Talk:Samson Option/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

MAD

This article needs to describe thehow the "Samson option" differsfrom the mutually assured destruction concept that played a part in the cold between Russia and the U.S.. As I understand it, use of nukes against Israel would not be needed for the option to be invoked (unlike the Cold War's mutually assured destruction) or at least that's how I beleive Hersh described it. --Cab88 04:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No doubt they're somewhat similar in abstract strategic logic, but there are many practical differences of detail, such as that:

1) Both the Soviets and U.S. had nukes, while Arabs have not had nukes.

2) The Soviets and U.S. never claimed as their overall strategic goal the extirpation of the other nation as a political entity, and the "throwing" of its people "into the sea", while for many decades there was a constant stream of wannabe-genocidal threats against Israel from Arabs (including from official government spokesmen), as there still is from Ahmadinajad of Iran.

3) The Soviet Union and the U.S. were completely open and public about possessing nukes, while Israel has not been.

4) It has been implicitly understood that Israel could retaliate nuclearly against a (non-nuclear) biological, chemical, or "mega-terrorism" attack which kills thousands of Israelis and/or thows the future existence of Israel as a Jewish state into question.

5) It has been implicitly understood that in the case of such an attack, Israel could retaliate nuclearly against ALL surrounding and nearby Arab countries, as well as some of its more comitted enemies (such as Iran). That's why Israel probably has over a hundred warheads, not 10 or 12.

AnonMoos 05:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is viewed as a system of mutally assured destruction by the nature of the situation in which they would be used. The "nuclear triggers"- that bulleted list which I have been trying to replace within the article, all show situations in which Israel's existense is doomed by conventional military actions. For example, had the Arab armies broken through the Israeli defences and captured Tel Aviv, it was thought by the Israelis that they would then have begun the process of exterminating every last Jew, or the second holocaust. In that situation, the Israelis could then have nuked Cairo, Damascas, ect.- both nations would have been destroyed, even though only one used nuclear weapons. That is where the mutually assured destruction idea comes into play. Rudy Breteler 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ranting propaganda tirade

If Israel were forced into using this option, nuclear attacks on major European capitals (Moscow, Berlin, etc.) as well as Arab countries is nearly assured. -- 09:19, 12 May 2007 68.160.11.195

Please explain. --Nucleusboy 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an important article because the Samson Option is about indiscriminate destruction of people and government who have not attacked and do not support attacks on Israel. Also, any attack on Russia by our ally Israel would result in a Russian attack on the US.

While Israeli officials have been more indirect in their threats, private supporters have been more forthcoming. A widely circulated quote that I'll include when get around to fixing up article can be found on a number of sites: Prof. Martin Van Crevel, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem: Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. Israel has the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.

In April 2002 Jewish academic David Perlmutter in the Los Angeles Times inferred Israel under some circumstances would launch revenge attacks against targets worldwide:Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow--it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Sampson in Gaza? With an H-bomb? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away--unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans--have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?

Right now I'm too busy to update this article with a mass of sources I have on the topic. A few quotes and links can be found on my web page if anyone wants to investigate. Israeli Nuclear Threats and Blackmail

There have been a couple new books on Israeli nuclear weapons and strategy and a number of new articles since I put that page up in 2005, so there's lots of info out there. Search internet for more info!

Carol Moore 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

That really doesn't seem to make much sense, and probably belongs together with Ouze Merham and apocrypha of that ilk. There's little doubt that if the Samson Option ever went down, Israel would probably target MANY Arab countries (not just the particular one that attacked or supported an attack against Israel), and probably Iran into the bargain -- but hardly Europe (and furthermore, I highly doubt whether Israel has the ability to cause nuclear winter, since it only has A-bombs, not H-bombs). AnonMoos 03:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"it only has A-bombs, not H-bombs" Are you sure of that? I've heard say that the case may be otherwise. Rudy Breteler 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As have I. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Israel Supporters' Quotes Most Hysterical -- AntiSemitism Charges Not Helpful to Better Article

It's quite unwiki and unseemly to start yelling anti-semitism over criticism of the state of Israel and its more hysterical supporters, don't you think? The hysteria tends to be from supporters of Israel who use the threat of Samson Option to try to intimidate, like the two quotes above -- including Xian Zionists trying to hurry up the return of Jesus. As I shall illustrate.

Don't worry, in the new updates I'll be sourcing info above, in proper context, as well as additional info. Of course, now Israel, like the US is moving towards a careful first strike position, which also will be documented. See Project Daniel.

Also note that I have discovered the phrase SAMSON OPTION is being used more and more to describe other groups and nations' wild threats and suicidal plans, so the article still deserves its own page. Carol Moore 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

It is equally unwiki and unseemly to lable any Zionist or supporter of Israel as "hysterical." Don't be a hypocrite. Rudy Breteler 21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, lady -- it's basic common sense that if Israel can hit Iran with nukes, then it can probably also hit at least part of Italy with nukes. But there's not the slightest credible evidence that Israel has a policy of targeting "European capitals", or that it would benefit Israel in any way to target "European capitals" or to threaten to target "European capitals". And all Israel's nukes are probably A-bombs with yields in the tens of kilotons (not H-bombs with yields in the megatons), which is quite enough to cripple a medium-large city (as seen at Hiroshima or Nagasaki), but will kick up dust into the upper atmosphere at rates orders of magnitude less than what Tambora did in 1815.

As for antisemites, they seem to be the one pushing the accusations contained in your May 30th posting with the greatest persistence and gusto -- and if you run with the dogs, don't be surprised if you catch fleas. AnonMoos 23:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

204.15.6.99 edits

It's certainly widely suspected that if Israel ever felt forced to use nukes, then it might nuke many countries (not just the single country most directly involved in a destabilizing attack on Israel); that's why it's called the "Samson Option" in the first place. However, what slightest evidence do you have that religious-war thinking has entered into the Israeli government and military's contingency plans on this issue? AnonMoos 20:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Samson Option and Mecca

As I have stated, there are unconfirmed rumors that Israel would use its nuclear weapons against Mecca and Medina as leverage against Islamic extremists who are not bound by the rules of international relations. Simply query the web and you can find a lot of discussion on this matter. Obviously the State of Israel would never show its hand to the world for having weapons of mass destruction by stating its deterency theory. However, an op-ed piece by Shimson Ben-Yosef, writing for the IsraelInsider, called the Samson Strategy, clearly spells out Israel's untold position with regards to Muslim terrorists. BTW, Israel probably does have, or least has the technology to manufacture hydrogen bombs.204.15.6.99 21:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever -- There's not the slightest evidence that the Samson Option is a religiously-motivated policy on Israel's part, and as originally conceived the policy was aimed at Arab governments, not free-floating "Islamic extremists" (there were no significant Islamic terrorist groups until Hezbollah in 1983), and it's still true that there's no possible way that an Islamic terrorist group could obtain a nuclear weapon without some kind of support from some government -- which means that the policy is still ultimately directed at Arab and Islamic governments. AnonMoos 22:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I never said that Israel's deterence strategy was solely a religious based policy. It is simply a form of mutually assured destruction theory that has been proposed in dealing with rogue groups who would use weapons of mass destruction (and not necessarily nuclear) on Israeli soil. It is a plausible argument that these groups may erroneously believe that Israel cannot strike back with weapons of mass destruction against a small cadre of fighters who are not part of nation state. Also, your argument that a terrorist group needs support from a foreign govenment to obtain weapons of mass destruction, is simply wrong. While Hezbollah may arguably have the most sophistacated arms of such groups, they are not the only group to have their own resources and basic engineering to soon create weapons of mass destruction. In fact, the engineering and material used in the Trinity Project, for example, is by today's standards, unsophisticated. To illistrate my point, there was a Boy Scout by the name of David Hahn, who in 1995, in the suburbs of Detroit, was able to amass the basic material and technology to nearly create a critical mass of fissionable uranium. Furthermore, the basic blue prints for a crude atomic weapon have been found on the web many times. The question now becomes when, and not if, these groups aquire weapons of mass destruction how will governments restrain their use.

Secondly, I believe you are presuming that Israel's deterence theory originally conceived 40 years ago is set in stone. All nations with modern armaments always update their war plans to cover as many scenerios as realisticly can be conceived.204.15.6.99 14:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you on a number of points, but the current wording of the article (which does not imply that the Sampson Option is part of a religious-war strategy) is acceptable... AnonMoos 16:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see we agree on something. This was an excellent debate.204.15.6.99 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

and israel should be the one having nukes?

why so much hypocrisy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.29.233.15 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel's Nuclear Monopoly

It has been suggested that this section be moved to "Israel and weapons of mass destruction". I have no problem with that.204.15.6.99 17:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad Idea, since many people do search specifically for this concept. I just noticed and undid the vandalism mentioning my name. Guess it's time to put a couple hours into beefing up this article and sourcing the heck out of it :-) But the "Israel and weapons of mass destruction" article SHOULD have at least a paragraph, if not a section, on the Samson Option.

