How valuable are Jewish lives (comparing with American ones)?

[SaxonJackson]

No. I'm not biased about any particular religion. I just asked - are lifes of Jews (specifically - citizens of Israel) as valuable as lifes of citizens of the USA, or they are more valuable or less valuable?
If you could save Israel and you should have pay the price, what price (in the lives of Americans and Arabs) is acceptable?


France (as well as many other countries) already has nukes. We can live with it.

1) As an American Christian, all lives are valuable if God created them.
2) As an American citizen, the lives of my countrymen take priority.
3) As an American of English/Saxon heritage, my kinsman share my uniform, history, and blood.
4) As an American family man, not a soul on earth takes priority over my immediate family.

America First!!!

As for the Ashkenazim, I believe they were much safer when they resided in their home countries of the eastern Steppes of Europe. They put themselves in harm's way when they elbowed their way into the Mideast and started bullying their neighbors and announced their "Greater Israel Project." When you poke an Arabic beehive, you're apt to get stung.

 

[Zavulon]

P.S. In your “game,” you’ve even added in that Israel would destroy NEUTRAL Arab cities. Why would they ever do that? They’ve signed diplomatic agreements with them!

Some say, it's the part of "Samson protocol". "When you are leaving - kill them all". Just to keep sure than some formally neutral states, using other states as proxies, won't avoid retaliation. Nobody knows for sure, of course.

What you are doing in your hateful “game,” is taking what your fellow Islamist terrorists ARE doing, and what Israel has demonstrated they do not do, and asking “if the Jews started to do this, wouldn’t it be worth it to genocide them”?

If (very big IF) they do this - will you support them or Arabs? Do you support Israel because they are good guys and don't do bad things and would you support Israel if Israel do some terrible things (like nuking capitals of formally neutral Arab states)? And if you support even in the case of those actions - what price is acceptable for saving Israel and six million of Jews?

I’m done. You’re just another one of the numerous FOREIGN antisemites littering this forum.

Hey, at my personal opinion, as I openly declared in the start post, the USA should support Israel even if Israel have killed twenty million of Arabs and half million of Frenchies if it is not very dangerous for America (like 5% risk of getting killed lesser than one million of Americans).

 

[ding]

Israel doesn't follow moral laws. Israel follows Darwinian laws.

 

[1srelluc]

This thread is dildos....OP must have eaten a bag of dicks.

 

[my2¢]

I'd pick option #1, not get involved militarily. War begets war and if it wasn't for our political leaders sticking our noses into other nations' affairs, we'd have no worry about how other countries feel about us. Offer a peaceful hand but knock off being a supplier of arms and stop being a promoter of war mongering.

 

[Zavulon]

I don't believe that is the order of precedence. First strike (i.e. ICBM's) is to take out military installations. Second wave is bombers to take out cities. Submarines are the fail safe. The time between the first wave and the bomber wave (i.e. flight time of bombers) allows for leaders to turn it off.

It depends. Like Russian may prefer to use their SSBNs for point-blank initial shooting against US military installations, ICBMs to finish military installations and coerce into peace and aviation just affiliate all groups

But talking about moral side - if you nuclear forces are already effectively attacked, you don't waste them on enemy's military installations, you choose between surrender without retaliation and counter-value retaliation (understanding that it's suicidal).
1. First strike (by attacker) - counter-force. And suggestion of peace terms.
2. Retaliation strike (by defender) - counter-value.
3. Finishing strike (by attacker, if defender didn't accept his peace terms) - counter-value.

It's normal for everyone, and in this thread I don't demonize anybody.

 

[Eman623]

If France nukes Israel, Israel will nuke France. No other countries will be involved.

 

[ding]

It depends. Like Russian may prefer to use their SSBNs for point-blank initial shooting against US military installations, ICBMs to finish military installations and coerce into peace and aviation just affiliate all groups
View attachment 1252576


But talking about moral side - if you nuclear forces are already effectively attacked, you don't waste them on enemy's military installations, you choose between surrender without retaliation and counter-value retaliation (understanding that it's suicidal).
1. First strike (by attacker) - counter-force. And suggestion of peace terms.
2. Retaliation strike (by defender) - counter-value.
3. Finishing strike (by attacker, if defender didn't accept his peace terms) - counter-value.

It's normal for everyone, and in this thread I don't demonize anybody.

They can detect missile launches. I don't see a scenario where they don't retaliate against military targets using ICBM's. It would be idiotic not to. The fail safe submarines have enough firepower to wipe out any enemy. If population centers are targeted with missiles - which would be a mistake - you can rest assure the same would be done back to them.

 

[Zavulon]

If France nukes Israel, Israel will nuke France. No other countries will be involved.

