Would Israel Be Justified In Using A Nuclear Weapon If Attacked With Sarin Gas?

[Reub]

Would an attack by Syria, or Iran's proxy Hezbollah, on Israel using chemical or biological weapons, as has been predicted, justify the use of nuclear weapons by Israel? I think that it would. I think that anyone who minimizes the extreme potential for a major conflagration in this region may be deluding themselves. What do you think?

[dualstow]

Wow, that's a toughie.

I want to participate in an Israel thread before it gets shut down, but I really don't know the answer.  But let me put it this way: I think that Hezbollah and other sworn enemies of Israel believe that Israel might retaliate with nukes. Therefore, they will probably never use chemical weapons on Israel. Nor nukes.

* Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons. At least that's what they say.

Now you're just being tiresome, TPG  .

[MediumTex]

Who would the nukes be directed at?

Would it just be a Harry Truman-style civilian barbecue/slaughter, or would there be some military target?

If it's a military target, why not just use conventional weapons?

IMHO, when actually used, nuclear weapons are basically the highest expression of terrorism--i.e., indiscriminate destruction of everything, much of which is going to have nothing to do with the military.

[RuralEngineer]

I'm not sure thousands of dead enemy civilians helps Israel after a chemical attack. Unless they're using tactical nukes to bust hardened targets they can't get with conventional weapons, I don't see the point. The first side to use nukes loses the PR battle if nothing else.

[dualstow]

Who would the nukes be directed at?
If it's a military target, why not just use conventional weapons?

I'm not sure thousands of dead enemy civilians helps Israel after a chemical attack. Unless they're using tactical nukes to bust hardened targets they can't get with conventional weapons, I don't see the point. The first side to use nukes loses the PR battle if nothing else.

IF they used nuclear weapons to respond, I think the rationale would be to make that the last chemical attack on Israel. In other words, a deterrent vs future attacks.

[WildAboutHarry]

IMHO, when actually used, nuclear weapons are basically the highest expression of terrorism--i.e., indiscriminate destruction of everything, much of which is going to have nothing to do with the military.

"Indiscriminate destruction" having nothing to do with military targets describes most of what happened in WWII, not just the massive damage due to the two A-Bombs that were used.  Both sides made extensive attacks on largely civilian targets, Japan versus Korea, China, etc. and the Germans against the UK, the Allies against Germany and Japan, etc.  The U.S. obviously missed out on that "indiscriminate destruction" but I believe the Germans had plans for a long-range bomber to do the same to New York and Washington, D.C.  And Japan launched thousands of explosives via hot-air balloons designed to indiscriminately attack targets in the western U.S.

Twentieth Century warfare (and WWII in particular) was, IMHO, the highest expression of terrorism.  A military response in the 21st century via any method would likely not rise to the "highest expression of terrorism" compared to the Twentieth Century standard.

And would a gas attack in response to a gas attack be more appropriate? 

[Reub]

I'm not sure thousands of dead enemy civilians helps Israel after a chemical attack. Unless they're using tactical nukes to bust hardened targets they can't get with conventional weapons, I don't see the point. The first side to use nukes loses the PR battle if nothing else.

Winning the PR battle doesn't help much if you are all dead.

[RuralEngineer]

I'm not sure thousands of dead enemy civilians helps Israel after a chemical attack. Unless they're using tactical nukes to bust hardened targets they can't get with conventional weapons, I don't see the point. The first side to use nukes loses the PR battle if nothing else.

Winning the PR battle doesn't help much if you are all dead.

The question wasn't worded "would Israel be justified in using nukes to prevent a chemical attack?"  It's "would Israel be justified in using a nuke as retribution for a chemical attack," which is very different.

If there was evidence that nuking Syria in the event of a chemical attack is necessary to avoid a future attack, then I think there could be a case made for such a strike.  However, where is the argument, evidence, or logic that supports such a strike over conventional weapons?  And why don't we expect the entire world to, including the surrounding Muslim nations, turn on Israel in a fury over its use of nuclear weapons.  Nukes are very much taboo in human culture.  The U.S. did it once, heaven help the country who does it next.  They had best be on the brink of destruction and facing no other option because they will have engendered the ill will of the entire world.