Carol Moore 01:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Actually, 204.15.6.99 is only referring to the section he just recently added (and which is in fact less specifically relevant to the Samson Option than it is to the other article) -- he wasn't talking about merging this whole article. Meanwhile, based on your embarassingly public semi-meltdown of 30 May 2007 above, in which you basically uncritically regurgitated propaganda material from bigoted antisemitic hate websites, I would advise you stay far, far, away from this article, and confine your editing efforts to articles for which you are more suited to making a valuable contribution... AnonMoos 14:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification on what he wants to move. Also note that the main article is Nuclear weapons and Israel and Israel and weapons of mass destruction is a related article mentioning other weapons as well. So he must decide where it is more appropriate.

What anti-Semitic sites are you referring to? I carefully avoid such sites and would appreciate being clued in specifically. Obviously, some quotes can be found on highly credible sites AND anti-Semitic sites. Hardly the fault of the quote or who made it. Carol Moore 16:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I'm referring to your ranting propaganda tirade of May 30 above, whose accusations have very little credibility except among a small minority of extremists, but which have been widely taken up by racist bigots -- just compare these two Usenet postings by serwad@bellsouth.net:

• http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/052bc80acd33e46a
• http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/a984c8be81baa50e

I'm sorry if I misjudged your motives, but your May 30 posting left me with an extremely negative impression, and that material does not belong in this article. AnonMoos 21:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of those links are to articles that contain some accurate information with obviously bigoted headlines. I do NOT make such bigoted statements using overly broad, inaccurate statements -- or slurs -- against members of a religious or other group. And I did NOT above. Also note that this and similar Creveld quotes have been widely used by both supporters and critics of Israel. I believe they are appropriate for such an article -- but only after relevant quotes from Israeli officials which could take up some space themselves.

Remember, the purpose of WIKI is not to white wash the actions of any state, individual, etc. -- including Israel and its most problematic supporters -- if the information is accurate, relevant to the topic, properly balanced in context, and properly sourced from credible sources.

I'm on page 226 taking notes from Hersh's SAMSON OPTION book, have Avner Cohen's ISRAEL AND THE BOMB right here for miscellaneous sourcing, accumulated a lot of other good sourced notes from my hardrive and the web. But first I'll see what is missing from a couple other relevant articles that need beefing up and try to approach them all as integrated effort. Carol Moore 23:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Nuclear Monopoly Cleaned up - Whether to Move to Nuclear Weapons and Israel: Policy

Separating this from other posts above to avoid confusion. I made changes you can check out and why in the edit summary. The nuclear monopoly issue IS different than Samson Option which really is a last resort strategy -- unless you want to specifically say it is a scare tactic to MAINTAIN Israel's nuclear monopoly, which it can be. Carol Moore 03:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I dont' know how to move the Nuclear Monopoly section. Maybe Carol Moore or AnonMoos can do this? Thanks. BTW, I'm sorry if I caused a bruhaha by adding this section here:(204.15.6.99 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of proposing DOCTRINE changes to the Nuclear weapons and Israel page. (When I re-wrote the section for this article I realized many of those details should be there with a shorter version on this article.)

I posted them on talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel I'll give them a day or two to respond and make the changes.

THEN I'm going to just post the whole Monopoly section to their TALK page and if there are no complaints I'll just CUT AND PASTE it to the article, fully integrated into its POLICY section as a Monopoly section. Probably NOT a good idea to just move it without warning because it seems to be a contentious page and might get immediately deleted if not first passed by the talk page.

After that I'll make my changes to this page, one section at a time. There is a lot of good stuff out there from reliable sources supporting points not sourced here.

Carol Moore 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

---

Regardless, if the "Israel's Nuclear Monopoly" section is still in this article in a day or two, then I will delete it, because it's much more suitable to the other article. Anyone would still be free to copy it from this article's page history and add it to the other article. The reason why I haven't transferred it myself is that I don't really want to get directly involved with editing the Israel and weapons of mass destruction article at the present time... AnonMoos 17:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent Major Edits

As long as you don't go into hysterics about nuclear winter and nuking European capitals, then such contributions might be valid ones. However, I already have some problems with the edits you've made. The Samson Option probably would involve use of nukes on many countries nearly simultaneously, but the choice of targets would actually be carefully calculated ahead of time, so the use of the word "indiscriminate" is rather misleading... AnonMoos 23:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with eliminating "indiscriminate" which was a late edit.

However, you can google the "Samson Option Controversies" quotes I listed and see they ARE widely circulated. The IMPRESSION Israel and its supporters have left is that under SOME circumstances Israel with would "bring the world down with it". I think I have made it clear this is not official policy, but an impression left by some leaders that has been embellished by some supporters. And many many people know it. Why censor that fact because you don't like it? Scaring nations and peoples with these kinds of threatening scenarios is hardly a new strategy.

