An Israeli minister was recently reprinted for mentioning the nuclear option in the war with Hamas in Gaza. So... can Israel do the unthinkable and use a nuclear bomb in Gaza?
Hamas demonstrated a desire, but not ability to carry out a new Holocaust. This is not acceptable to Israel or the US. It is however welcomed by many players in the Muslim world.
It is also the normal state of war. When people or monkeys are at war, they wish to kill their adversary. The sort of war where we try to not kill our enemy is a relatively new phenomenon.
Hamas did however fail miserably to kill Jews in Holocaust style. In the Holocaust, the jewish people killed very few Germans. The Russians had similar concentration camps which lasted some 50 years longer; they killed intellectuals and other undesirables. The mark of the Holocaust was the cold blooded murder of millions of Jews, without significant resistance and without significant losses on the German side (if we do not count the development of the atomic bomb by mostly German Jewish scientists and the US winning the World War with it. Jews play a prominent role in American politics, science and economy, just like they did in Germany before Hitler).
During the October 7 attack, Hamas lost about 1000 soldiers for about 1200 Israeli children, civilians, elderly and some soldiers killed. Thus, while Hamas dreams of a Holocaust, reality is nowhere near. October 7 was a balanced war between the elite of Hamas and the civilians of Israel, with little help from a very incompetent military, police and Mossad.
In the hostilities after October 7, Israel loses about 1 soldier to every 1000 Palestinians killed. This is closer to the Holocaust ratio. If we also consider the material losses to the Palestinian people and Hamas, or the ratio of these losses as a fraction of the GDP, the current war is more similar to the Holocaust than October 7 with palestinians playing the part of the jews.
Hamas is rich in people and poor in money and guns. Thus, if we calculate the equivalent in lives (that is how many lives of women and children would Hamas be willing to trade or exchange for the military losses) to the financial and military loses caused by Israel, the situation is bleak. Gaza is a very densely populated territory, with considerable defences. These defenses are difficult for the Israeli to overcome. Fighting in tunnels is hard, and can very easily result in dead soldiers. Snipers can easily hide inside buildings and behind children. Shooting these children one by one can be expensive, time consuming and result in international support for Hamas.
A Nuclear Bomb is a clean final solution to the Palestinian problem. It will keep the area empty for many years to come. Israel has already advised Palestinians to move away from North Gaza ahead of the planned demolition of the territory. This demolition is necessary to prevent Palestinians from coming back to their houses after the war. Unlike Hamas, Israel targets material assets more than people. Material assets can be destroyed without much international criticism, whereas little children carrying other injured children don't look too good in the world press. Also, Hamas is rich in people and poor in material assets. Thus, the Israeli policy makes sense.
Once all Palestinians that obey Israel have left North Gaza, a nuclear strike may be considered. It would only kill Hamas soldiers and their human shields. These human shields are often very young, innocent children because the International Community reacts more to dead children than to dead soldiers. Also, children are cheaper. Soldiers take longer to grow and eat more food on the way.
With North Gaza somewhat empty, a nuclear strike could kill remarkably few people. Surely, it would have to be a very small bomb. It is these small bombs that are the most difficult to make. Israel and the US have them. They can be used as a demonstration of power. The smallest nuclear bomb would only destroy a few buildings and, in a densely populated but somewhat evacuated area, only a few buildings. They are nuclear, but small affairs. It would be more of a psychological statement than a destructive act of war.
Nuclear bombs can be made tiny in various ways, one realized, perhaps accidentally, in North Korea, during their latest test. Mass produced small nuclear bombs do exist and are available. However, even the smallest nuclear bomb would set a dangerous precedent. It would only make sense to use it, if there is a plan to start this sort of war with other countries.
Another alternative would be non-nuclear explosives with explosive power in the nuclear range. There are the rods from God -- tungsten sticks that descend from orbit with extraordinary kinetic energy and are capable to wreak havoc in the nuclear range.
Or, just very many conventional bombs and rockets as until now. Israel has already destroyed 10% of the buddings in Gaza. It can easily destroy them all, one by one. Of course, if the war stops then the destruction would stop, and so many lives could be saved. When war starts, it is more reasonable to replace the hallucinating leadership (from both sides or we could be correct call it criminal leadership instead of hallucinating) that caused the war to start than to keep the same leaders in place to "see it through" as it is done now.
No comments:
Post a Comment