https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
“Israel could “bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)” as well as the “holy places of Islam.” and that the “abandonment of proportionality is the essence” of the Samson Option.” - Ron Rosenbaum
”For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?” - David Perlmutter
https://www.theinteldrop.org/2025/06/17/new-leak-reveals-israels-samson-option-includes-american-cities-on-nuclear-target-list/
According to security analysts who have reviewed the leaked documents, cities identified in the alleged target list include New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and the NORAD command center in Colorado. Also named are Brussels, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador informed President Richard Nixon that “very serious conclusions” may occur if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied. This is seen by some commentators on the subject as the first threat of the use of the Samson Option.
Here is a map showing countries that are within Israel’s nuclear targeting range:
”For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?” - David Perlmutter
But the Palestinians do not have nuclear weapons.
That threw me for a loop for longer than I care to admit. They are really deranged, aren’t they?
I’m reminded of the cycle of abuse and the passing on of personality disorders from parent to child. They’re so obsessed with their own trauma that they’re gleefully doing to others what was done to them. They don’t see the similarities and have come to see the problem with what was done to them more in who it was done to than what was done.
This is also interesting because I see it significantly less in Jewish communities outside Israel. Sure, there are plenty who side with Israel no matter what and believe whatever they say, but in Israel it’s different, it’s like nearly the whole country has lost its mind and soul.
According to grindinsource and scamdoc, theinteldrop is not a trustworthy website and might be linked to Russian disinformation campaigns. Please take the information about attacking allies, mentioned above, with a grain of salt.
Those “site checker” websites don’t look any more trustworthy either, buzzo.
The owner of the domain name associated with this site is hidden in the Whois database.
What the actual fuck?
Please take the information about attacking allies, mentioned above, with a grain of salt.
Oh I see what you’re actually getting at. I should use kaspersky’s website to call out some western websites as untrustworthy. Thanks!
I mean they do look sketchy, but I hide all my whois too, that’s not that strange
Yeah the website itself is not particularly reputable, I should have cited a different source, however the information they’re citing comes directly from intelligence agencies and has been reported by numerous other publications.
You should have cited one of those then. Lmao. I have a girlfriend too. You wouldn’t know her. She goes to another school.
This is only remarkable for people unfamiliar with cold war nuclear strategy and tactics. It’s all insane, and Israel isn’t the fist, or most credible, to have a doomsday plan.
There is no centrist position between total nuclear weapons ban and murder the world.
Every single nuclear power and target (every geopolitical entity) has this kind of list.
Are the down votes zionists or is there something else?
Probably weirdo zionists
I’m downvoting people here for being unreasonable asswipes, but I’m not Zionist and support the end of Israel’s violence against Palestinians. I also support the dissolution of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the imprisonment of Netanyahu. But a lot of people on Lemmy seem like they’re antisemite shills or bots, who want an end to Israel as a state, and those people can go fuck themselves.
Is it ok to want genocidal States to end?
Yes, but you’re the one calling it Israeli violence not genocide, and writing the z word with a capital.
Wow, are you that precious about this shit? Clutch them pearls tighter!
No I’m saying your words and certain lack of words reveal you’re probably an apologetic Jew.
I know it must be confusing, but “supporting the end of violence” is not how a sane person who has seen the (last) reports of each of the (murdered) journalists talks about this situation.
If you think you can glean that much information from a couple text posts on an online platform, you are truly arrogant about your perceptive skills and should do a lot more reflection about how personal and cognitive biases influence your own judgment. I am not Jewish and have been very critical of Israel’s actions following Hamas’s attack.
But you will likely keep thinking that, just because someone doesn’t use the exact same language as you do, they’re clearly an apologist on the other side of the fight. That’s the kind of dumb purity testing that creates cracks within the very movement you’re trying to promote, by the way.
Happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, as soon as I see you call it a genocide.
If you thought the Brits and the French were mad dogs, if you thought their son, America, was a rabid beast, wait til you meet the latest addition to the family!
Fuck the “state” of israel
Well russians got same idea, what’s the point of the world if russia is not in it ;D not surprised at all, they’re just old mad wankers
Whataboutism
Ok so no this is completely wrong.
Russia’s “Dead Hand” is a “guaranteed second-strike” that activates only if their nuclear C&C is destroyed. This system is precisely designed to reinforce the logic of MAD and is thus counter-escalatory.
This from the Zionist entity is the complete and total opposite in every possible way. They talk about it as though it is defensive but this is a nuclear first-strike. They don’t just target their enemies but their allies too. This is the most grotesque and despicable extortion leveled against the whole world
They target “allies” if they’re not "ally"ing hard enough. Threatening the world to get what they want
They’re two sides of the same coin and not functionally much different. In a world with nuclear weapons everyone must have a “last resort” strategy like this: the perception of the destruction of the state triggers nuclear annihilation (against anyone/everyone; you plan for all options). The only other theorized response is to voluntarily roll over and die so humanity can live, and nobody with nukes is going to admit to that.