RE edits I deleted, even Ahmadinejad stated he preferred eliminating the STATE of Israel through a political referendum, not a military attack. They know about the Samson Option and they'll never get as many nukes as Israel, so the Samson Option already IS working.

Screaming that someone wants to destroy Israel without even bothering to come up with a quote from anyone with the military ability to do so is either paranoia or propaganda. You do that on listserves, not on wikipedia. (And please don't change the name of the headline to some insult since that's also bad wiki-etiquette.) Carol Moore 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I think what AnonMoos is saying is that, the way the Controversy section reads, it could be misinterpreted as, Israel has an official policy to destroy the world if the Israelis face somekind of military disaster. While I believe your quotes are correct, I think most of people you were quoting were speaking about their own point of view and not stating an official Israeli war plan. I personally don't believe Israel would nuke anyone else but their hostile regional neighbors. And here is why, First of all Israel does not have enough nukes to take out the world. Many of their nukes are probably tactical and not strategic. Secondly, Israel was founded as a haven for the Jewish people. If Israel were to be destroyed, the only remnants of the Jewish people would be those living in the diaspora. Any nuclear attack by Israel on any outside gentile nation would invite a massive persicution on the last remnants of the jewish population living in those nations.204.15.6.65 14:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I get your first point and am separating what officials say from what supporters say - though if I find any lurid quotes from leaders I'll include them :-)

As for "taking out the world" may be I need an explicit paragraph on (a) Israel's antipathy to Russia and past and current targeting efforts and (b) how if in a Samson Option scenario Israel used 10 -20 of even its small 1/4 megaton bombs on Russia, Russia would retaliate against the US. (See nuclear weapons and Israel for estimates of what weapons they have.) I do have one columnist's speculation on that I can share and looking for more. You do know Russia ships advanced weapons to Syria, don't you? And it's easy to imagine Russia becoming more threatening towards Israel should it, for example, take out Iran targets and kill a bunch of Russian scientists working on Iran's nuclear power plant, making Samson Option towards Russia even more likely.

Of course it is MORE likely that a US attack on Iran would go nuclear and scare the heck of the Russians who would freak and nuke us, like they almost did on January 25, 1995 over a Norweigan/American scientific rocket it failed to note was going to be launched. See [[Norwegian rocket incident] - one of the articles I've contributed to.

I don't think what happens to Jews outside Israel after world nuclear war is a major concern of Israeli leaders. Carol Moore 15:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Let's say we agree to disagree but hope such things never come to pass204.15.6.99 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Big, bad Israel?"

It seems to me that this citation is unnecessary as the scenario of Russian nuclear attack on USA because of being attacked by Israel, as well as Israeli nuclear attack on Russia because of being attacked by Iran is nothing more than a wild imagination.--Gilisa 20:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's unclear if you are referring to the talk page, which doesn't need sourcing, or the article itself which has sources. More can be added on the Russian point, and I guess this comment shows it is needed. Carol Moore 23:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

This is Probably Unnecessary Content, but just in case

Just happened upon this Sept 2001 article and quote from Israeli columnist Ran HaCohen which is certainly interesting, though I don't know if it might be a bit much to add it to the text, either in second paragraph or under controversies.

Dancing in the Streets - The First Suicide Bomber

"Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport. And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes. And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left. And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life." (Judges 16:27-30, King James version)

Neither Moslem nor Arab, the first suicide bomber was Samson, adored as hero in both Christian and Jewish tradition through the ages.

Carol Moore 15:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

NPOV, quotefarm, merge

I just removed a bunch of quotes which formed the majority of the article's content, and all of which fail OR in addition to being a quotefarm. I also removed the charge that there would be attacks against countries uninvolved in the conflict, as while it may be true, there is no sourcing for it in the body. All in all a good portion of this entry seems based on Hersh's book of the same name, and it would seem wise to just merge this with Israel and weapons of mass destruction. Tewfik^Talk 12:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving Sources for Claims About Samson Option

It's rather amusing to dismiss and take out all the evidence and then put in a citation needed note, is it not?

But now that I am familiar with the concept of quote farm I will narrow it to those that best prove the points. I'm sure there are lots more out there. Meanwhile others may care to comment. Carol Moore 17:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Merging Samson Option to Nuclear Weapons and Israel??

