…to Israel. And Obama’s dangerous game. We’ll see how much of the Jewish vote he gets next time around.
16 thoughts on “Seven Existential Threats”
Comments are closed.
…to Israel. And Obama’s dangerous game. We’ll see how much of the Jewish vote he gets next time around.
Comments are closed.
because of course, we all know that American Jews should put the welfare of Israel above that of their own country…
No, we don’t know that. That implies that Obama’s plans are in the interests of the US. And ultimately, Jews should know that they can’t count on America to protect them, even if they’re American Jews. At least not Barack Obama’s America. Certainly Franklin Roosevelt’s America didn’t.
5 of these 7 are entirely domestic to the State of Israel, only a Nuclear Armed Iran and Terrorism is in any way exogenous to Israel. Terrorism is a schmucks game. Hezbollah and Hamaz can shoot missiles, Israel can retailiate with bombing campaigns. At best, they can gouge each other, but, neither side is likely to do more then annoy the other.
US Strategic bombing never broke German Industrial Production in WW2. US Bombing in Vietnam never stopped NVA operations capacity.
Hamas can piss off the Israeli’s but, most of their efforts will result in a trivial impact.
Nuclear Iran, now that’s an interesting one, but Israel is a nuclear power, Israel can deter Iran quite effectively.
BTW, are you speaking for the Jews as a jew or a transhumanist?
I’m not speaking for the Jews at all, you moron.
Uh Jack, how do you deter people who will give up their live and the lives of their children to kill you?
I don’t see several of these as existential risks: losing Jerusalem, demographics, delegitimization, and the loss of sovereignty in some occupied territories. Terrorism could be, if nuclear weapons or certain biological weapons were used. Occasional bombings and missile attacks are not existential threats. Corruption is an interesting one. My view is that it has long been present, but not as visible as it is now. It may well be that corruption has not changed, we’re just seeing it more often.
And of course, a nuclear Iran with missiles is an existential threat. I also consider future Iran/Israel friction to be one of the more likely causes of nuclear war.
“I also consider future Iran/Israel friction to be one of the more likely causes of nuclear war.”
Last I looked, Israel wasn’t calling for the destruction of Iran. I imagine if everyone in the region quit trying to destroy Israel, things would calm down pretty quickly.
Something did.
McGehee–
One of the German language readers I studied back in the 60s had a conversation between an American student and a German who said that the German economy functioned normally right up until the invading armies moved in. I’d look for the book but I think I sold it on ebay.
To quote someone I knew in the 70s, (his fellow) “American Jews voted their religion, liberalism.” I can’t talk politics with my girlfriend at all–she insists that Obama is _NOT_ a socialist. If Jerusalem is radioactive glass in 2012, she will not see that as a reason not to vote for him.
“Uh Jack, how do you deter people who will give up their live and the lives of their children to kill you?”
Threaten their mothers?
Last I looked, Israel wasn’t calling for the destruction of Iran. I imagine if everyone in the region quit trying to destroy Israel, things would calm down pretty quickly.
Here’s a simple question. Suppose you are in charge of nuclear strategy for a small country and a nearby, rival country, one whose leaders have repeatedly sworn to annihilate you, acquires nuclear weapons. How do you maintain your determine given the possibility that a small number of nuclear weapons could possibly wipe out your capability for a retaliatory strike. In other words, you can’t play the game of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) because the “assured” part is missing.
The obvious danger is that some nutcase feels lucky and decided to roll the dice with a preemptive strike. The secondary danger is that one or both parties has an elevated chance of an accidental launch. The problem is that due to the vulnerabilty of each party and the need for fast reflexes, you have both less time to make a decision and less margin for error.
The strategic bombing campaign’s effectiveness against the industrial base of Germany was limited, because the industrial facilities could have countermeasures (camoflage, dispersion, etc.).
The success of the strategic bombing campaign relied upon destroying the things that could NOT be moved, dispersed, or camoflaged… railyards and bridges.
With the transport network damaged beyond regenerative capacity, the industry could crank out tanks that would never fire a shot.
Oh, and on topic, I expect the Jewish vote to continue to skew heavily towards Democrats, even though (like many of the Democrat patronage subjects) they don’t get anything practical in return.
Excepting for a few elites, of course.
“Uh Jack, how do you deter people who will give up their live and the lives of their children to kill you?”
You don’t deter them. You kill them, and keep killing them until there are no more to kill.
Threaten their mothers?
The ones they use as human shields?
You’re an idiot.
Karl points out: In other words, you can’t play the game of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) because the “assured” part is missing.
The Israelis are taking (or have already taken) steps to rectify this problem. If you google “Israeli submarine”, you can see many links regarding nuclear-armed submarine-launched cruise missiles which may or may not be loaded onto Israel’s three subs, which may or may not be deployed as follows: one in the med, one in the persian gulf, and one for swapping in and out.
Of course, Israel being what it is, you can also find links to submarine tours of coral reefs in the tourist resort city of Elat. “http://www.coralworld.com/are/indexe.html” 🙂