[Ad Orientem]

If Israel is attacked by someone using chemical weapons that entity should be obliterated. But not with nukes. There are so many problems here but one that no one seems to be discussing is that the effects nuclear weapons are not limited to where they go boom. Has anyone heard of radioactive fallout? If you set off a big bomb anywhere in the Middle East the fallout is going to be everywhere, but thousands of tons of radioactive dirt and dust will travel with the air current. If the wind shifts you could blanket your own country in radioactive dust.

Israel has nukes. But just like every country that has them, they know damn well you can't use them. If they were about to be wiped out or pushed into the sea, then I'd start digging my own fallout shelter. But until then, no. Nukes are out of bounds. Unless someone uses them against Israel first of course.

[MediumTex]

I was reading an article about a 1983 incident in which U.S. and NATO war games were almost mistaken for an attack by the Soviet Union, which could have set in motion a retaliatory strike by the Soviets.

Buried in the story, though, is a description of the way the war games unfolded, which involved the Soviet Union attacking U.S. and NATO interests with chemical weapons, and the U.S. responding to this attack with nuclear strikes.

In other words, as of 1983 it was apparently the U.S. policy to respond to at least some types of chemical weapons attacks with nuclear retaliation.

Link to Story

[Mountaineer]

If Israel is attacked by someone using chemical weapons that entity should be obliterated. But not with nukes. There are so many problems here but one that no one seems to be discussing is that the effects nuclear weapons are not limited to where they go boom. Has anyone heard of radioactive fallout? If you set off a big bomb anywhere in the Middle East the fallout is going to be everywhere, but thousands of tons of radioactive dirt and dust will travel with the air current. If the wind shifts you could blanket your own country in radioactive dust.

Israel has nukes. But just like every country that has them, they know damn well you can't use them. If they were about to be wiped out or pushed into the sea, then I'd start digging my own fallout shelter. But until then, no. Nukes are out of bounds. Unless someone uses them against Israel first of course.

We used to measure in our high school science classes radioactivity in the central eastern US after various US atomic bomb tests in the early 1960s.  To the best of my knowledge, all of the students are still alive and have had no adverse health effects from the radioactivity. 

[notsheigetz]

I was reading an article about a 1983 incident in which U.S. and NATO war games were almost mistaken for an attack by the Soviet Union, which could have set in motion a retaliatory strike by the Soviets.

The Military Channel airs a documentary on this incident every once in a while. The article doesn't make it as clear how close we actually came to nuclear war. In a scene that will remind you of the movie "War Games" the Soviets actually received a false launch detection signal showing three incoming U.S. missiles while the war games were underway. The operator on duty overrode the system, not once but twice, and ended up being sacked for not following protocol and initiating a retaliatory strike. I think we all owe him a debt of gratitude.

[murphy_p_t]

Would an attack by Syria, or Iran's proxy Hezbollah, on Israel using chemical or biological weapons, as has been predicted, justify the use of nuclear weapons by Israel?

I think this is an important question. I'm interested to know a summary of what the teaching of Talmudic scholars / religious figures / political leaders of the Israeli state view is their right/duty in these matters.

One question I think is relevant is whether a nuclear response is at all proportionate to a chemical attack? Does Talmudic morality (is this the guiding moral source?) require a proportionate response...or is it justified to literally "go nuclear"?

[dualstow]

I think this is an important question. I'm interested to know a summary of what the teaching of Talmudic scholars / religious figures / political leaders of the Israeli state view is their right/duty in these matters.

One question I think is relevant is whether a nuclear response is at all proportionate to a chemical attack? Does Talmudic morality (is this the guiding moral source?) require a proportionate response...or is it justified to literally "go nuclear"?

I wish catacomb were here to give an authentic Israeli opinion.

Although the religious have an influence in govt that makes me uncomfortable, Israel is a secular state if there ever was one, perhaps more so than the U.S. of course that doesn't mean it is not a loose cannon...

Your last question is an interesting one. Israel doesn't use chemical weapons as far as i know. So, it'd have to be a conventional response or nukes. Hmm.