VOTE NO Tewfik now wants to move it here: Nuclear weapons and Israel. I think it is important enough to have its own article with just a minor reference here. On the other hand more people might read about the Samson Option if it was a Whole Section in this article and see all the evidence (which I'm reorganizing and researching) that Israel intends to use nuclear weapons to provoke world nuclear war if it ever loses too much land or too many people. What do people think? Carol Moore 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

At a minimum, it is a notable book by a notable author, isn't that generally sufficient to justify a separate article? --JWB 18:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So far the vote is 3 against merging (one on the other page) and 1 for. I have already said that if somehow the article gets deleted anyway, I will start a separate article on the book, thought that article also would include other revelations in the book, like Ben Gurion's hatred for Kennedy a few months before his assassination, the fake control room at Dimona, the details of Pollard's spying, etc.

Carol MooreUser:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc —Preceding comment was added at 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this article

I'm taking a look at this article for the first time, and I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it. The article is titled the Samson Option, but most of the article is about Israel's general nuclear deterrence doctrine. Only a few sentences specifically discuss the possibility of using nuclear weapons on states not party to a future conflict. However, these are mostly unsourced, and nowhere does this article give the impression that this is official Israeli policy. Threatening attacking states with nuclear annihilation is the sine qua non of any nuclear deterrence policy. Apart from some unsourced assertions, I fail to see what's so different about Israel's policy. Unless some information has been edit warred out, I'm inclined to merge the general deterrence infromation into the larger article and nominate the rest for deletion. It's simply so fuzzy and uninformative, I don't see how it can stand on its own. Dchall1 18:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you go back to here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samson_Option&oldid=168995281 you will see all the evidence that was deleted. Looking at User_talk:Tewfik s/he seems to delete thing s/he doesn't like en masse, leading to controversy. Please see last three discussion topics above.

But I do get the point about "quote farm" and can narrow it down to fewer and more on target evidence with sourcing. I hope you agree that relevant sourced information should NOT be deleted for capricious, unexplained reasons. For example, why is giving solid evidence of a known military and diplomatic fact POV??

Carol Moore 18:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

But I'm going through those quotes, and I still don't see it. Either they are from people not in a position to comment on official Israeli policy (retired officials from the 1970's, complete outsiders, etc.) or quotes that are too ambiguous (merely referring to retaliation against Arab states, not Europe or the US).

If I understand the concept correctly, the controversy is that Israel is threatening to retaliate against states not party to the conflict. I see no quotes in the main article or in the quote collection that reliably support this assertion. To come to that conclusion from the quotes given is Synthesis and original research. I'm not alleging that this is POV so much as insufficiently sourced for such a controversial topic. In this case, quality is notably more important than quantity. Dchall1 19:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I think the fact than Pulitzer Prize winning reporter and author Seymour Hersh wrote a whole book called THE SAMSON OPTION, which was a best seller, is evidence the topic itself is not original research. Perhaps Hersh's list of evidences needs to be listed explicitly.

As for: Synthesis. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. I will quote Hersh's relevant conclusions, which are supported by many other sources who say the same thing.

Also, the controversies section may include some very explicit "conspiracy theories" (not all of which have been quoted). So not sure if that would need its own section, as such theories have on many other pages.

Do you think the Book itself needs its own WIKI page? That, of course, would be the alternative if this article gets merged into nuclear weapons and Israel.

Carol Moore 20:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I certainly understand that Hersh is a reliable source, and I have not read the book. But the quote from that book that you showed me was really ambiguous. I admit I am not overly familiar with this situation, but I couldn't tell whether the term "Samson Option" refered to nuclear retaliation against attacking states, or retaliating against states not party to a conflict. If it's the first option, then this is not notable, because every weapons state reserves to right to launch stikes on its attackers. All I'm saying is there's a lack of evidence for the second position. If there is something more explicit from the book (even something like "Hersh alleges on page xxx that...", that would be better than what's on the page now. Dchall1 20:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Carol, Could you point to the citations that supported those statements which I deleted? As far as I could tell, the only citations removed were those related to the extensive and out-of-place quotes. I hope that I explained my rationale well on the Talk page. As far as the rest of the entry, Dchall1 is exactly correct, and aside from the Hersh material on which it seems this entry draws far too heavily, I'm not sure that the rest actually deals specifically with "Samson Option". Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm going through making changes in line with various guidelines that I was less familiar with at the time I wrote the article, including regarding the deleted citations, and Dchall1's suggestion above.

However, you question my citations for example: Preemption is seen as a means of protecting Israeli settlements, of redrawing the map of the Middle East to increase Israel’s security and of ensuring an Israeli nuclear monopoly in the Middle East.[14][verification needed] despite one being information in the Hersh book (though I can find the same information in many other sources), including probably the other citation, an online article published by the USAF Counterproliferation Center. How am I supposed to PROVE these claims further, other than actually QUOTING relevant sections from the sources??

