Why Israel needs nuclear weapons
Mark Helprin explains what would happen if Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is disputed by its neighbors, did not, God forbid, have nuclear weapons. In 1973, having overwhelmed the Bar-Lev Line, crossed the Suez Canal, downed a significant portion of the Israeli Air Force, and penetrated deep into the Sinai, an elated Egyptian army found itself with virtually nothing between it and Israel's heartland. The accepted narrative is that the Egyptians could not conceive of going forward, were frightened, and had insufficient supply. They could conceive fighting in Israel. They had fought there in 1948, and sat on the border for all but six years since. Having beaten back the Israelis, they were anything but frightened, and their lines of supply were adequate. But knowing that had they continued, their concentrations of armor would have been vulnerable to tactical nuclear weapons, that if Israel's existence hung in the balance so would Cairo's and Alexandria's, and that the whole of Egypt could drown in the flood of a breached Aswan Dam, they went no farther.A survey taken in 2009 showed that 23% of Israelis would leave rather than live with a nuclear Iran. Does anyone wonder why?
Partly as a result of the steady development of Saudi air power in response to Iraq and Iran, Israel's potential antagonists are closing the gap in numbers and quality, and the Israeli Air Force does not offer the same margin of safety that once it did. With the Arabs' approaching 1.3/1 advantage in first-line aircraft, 2.9/1 in second-line aircraft, and an enormous 12/1 advantage in mobile air defense, many new options open if Arab unity coalesces as it did prior to the three major Arab- Israeli wars, in all of which Israel's existence was at stake and the result unpredictable. If Turkey is included, as it might be, Israel's prospects become seriously darker.
Other than a direct nuclear strike, what it most has to fear is that a combination of states will throw all their aircraft against it at once while advancing a surface-to-air-missile umbrella to threaten Israeli planes and provide sanctuary for its own. Though the Israeli Air Force is qualitatively superior and its imaginative responses cannot be counted out, the steadily improving professionalism of the Arab air forces, their first rate American and European equipment, their surface-to-air-missile shield, and most importantly their mass, are potentially a mortal threat. For if the Israeli Air Force is sufficiently degraded, Israel's prospects on the ground will follow proportionately.
In light of the fact that the conventional balance can change and is changing, one of the many purposes of Iran's drive for nuclear weapons is not merely to wait for a lucky shot at Tel Aviv but to neutralize Israel's nuclear deterrent so as to allow a series of conventional battles to advance Israel's downfall incrementally.
The military strategy of Israel's enemies is now to alter the conventional balance while either equipping themselves with nuclear weapons or denying them to Israel, or both. Their calls for equation of the two sides in a nuclear-free Middle East leave out the lack of equation in aims. Israel cannot dream of conquering its adversaries and replacing them with a Jewish state. But from war to war its adversaries have made their intentions clear, and as their mass and wealth are applied to their militaries over time, Israel's last line of defense in a continual state of siege is the nuclear arsenal devoted solely to preserving its existence.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:48 AM
4 Comments:
While the argument is correct, the examples are poor.
First, The Egyptians had no way forward - yes, they had insufficient supply, and the SAM cover was limited. Any Egyptian advance would have ended at best as the 14 Oct. battle - with the Egyptians losing 250 tanks for about 20 Israeli ones.
The bigger threat was always to the North. Where the Syrians nearly made it to the Kinneret. What made them stop was a combination of incredibly brave defence with poor Syrian logistics and Soviet training (which forbade commanders from exercising initiative and moving forward on their own).
Secondly, Israel's near-term conventional prospects are nowhere that bad (provided it keeps secure borders and doesn't go into rash "peace" accords). Syria is poor, and its army in shambles. Jordan is too small to be a threat. Egypt would probably need a coup to join, and Hizballah's only threat is the missiles. And I don't think Saudis know how to use their expensive equipment.
The core of the argument though is simple and good: Israel with nukes equals a peaceful middle east. The Arabs never understood how they can lose to such a small nation, and keeping nukes prevents them from trying. It also prevents any genocidal madman (say, an Al-Qaeda controlled Pakistan) from even thinking to use WMD on Israel.
The entire school of retreat to the 1949 lines is made only possible IF Israel retains its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. If Israel gives it up, there is no way to defend the country from the preponderant Arab advantage in manpower, weapons and short lines of attack.
It assumes that Israel will be allowed even a "doomsday" defense but in light of international hostility to any exercise of Israel's self-defense, whether Israel can even retain its nuclear weapons is now an open question.
What is clear is Israel's enemies intend to strip it of its last means of defense even concurrent with restrictions on when and under what circumstances Israel will be permitted to fight back.
Israel has to be prepared for this future.
Back in 1980, Israel itself proposed the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. The establishment of a nuclear-free zone would have required a degree of recognition and peaceful relations between all the countries of the Middle East as a prerequisite to discussing its implementation. Here is an article if your interested in getting a better understanding of the issue of nuclear weapons in the middle east. http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=283&PID=0&IID=3923&TTL=Israel_and_the_Question_of_a_Nuclear-Free_Zone_in_the_Middle_East
It looks like Israel needs nuclear bombs to threaten not only rock carrying Palistians but will eventually threaten European countries and and United States with exploding nukes either on European or U.S. soil in order to get their way! These people suck at humanitarian consierations and are lost in an illusion that some fairy tale GOD gave them this land. Wake up to the 21st century!
Post a Comment
<< Home