Doesn't really matter. May be, Israel, being attacked by the France-led coalition (and with nuclear forces nuked by France), have killed twenty million of Frenchies (mostly civilians) and only half million of Arabs. France nuked Israel one more time, have killed three millions of Jews and both Frenchies (forty five survivors) and Arabs are really determined to finish the Jews.

You still have the only way to save Israel (if you wish it) - attack French nuclear submarines, and if you do so, France will attack the US cities.

What price are you ready to pay to save Israel?

 

[Zavulon]

They can detect missile launches.

It's not some magic trick and something given from above. One need satellites to control the sea. And America is almost blind in Arctic nowadays.

I don't see a scenario where they don't retaliate against military targets using ICBM's.

"Launch under attack" took, at least, seven minutes. The flight time from M'Clur strait to ICBMs position, launched by supressed ballistic trajectory, is five minutes. It's not that Russia can do in any given moment, it's quite complicated operation, but much lessrr complicated than was Pearl Harbour.

It would be idiotic not to. The fail safe submarines have enough firepower to wipe out any enemy.

Not necessarily. It depends on how good are SLBMs and how good is ABD. If you have in Western Atlantic only two SSBNs with only twenty missiles each, then, Moscow ABD would intercept them all (especially if one SSBN is destroyed by an attacking submarine). And even then Russians might decide that losing Moscow is acceptable price (as they decided in 1812).

If population centers are targeted with missiles - which would be a mistake - you can rest assure the same would be done back to them.

Yes. And if we are more interested in the protection of our own population than killing the enemies - first strike will be almost pure counter-force.

 

[Gary Seven]

What about all the Jewish Americans?
Don't you mean the value of Israelis vs Americans?

Is this just another stupid cock-a-mamie divisive thread?

Nah, couldn't be...

 

[Zavulon]

What about all the Jewish Americans?
Don't you mean the value of Israelis vs Americans?

Partly, yes. But, may be, fall of Israel might also increase level of anti-Semitism in America, either. Not to the level of genocide, probably, but they might lose some of their social support (as well as "American Zionists").

 

[Eman623]

Doesn't really matter. May be, Israel, being attacked by the France-led coalition (and with nuclear forces nuked by France), have killed twenty million of Frenchies (mostly civilians) and only half million of Arabs. France nuked Israel one more time, have killed three millions of Jews and both Frenchies (forty five survivors) and Arabs are really determined to finish the Jews.

You still have the only way to save Israel (if you wish it) - attack French nuclear submarines, and if you do so, France will attack the US cities.

What price are you ready to pay to save Israel?

Israel would not need saving from France. They would defeat France.

We're talking France!

 

[Zincwarrior]

Pro-tip: 'Jews' is a religion. "Americans" is a region.

 

[Zavulon]

Israel would not need saving from France. They would defeat France.

We're talking France!

In this thread we are not discussing military capabilities, and even if we were, Israel just doesn't possess enough of anti-submarine forces to find and eliminate all three French SSBNs, before they launched their missiles. And in our game, France attacked Israelis military assets first, and attacked quite effectively. Israel was able to kill twenty million of the enemies (mostly civilians), but wasn't able to destroy French nuclear forces.
Now Israel doesn't have nukes, and France has three nuclear submarines.
You, as an American decision-maker should decide
1) to attack France and suffer their retaliation or
2) not attack France and allow them genocide population of Israel.

 

[Zavulon]

Pro-tip: 'Jews' is a religion. "Americans" is a region.

It depends. My Dad considered himself as a Jew, and he was an Atheist. Many Jews are atheists and some are Christians. Americans can also be an ethnic group and live somewhere else. Like, you know, Americans who settled in Donbass, Russian Empire, and built town New York, in Russia they were still Americans. Only their children and grandchildren became Russians (or Ukrainians).

 

[Eman623]

In this thread we are not discussing military capabilities, and even if we were, Israel just doesn't possess enough of anti-submarine forces to find and eliminate all three French SSBNs, before they launched their missiles. And in our game, France attacked Israelis military assets first, and attacked quite effectively. Israel was able to kill twenty million of the enemies (mostly civilians), but wasn't able to destroy French nuclear forces.
Now Israel doesn't have nukes, and France has three nuclear submarines.
You, as an American decision-maker should decide
1) to attack France and suffer their retaliation or
2) not attack France and allow them genocide population of Israel.

Your scenario is severely contrived and biased. We have no reason, nor need to attack anyone here. Israel has already rendered Southern and Central France largely uninhabitable. We might loan Israel a few nuclear subs (in the unlikely case that they don't already have some) to make sure the French don't lob any more nukes at Israel.

The calculus of nuclear weapons is simple. If you nuke us, we will nuke you. MAD is the only defense against nukes.

 

[Zavulon]

Your scenario is severely contrived and biased. We have no reason, nor need to attack anyone here.

Ok. Is it your choice? Not to attack? In your modification of scenario you have even lesser time, because if you don't stop France in few hours - France will try to finish genocide of Jews by French nukes.

Israel has already rendered Southern and Central France largely uninhabitable. We might loan Israel a few nuclear subs (in the unlikely case that they don't already have some) to make sure the French don't lob any more nukes at Israel.

It's not about military capabilities at all, but even if it were... Nukes are not some kind of magic wands or demonic plagues. It just makes a big cabooome and kill a limited amount of people be the shockwave, light, heat and radiation.

With their amount of weapons Israel should be very lucky (and France should be very unlucky) to manage to kill twenty million of Frenchies.
And then France got three millions of Jews killed and became pretty determined to kill all the Jews.

The calculus of nuclear weapons is simple. If you nuke us, we will nuke you. MAD is the only defense against nukes.

In real life situation is a bit more complicated.

For example:

1. France nuked Israel's non-strategic bases with their nukes and was successful. Israel doesn't posses non-strategic nukes anymore.

2. Israel started to prepare it's strategic nuclear weapons.

3. France tryed to nuke Israeli strategic weapon, but it was too late. Israel had launched all missiles on French cities. French air defence and civil defence totally failed. Twenty million of French civilians are dead (or maimed and crippled). Israel have no more nukes. France still have forty million of totally survived but absolutely angry citizens, three strategic nuclear submarines and a wing of nuclear capable Rafaels with cruise missiles.

4. French Rafaels destroy main Israeli cities and kill 3 mln of Jews (and destroy some survived military and logistic assets). Israel now doesn't posses nukes, its logistics is significantly degraded, but 6 mln people in hinterlands and IDF are still alive and kicking (but definitely can't reach France at all).

5. France is really determined to kill all survivors and you can't stop them by the words of reason. You (as an American decision-maker) can't even stop them by direct and open military threat. All you can do - try to destroy French nuclear submarines. But if you attack them - they will attack US cities. What price are you ready to pay to save 6 mln of Jews?


Nuclear deterrence Type II is "If we nuke you, you won't be able to nuke us".

 

[Eman623]

Ok. Is it your choice? Not to attack? In your modification of scenario you have even lesser time, because if you don't stop France in few hours - France will try to finish genocide of Jews by French nukes.


It's not about military capabilities at all, but even if it were... Nukes are not some kind of magic wands or demonic plagues. It just makes a big cabooome and kill a limited amount of people be the shockwave, light, heat and radiation.

View attachment 1252718

With their amount of weapons Israel should be very lucky (and France should be very unlucky) to manage to kill twenty million of Frenchies.
And then France got three millions of Jews killed and became pretty determined to kill all the Jews.


In real life situation is a bit more complicated.

For example:

1. France nuked Israel's non-strategic bases with their nukes and was successful. Israel doesn't posses non-strategic nukes anymore.

That doesn't make any sense. All nukes are strategic. There's no such thing as a tactical nuke.

2. Israel started to prepare it's strategic nuclear weapons.

And Israel fires them off before the French missiles even hit.

3. France tryed to nuke Israeli strategic weapon, but it was too late. Israel had launched all missiles on French cities. French air defence and civil defence totally failed. Twenty million of French civilians are dead (or maimed and crippled). Israel have no more nukes. France still have forty million of totally survived but absolutely angry citizens, three strategic nuclear submarines and a wing of nuclear capable Rafaels with cruise missiles.

The president and entire government of France is dead, including all of their infrastructure. They've got some submarines but no one knows who is in charge.

4. French Rafaels destroy main Israeli cities and kill 3 mln of Jews (and destroy some survived military and logistic assets). Israel now doesn't posses nukes, its logistics is significantly degraded, but 6 mln people in hinterlands and IDF are still alive and kicking (but definitely can't reach France at all).

Or they just sit tight and wait for orders that will never come.

5. France is really determined to kill all survivors and you can't stop them by the words of reason.

"France"? If I want to talk to France, who do I call? Spolier alert. They're all dead.

You (as an American decision-maker) can't even stop them by direct and open military threat. All you can do - try to destroy French nuclear submarines. But if you attack them - they will attack US cities. What price are you ready to pay to save 6 mln of Jews?

The way you talk about Jews is rather offputting. Would it change anything if it were France nuking the Saudis?

We're not going to preemptively nuke anyone. But taking out a submarine by non-nuclear means is still on the table. Would I do that? I'm not going to tell you. Meaning I'm not going to tell France. Better to keep them guessing and maybe hesitant.

Nuclear deterrence Type II is "If we nuke you, you won't be able to nuke us".

Nah. Israel saw the missiles coming and launched their own. Israel lives in a dangerous neighborhood and has plans for every kind of threat. I think France will hesitate to nuke Israel if they think Israel will nuke them back. Even Muslims value their own lives.

 

[ChristisKing]

I might have special needs and a low IQ, but the OP has an even lower one because nobody has ever claimed that lives of Jews mean more than any other human life. Idiot!