As for what quotes are out of place, I do not understand why credibly cited quotes that clearly include the word SAMSON OPTION are not evidence that there is "controversy" on this topic. I can think of several pages that include various "conspiracy theories" which go even further than controversy, so it seems controversy is relevant. I don't know why you left the section and took out ALL the evidence of controversy. But I guess you didn't have sufficient time/interest to remove them selectively.

When you say I draw too heavily on Hersh, I assume you mean I should add more sources that agree with some of the assertions he makes? I am thinking one way or other I should do a page that outlines the book's arguments, since I've already taken copious notes. (Yes, I've been an anti-nuke fanatic for 30 years, thus my energy.)

Of course, this exercise has taught me to be more bold in deleting huge parts of certain articles that are totally unsourced ramblings filled with wiki links on a few topics I don't have time to write on, but have enough interest and time to motivate me to delete nonsense. :-)

Carol Moore 04:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but i'm looking at the new version of the "Doctrine" section, and I still have problems. Just to clarify, this is how I'm looking at the issue: there are two definitions of the term Samson Doctrine -

1. standard nuclear deterrence policy - you attack us, we nuke you
2. unconventional policy - you attack us, we nuke you and some other states as well

Now, I count 6 paragraphs under "Doctrine". Out of those, there is one quote from Hersh that could be interpreted to mean Samson definiton #2. The rest of the section discusses Samson definition #1. As horrible as mutual nuclear annihilation might be, there's nothing controversial about that sort of policy. A policy of Samson #2 would certainly be controversial, but we have an anonymous Israeli official saying maybe, and that's as far is the evidence seems to go. Dchall1 04:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I get your point and see its necessary to clarify what kind of retaliation we are talking about and why many believe Israeli's Samson Option is excessive. However, the controversy is NOT just because of what Israeli leaders have said, or even implied, but ALSO because of what their supporters interpret as meaning - which is attacks on countries whose govts have supplied or allowed private companies to supply weapons to Arabs, i.e., Russian and European targets. When you have both anit-semites and extremist Israelis quoting the same high profile people, you've got controversy. So this debate definitely helping clarify those issues :-)

I'm taking a break for today on this, but having just seen another article disappear into a "merge" with an article I was working on, without ANY notice I have been worried this article would be too quickly merged. (And I'd have to start from scratch on a Hersh book article.) Hopefully we'll be given another 24-48 hours to fix up the problem :-) Carol Moore 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

As Dchall1 says, we need to be clear what this entry is discussing. As far as the "settlements" passage, I placed a {{verifysource}} tag so that you might be able to present the words of the book. The claim does not appear in the second source. Tewfik^Talk 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the first comment, I'll have to work on that today. As for the second, how much of Hersh's two page description of how in 1982 Ariel Sharon -- then minister of defense -- got control of Israel's intelligence services and its nukes in order to advance his ultimate agenda of overthrowing Jordan's King Hussein, transfering Palestinians there, and having Israelis settle the rest of the land do you want?? Obviously, he advanced his agenda as Minister for Housing Construction (1990—1992) and Minister of National Infrastructure (1996—1998) and with Likud Party leadership and finally as Prime Minister, even as he made his peace offers. However, I'll find a more up to date reference as well since Sharon has been out of it the last couple years.

Carol Moore 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Something funny: Looking at Avner Cohen's book (which I have not read, but reading epilogue as we speak) I suddenly remembered I met him at a Helen Caldicott anti-nuke conference a few years back and we discussed Israel's nukes and probably the Samson Option. I can't remember specifically what he said, but it was nothing that made me unhappy ;-0 I do remember towards the end talking with former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara about Israeli nukes and we agreed it was too bad only Seymour Hersh and Cohen (and in question period me, I think him, and maybe one other person) had the chutzpah to discuss the issue. Carol Moore 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Perhaps you could quote the line that makes the connection between nuclear weapons and Israeli settlements? Part of my scepticism stems from the fact that most of what you mention above regarding Sharon would have taken place after the 1991 publishing of Hersh's book. Tewfik^Talk 16:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking now at your most recent edits, I see that these passages are various quotes included by Hersh in his book, but no clear statement that that is indeed the doctrine. Does Hersh anywhere define what he means by "Samson Option"? This link seems to have Hersh describing a regular policy of MAD. The Global Security "doctrine" link doesn't support anything other than the existence of a phrase "Samson Option", which again seems to be MAD, though it does provide other useful information which I've incorporated. The second link doesn't add much in the way of doctrine or the definition of "Samson Option", but is in any event an openly partisan piece. If we cannot show that there is a unique idea called "Samson Option", then this entry is unnecessary and the few bits that discuss unique information should be merged into Nuclear weapons and Israel. Tewfik^Talk 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have redone it to make everything clearer on use of concept of Samson Option which is an idea in POPULAR CULTURE that you cannot just erase from Wiki because YOU don't like it. That is the essence of POV. And I am making that clearer this time. Of course, most of it can go into an article about Hersh's book if necessary, except of course it also would include other revelations in the book, like Ben Gurion's hatred for Kennedy a few months before his assassination, the fake control room at Dimona, the details of Pollard's spying, etc.

