Talk:Samson Option

Latest comment: 2 months ago by 66.25.69.185 in topic Origins of the Term "Samson Option"

Introduction inaccurate

edit

The alleged doctrine (most likely either a journalistic invention or deliberate Israeli misinformation) predicated the destruction of the Middle East and even other countries, essentially in revenge should Israel face military defeat. The summary that it is a "deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against a country whose military has destroyed much of Israel" is wrong. Royalcourtier (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

So what is right instead then? 213.136.77.237 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

2023

edit
Notice how you got no answer? Weird how Israels defenders go silent if they can't simple deny something isn't it. 122.61.234.210 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
It would be the last revenge against something which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Israelis, or had a high probability of leading to the imminent final demise of Israel as a nation. It doesn't have much to do with "military defeat" in the ordinary sense. Israel was military unsuccessful in the initial stages of the Yom Kippur War, but Israel didn't invoke the Samson Option... AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Quotes Removed

edit

Since the events on Oct 7, 2022, several quotes have been removed from this article. The quotes were from previous Israeli generals and Presidents, stating that if Israel fell, every other civilization would fall with them. I believe this information is EXTREMELY important for the average citizen to know. When I had read it I was both surprised and heartbroken. Before that I did not understand why Israel had such a hold on world politics. This redaction needs to be reversed. Theober (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Destruction of Earth

edit

The statement added here by a bare IP with no other edits contends something impossible with present technology. Here is an easy-to-digest link from a reputable source confirming such. The sources they added here don't say anything about planetary-scale destruction; they're just the first articles you get when you google "Samson option". I would like to remove this incorrect information; anyone who disagrees can discuss it here instead of mutely reverting. 82.12.148.203 (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The desutruction of the planet is entirely different to the destruction of civilization. Last I checked this article there were about four quotes, 2 from presidents and 2 from generals, threatening the destruction of modern civilization if Tel Aviv and Jerusalem fell. By trying to cover this up you are helping a regime hold the entirety of modern civilization hostage. I dont have access to the article as Ive previously witnessed it, Im just one man. 96.63.157.206 (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have nothing to do with the rest of the article, it's the statement about the destruction of "much of the planet's landscape" and "planet earth as a whole" that I'm trying to rectify. All the nuclear weapons on earth couldn't do that, let alone Israel's unofficial arsenal. 82.12.148.203 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Origins of the Term "Samson Option"

edit

There is a lot of space between the biblical story of Samson, and using it as a metaphor for Israel's nuclear policy, meaning how does meaning start THERE, and end up being HERE.

The temple Samson destroyed was not "the entire world" in metaphoric scope. It was "the" temple, and not all of the temples, building, civilizations, etc... Limited geography, and limited "world impact". In contrast, Israel's supposed strategy using "Samson" as a metaphor conveys the idea that everything that Israel destroys somehow belongs to Israel, and it is their right to destroy it. It brings arrogance into the conveyed metaphor. Israel will nuke EVERYTHING it owns. I very much doubt that this is an image the Jews, and Israel, would like to portray, and so I wonder if this label was fastened upon them as a means of conveying anti-Semitic sentiments to a situation where I would expect Israel to be concerned about their own survival, and not destroying "civilization" that they own.

Boils down to a choice, IMO. Is Israel arrogant enough to believe that it owns the world, or has someone used this metaphor to describe their apparent policy as a bit of anti-Semitic propaganda, hence the question "Where did this metaphor come from?", and if it was organic to the Jews, Israel, etc... the follow-up question would be "Have they actually thought this through, and considered what the metaphor means in terms of their apparent belief that they "own the world"?66.25.69.185 (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply