jewish state, accumulation of nuclear weapons by hostile regimes, radicalization of Islamic societies, and the economic dead end of maintaining Israeli military capability regardless of paper treaties.
Why the pen name? Rav Kahane’s example is one obvious reason: he was kicked out of the Knesset for “racist” opinion that Jewish state cannot have Arab majority. Security is another reason: Obadiah receives plenty of threats.
Legal stuff in plain text: Wherever this site or its authors advocates expulsion of Arabs from the Land of Israel, annexing Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, and cruel retaliation against Israel’s enemies, it is implied that all such acts should be committed legally, by prior adopting the necessary laws. Our sole intention in regards to those acts is influencing the Knesset to adopt the necessary laws which would facilitate relocation of Arabs to Jordan, annexing the core Jewish territories, and retaliating in full force against Israel’s enemies. Neither this site, nor any of its authors advocates genocide.