All the stuff you put in DOES in fact belong under general doctrine, though as you will see it HAS been an evolving nuclear doctrine with massive retaliation first as deterrence, later under Likud/Sharon for dominance and now for preemption - which explains the confusion over the meaning of Samson Option, and which I missed on first reading of Hersh. That defininitely should go into Nuclear weapons and Israel at my leisure too.

As for quotefarm, if you want to see a real one, see the 4 to 1 negative quotes on The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. I told the complainers that this was a perfect place to put NPOV and QUOTEFARM. Carol Moore 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Carol, please avoid assuming bad faith - this is not about me. The material that you've added still does not explain how the Samson Option differs from regular MAD, or for that matter even what Hersh thinks about it. The quotes are still vague if inflammatory statements unrelated to answering those questions. While I'm not familiar with the entry that you've pointed me to, it is about a book, and the quotes there seem to be reviews of that book. If this were about the book, I imagin we would similarly have positive and negative critical review, but we still wouldn't have a collection of these sorts of quotes from within the work which lack in any clear function. As far as 1949/1967 - please just read the article. The 1949 Armistice lines are the pre-June 1967 lines. Tewfik^Talk 12:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Book" don't know if you mean Cohen or Hersh or what you mean by criticisms if book is just used for footnotes. But I have lots more different footnotes in new version.

Re:Material I added. Guess I should have waited til put earlier changes in to make the quotes meaning fully clear. Since Israel does NOT state that it has weapons or what its policies are, explicit high profile speculation from relatively main stream sources is relevant and attempts to squelch them just don't look NPOV to me. Even worse is your earlier deleting quotes from Israeli leaders that may be only explanation we have of Israel's policy! So I'm working all that into new explanation. Since you haven't deleted "Controversies" section, it could have a neutral intro like: "Below are controversial statements made by about the Samson Option:"

re: Mutually Assured Destruction it has traditionally been used to mean TWO nuclear parties against each other, not one nuclear vs. other non-nuclear, and with credible ability to destroy each other. Again with Israel NOT stating its policy, anything written on this subject must be based on statements from Israeli leaders or speculation from sources with inside information. You cannot even say that it is an "Israeli variation on MAD" (since it is NOT traditional MAD) without showing some source, but you challenge and delete most of the relevant sources, so that there will be NO choice but to put it into nuclear weapons and Israel. There must be some wiki-lawyering phrase for that :-). I'll ask around...

Re "Green Line" the quote is from the Avner Cohen *book* where he talks about 1966 deterrence strategy. It only states "Israel's post-1949 borders." If you want to clarify that to mean ALSO pre-1967 borders, you should state it like this: "post-1949" (and pre-1967) borders Another alternative, though I think it is unnecessary and confusing detail and perhaps POV since the article is disputed, "post-1949" borders (also known as Green Line borders).

Carol Moore 15:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

New Intro and Sections Outlined

I think this is an important article because of the popular impression that this threat is the ultimate way Israel bullies the middle east and the US. But obviously I DO want to be a good wiki editor and show I can control any POV and present a neutral article encompassing the relevant views. So here is just proposed intro and new sections with brief descriptions to comment on. The current article is confusing because it does not have the historical perspective of the difference between original and current view of Samson Option, or make it clear why it has own article separate from doctrine in nuclear weapons and Israel which is of course because of its mythic standing in popular political culture.

The Samson Option is a term used to describe Israel’s nuclear weapons strategy of massive retaliation against nations staging military attacks that threaten its existence. Israel relies heavily on the threat of such retaliation because its relatively small size and population mean that it cannot afford to lose a single war, and thus must prevent war by maintaining deterrence, including the option of preemption outside its borders.

Israel officially maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, also known as "nuclear opacity," which has made it difficult for anyone outside the Israeli government to definitively describe its true nuclear policy. It is estimated Israel has as many as 400 atomic and hydrogen nuclear weapons. These can be launched from land, sea and air.

Terms similar to Samson Option that have been used by Israeli officials, as well as its supporters, include “last resort” option, “option for a rainy day,” “share the pain,” and references to "destroying" or "taking down" “enemies” or “the world.”

