You are using a chart that says Israel has 90 nukes. Why? Please fix this glaring mistake.
Thirty-nine years ago Mordechai Vanunu stated Israel had between 150 and 200 nukes.
Based on simple math (back then Israel were building at least ten a year), and knowing this enemy of humanity, and their Samson Option, they would want to build more per year.
I'd say they have produced as many as possible during these last thirty-nine years...
So, the real number is definitely more than 500, and in my opinion, most likely closer to 1,000 today.
Why build so many?
So They Can Threaten To Use The Samson Option And Nuclear Winter As Blackmail.
Also, Israel wants, what it now has, about 1,000 nukes, to insure the Samson Option will cause a nuclear winter. These psychopaths are using it as worldwide blackmail and threat. Houston, we have a problem. A Satanic problem, that must be dealt with soon, for this tribe is going down, and they will bring us all down with them. Time to wake up boys and girls.
I have been informed by a correspondent that the site that I used for the explanation of why the Trump administration continues to lie for Israel about its nuclear arsenal has a credibility problem of its own. One can spot it by reading the article carefully. The headline says, “Israel has 90 nukes – but our leaders won’t say so because U.S. would have to cut off aid.” The “90 nukes” wording is also in the subtitle and in the third paragraph. But in the second paragraph we see, “At least 90 of them.” Indeed. It turns out that there is a Wikipedia page that examines the question of Israel’s nuclear weapons, and there we see in the second sentence, with a host of references, “Estimates of Israel’s stockpile range between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads.” So, the 90 number is apparently a bare minimum estimate. My correspondent, who has followed the matter quite closely, thinks the real number of nuclear weapons might be closer to 1000.
This is an old argument - "we only need a few warheads to impose unacceptable costs".
It's true but irrelevant. What if the enemy uses tactical nukes, say only on military targets? "If you destroy my military base I will kill 10 million of your civilians" is simply not credible.
We need to sell them to countries that don't have any. If all countries had nukes there would be exactly one more war. That'd be when one tin-horn tyrant nukes his neighbor and the world then leaves a hole where his country once was. Keep your tyranting inside your borders, thug.
Maybe. If I have only 100 nukes, the probability of all of them being shot down is very high. If I have 3,000 nukes, many will hit their targets. Everything government does is wasteful to some degree.
Yeah, thats the basic logic behind the "nuclear sponges" in Wyoming and North Dakota, where the pK is less than 1 so you have to allocate more inbound than the silo can send outbound. Pretty dumb concept amd should be totally abolished, using just the SSBNs, can load up TLAMs etc with W-80s if you want that capability. Zero point to the silos anymore. Especially given how much harder the SLBMs are to stop, since the time of flight is like 80% shorter than a regular silo bird
Hypersonic vehicles cannot be shot down. All of Russia's ICBMs are hypersonic. American hypersonics are in development, years from deployment. As demonstrated in Dnipro, Ukraine, hypersonic inertial warheads require no explosives.
Dear Brian
You are using a chart that says Israel has 90 nukes. Why? Please fix this glaring mistake.
Thirty-nine years ago Mordechai Vanunu stated Israel had between 150 and 200 nukes.
Based on simple math (back then Israel were building at least ten a year), and knowing this enemy of humanity, and their Samson Option, they would want to build more per year.
I'd say they have produced as many as possible during these last thirty-nine years...
So, the real number is definitely more than 500, and in my opinion, most likely closer to 1,000 today.
Why build so many?
So They Can Threaten To Use The Samson Option And Nuclear Winter As Blackmail.
Mark
Also, Israel wants, what it now has, about 1,000 nukes, to insure the Samson Option will cause a nuclear winter. These psychopaths are using it as worldwide blackmail and threat. Houston, we have a problem. A Satanic problem, that must be dealt with soon, for this tribe is going down, and they will bring us all down with them. Time to wake up boys and girls.
Mark
Israel’s Nukes
I have been informed by a correspondent that the site that I used for the explanation of why the Trump administration continues to lie for Israel about its nuclear arsenal has a credibility problem of its own. One can spot it by reading the article carefully. The headline says, “Israel has 90 nukes – but our leaders won’t say so because U.S. would have to cut off aid.” The “90 nukes” wording is also in the subtitle and in the third paragraph. But in the second paragraph we see, “At least 90 of them.” Indeed. It turns out that there is a Wikipedia page that examines the question of Israel’s nuclear weapons, and there we see in the second sentence, with a host of references, “Estimates of Israel’s stockpile range between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads.” So, the 90 number is apparently a bare minimum estimate. My correspondent, who has followed the matter quite closely, thinks the real number of nuclear weapons might be closer to 1000.
by David Martin
https://EarthNewspaper.com/Israels-Nukes-by-David-Martin
This is an old argument - "we only need a few warheads to impose unacceptable costs".
It's true but irrelevant. What if the enemy uses tactical nukes, say only on military targets? "If you destroy my military base I will kill 10 million of your civilians" is simply not credible.
We need to sell them to countries that don't have any. If all countries had nukes there would be exactly one more war. That'd be when one tin-horn tyrant nukes his neighbor and the world then leaves a hole where his country once was. Keep your tyranting inside your borders, thug.
Maybe. If I have only 100 nukes, the probability of all of them being shot down is very high. If I have 3,000 nukes, many will hit their targets. Everything government does is wasteful to some degree.
Yeah, thats the basic logic behind the "nuclear sponges" in Wyoming and North Dakota, where the pK is less than 1 so you have to allocate more inbound than the silo can send outbound. Pretty dumb concept amd should be totally abolished, using just the SSBNs, can load up TLAMs etc with W-80s if you want that capability. Zero point to the silos anymore. Especially given how much harder the SLBMs are to stop, since the time of flight is like 80% shorter than a regular silo bird
Hypersonic vehicles cannot be shot down. All of Russia's ICBMs are hypersonic. American hypersonics are in development, years from deployment. As demonstrated in Dnipro, Ukraine, hypersonic inertial warheads require no explosives.