In a real scenario you could never verify if the first launch was from a credible threat retaliation or not. Even if you could, first strike vs retaliatory is cold comfort when everyone is starving in a nuclear winter. It’s not worth getting upset over a wikipedia article with a bunch of journalist quotes and opinion pieces. We’ve known about MAD since 1962.
So your whole argument is that in a nuclear exchange it could be hard in practice to identify the initial aggressor, therefore there is no meaningful difference between a nuclear first strike and a nuclear second strike? Is that what you are saying?
Yes it would be damn near impossible because basically all communication would be dead as fast as it happens and any belligerents wouldn’t be in any shape to give convincing evidence (assuming they survive and it doesn’t trigger a worldwide exchange).
If two countries are at the brink anything can happen: a radar blip, a failed first launch, fog of war, equipment malfunction, etc… Nobody’s official policy is “we’ll nuke anyone for any reason”, they always claim self preservation/retaliation. If a conventional war with Iran goes poorly it would be a rapid flurry of Israel maybe launches or threatens to launch => China (or whoever) retaliates => USA (or whoever) counters => comms are disrupted or locked down => troops are mobilized etc…
The same events could be true of a purported dead man switch system: can anyone prove that the switch was improperly triggered? Does it matter now that most people involved are ashes?
It would be over in about an hour or two and would take decades to properly reconstruct, if ever. Every state would jump at the chance to frame the tragedy in their favorite light and you personally will never ever know the truth.
In that light it doesn’t make any sense to worry about speculation or opinion pieces or rumors. There never will be a way to prove or disprove theoretical apocalyptic policies. There are a billion reasons to criticize Israel and hate Zionists but this isn’t much better than a puff piece.
So I definitely agree that one a nuclear exchange happens things get extremely complicated.
I do NOT agree that makes any sort of equivalency between this Zionist first-use doctrine (if it exists) and Dead Hand.
I view it as a philosophical difference more than anything. Only an absolute lunatic would actually push the button without an extreme amount of pressure; it’s just not a rational action of self preservation. A Solomon plan, as in the parable, is a choice that will kill you. Say what you will about the people pulling Israel’s strings but they have enough sanity and power lust to not throw it all away.
All nuclear players are handling loaded guns. Any bluster or rhetoric is hot air because you don’t know what they’re made of until they pull the trigger. And that is the most unique decision in human history in the hands of a tiny group of people. Nobody should ever have been given the personal power to vaporize entire cities, you can’t generalize that failing to a state policy level.
Complicated dead man switches don’t solve the problem or absolve the decision maker, it’s just a layer of abstraction. You still have to choose to enable it and accept the consequences of killing millions of people. Telling the world it’s enabled is just indicating your current line in the sand (a nuclear event). That’s no different than setting a line in the sand for a conventional threat to your capital city. Either may be an understandable and high pressure threat to the individual decision makers: both are reactions to the other belligerent, both end with the button pusher dead.
And both sides always have the option to renege on their promise and launch first before that line. Even if they hold to their promise, saying “I warned you” doesn’t make a mass revenge holocaust or suicidal holocaust more ethical than the other. The only humane choice is total disarmament and deterrence with an empty gun, which will never happen of course.
The only humane choice is total disarmament and deterrence with an empty gun, which will never happen of course.
unfortunately I think the only way we’ll regress to sticks and stones is long after just such an apocalypse and all the leftovers get used up. because we’re certainly not intelligent enough to recognize the danger.
just the US alone… the idea that Trump’s insanity is next to the football 24/7 should make anyone sick if they can read and have half a brain.
ironically climate change will take a few decades to really start slaughtering people and we see it coming, but are ignoring the problem, just like nuclear weapons.
fuck my species, they’re too clever and too fucking dumb all at the same time.
im guessing california is safe, as is most of S america except brazil, and more than half australia, nz doesnt need to worry.
I mean there’s no direct threat, but if all those places are targeted, or even enough of them, it won’t matter because we’re all fucked anyway. Which is the point
This is (one of) the real reason the West always acquisces to Israel, although Israel will call it a fairy tale.
This argument doesn’t make sense, the UK, France and the US have nuclear weapons, why would they acquiesce to Israel because they have them? In the case of the US, they could continue launching nuclear weapons at Israel long after their stockpile has been exhausted.
You’re assuming the nuclear exchange would only be between Israel and its target list.
Israel’s Samson option would trigger nuclear exhanges between all nuclear powers.
Yeah nah bud, you’ve jumped from “israel’s version of MAD” to “Israel is gonna betray and nuke us all”
Gtfo with that
Yeah Mutually Assured Destruction is a helluva thing isn’t it?
Antisemitic types that want another holocaust might be butt-hurt over this, but most people understand that all nukes are bad, but Israel’s nukes aren’t somehow worse than those owned by Russia, USA, China, UK, France, North Korea, India, or Pakistan. Every one of those countries would nuke another country if they became an existential threat to them. But why are you upset over Israel having nukes and don’t worry at all about the other eight countries that have them?
Oh right, because they’re Jews.
Feel free to your rationalizations over why your feelings on this aren’t rooted in antisemitism below this comment.
The assertion true or false is that Israel would attack others not involved in its destruction if it should fall. This is like the US worrying about being invaded by the Chinese in the 60s and threatening to nuke Switzerland and Australia to keep people from staying neutral.
If Hitler had nukes we would have been upset to learn about that.
Sorry, you are too stupid to participate in conversation. You may leave now.
Might be relevant in a world where it wasn’t the first comment I made and where we aren’t literally talking about a fascist dictatorship actively committing genocide.
You’re too stupid to participate in conversation, you can leave now.
I imagine every nuclear state has developed such extreme plans. Singling Israel out for criticism over it makes no sense.
Oh, unless you’re an antisemite, I guess.
Yep criticizing Israel = antisematism, thats a healthy attitude that doesn’t at all backfire against the Jewish people and faith.
I never said that. I’m plenty critical of Israel. I said that singling them out for something basically every country with nuclear weapons does makes no sense. Unless, you’re an antisemite.
Every other nuclear power does not have a literal plan to nuke their allies. Stop acting like a Zionist.
Oh, boy! If you like long podcasts, Behind the Bastards did a 5 parter about the history of the nuclear programs.
spoiler: USA kinda did have a literal program to nuke random cities possibly unrelated to the potential source of the attack.
https://omny.fm/shows/behind-the-bastards/part-one-the-men-who-might-have-killed-us-all
We are also critical of the US for these things, though, so it’s crazy to act as if we aren’t consistent.
“Whatabout-” yes they are bad too, now stop pretending that you aren’t defending a genocidal state and intentionally conflating criticism of the state with criticisms of all Jews. (Not saying you, but the other guy)
Sounds fun, I will check it out.
I’m not so sure about that now that I consider it. Military loves contingencies. If USA were to get invaded by Russia or China and somehow was losing and no one helped us for some reason, wouldn’t we threaten Europe or Canada etc? I can see crazy contingency plans being drawn up for dire circumstances
deleted by creator
Oh they do have contingency plans and I looked them up. Nothing like Israel though!
Equating the state of Israel with the Jewish faith is antisemitism. Not all Jews are Israeli, not all Israelis are Jewish, and the state of Israel doesn’t speak for all Jews.
If anyone speaks Hebrew please correct me, but it’s been explained to me that in Jewish tradition, there isn’t a single word for Israel the way it’s used in the West. You have the land Jewish people lived on historically, the people descended from Abraham who inhabit(/ed) that land, and you have the modern state of Israel. Overlap between the three definitions doesn’t imply they’re the same thing.
I speak Hebrew and you’re not 100% correct here. “Eretz yisrael” (land of Israel) is mentioned in the Torah and all sorts of other religious texts. There’s also the word “Yerushalayim”, which is Jerusalem. For Ashkenazi Jews during chanukkah, there’s a famous saying: “L’Shana Haba’ah B’Yerushalayim” which means “next year in Jerusalem”.
I’m stretching my memory here but from what I recall this wasn’t based only on the Torah, but on traditional Jewish philosophical thought as well; I couldn’t tell you whether this was, say, 11th or 18th century philosophy, though.
It’s entirely possible I’m misremembering, if you think that’s the case I can edit out that part of my first comment to avoid misinformation
Ya the phrase is definitely from 1400s or so Jewish philosophy, not strictly from the Torah. You can think of it as Ashkenazi DLC
Ah yes, it’s anti-semitic to criticise modern Hitler’s use of nukes to bully other nations into staying out of international human rights violations.
Not to bomb there allies, this only “makes sense” if the country is getting invaded and they want to punish there allies for not defending them. The US cannot be invaded and even if they were they aren’t dependent on there allies to defend them, same with USSR/Russia.
Maybe France or the UK mulled over bombing dc if the Russians invaded but they probably didn’t look too far as that would take away any chance for a d-day 2 that could free them. It also may bring about a counterattack by the US, and France has shown in WWII they would rather surrender to the enemy then see Paris burn.
You’re just a Nazi that wants to force all Jews to move to Israel.
Okay. And? Why?
Is this some scaremongering post that we should be afraid of Israel?
There are plenty of countries with the same capabilities.
Those fucking Zionists would get bombed into oblivion themselves quicker than they can fire all their rockets.
Are you familiar with how the story of Samson ends?
the world should fear any country with nukes
They won’t, because the US is on their side and hates Europe and Russia can’t afford nuclear payloads.