Section: Original Retribution Concept 1967-77 - 5 paragraphs with various references

Section: More Aggressive Policy Under Likud and Sharon 1977-2006 -11 short paragraphs on more aggressive use of Samson Option and related preemption doctrine

Section: Current Samson Option Policy 4 - 5 paragraphs on application to US/Israel attack on Iran and Iranian retaliation, leading to WWIII

Section: Samson Option in Popular Culture Quotes from eight people showing the variety of views in popular culture of Israeli Samson Option leading to WWIII. Popular Culture views is done with MANY topics INCLUDING nuclear war related ones.

Carol Moore 00:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

As any article on the Mideast, this is one is controversial, not to mention much more difficult because of the lack of literature on Israel's nuclear strategy and policies. The new lead sentence you posted, "The Samson Option is a term used to describe...threaten its existence." summarizes the use of the term excellently, and I would say that much of what is in the current article's first couple of paragraphs should be kept. The danger in this article is that presenting the evolution of the doctrine from the 60s to the present risks being OR. Much of the current article's Doctrine section should probably be merged where possible with Nuclear weapons and Israel, and the rest scrapped, because it arranges a variety of facts together that are not always directly related to this article's strict subject: a country-specific nuclear strategy. The newly proposed organization could work, but again the sources themselves would have to refer back to the Samson Option (or a derivation), they can't just be facts about Israel's nuclear history. Just to keep things clear, I am thinking of starting The Samson Option (book) so as to keep this article from being confused with the book itself. Anyway, I strongly believe this article can be reworked to be perfectly acceptable, so long as OR is avoided. Joshdboz 00:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing the controversy! :-) And lack of literature, though I came up with some new search terms today that had fruitful results. And I do think famous and/or highly placed Israel supporters shooting off their mouths with Samson Option threats is a big part of the story.

RE: "OR" I have seen many articles about political issues get divided up in a variety of logical and chronological ways with no one saying "OR." I prefer to keep OR for topics where there are NO sources (just wiki links galore) or the ONLY sources are from the author her/himself or the history bears no relation to reality. So far I helped get two articles kicked off for "OR."

However, this is a history where at least one prominent authority on the subject as well as other sources agree that there has been a certain evolution - mostly a two stage evolution, before and after Sharon took power. And he was Mr. Samson Option! Whether we are yet in a third stage now, post-Sharon, only time will tell. (Avner only goes up to 1967, except short epilogue. And I haven't read a couple of the other books on the topic but I bet I could do some searches etc. on Amazon's versions of 1 or 2 of them :-)

Doctrine section should be shorter and help define what is and what is NOT Samson Option. What has been missing is the concept that Samson Option is massive and DISPROPORTIONATE nuclear retaliation. (As was charged in 2006 attack on Lebanon, for example.) Especially should it be done against Russia, which Israel still has reasons to punish for helping Arabs and Muslims in the past and currently. Of course, whether nuclear retaliation against non-nuclear states is ever proportionate is another topic, including related to current US policy. And the evolution of that is discussed in a couple wiki articles I've ran across in last couple days!

re: Hersh book, go for it. I'll stick in anything important I think is missing :-)

Carol Moore 03:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC) User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

First of all its not a vote, and secondly, 2-3 editors have agreed that much of this information is simply duplicated or doesn't belong. To Josh: as the article stands now, there is very little content about what the Samson Option is, or how it is unique. Do any RS discuss it? For that matter, does anyone but Hersh discuss it? Tewfik^Talk 00:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am about to put up a version that deals with all issues above, from multiple sources, including focusing on Samson Option and not Israeli doctrine in general. If you want to improve on it fine. But please do not delete all the content that I present and then say there isn't any content! This is a widely recognized concept - though obviously not an "official" policy since Israel refuses to even admit it has nukes, not to mention any policies it has about them.

Carol Moore 00:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Tewfik, the Samson Option is simply a nuclear strategy of massive retaliation; however, it is specifically applied to Israel. This is what makes it unique. I would almost compare it to the Single Integrated Operational Plan as an analogy, but the Samson Option, as it is used in the media, is not an actual battle plan (little exists on Israel's actual planning) but more a general term for what Israel could/would do in certain situations. So you can certainly debate the content of this article, but it's notability is pretty well established. In fact, Hersh did not invent the term, just reflected the ideas that had already been floating around. Here's how a professor at Purdue University defines it [1]:

Everyone who studies Israeli nuclear strategy knows about the "Samson Option." This is generally thought to be a last resort strategy wherein Israel's nuclear weapons are used not for prevention of war or even for war-waging, but simply as a last spasm of vengeance against a despised enemy state that had launched massive (probably unconventional) countercity and/or counterforce attacks against Israel. Faced with the "End of the Third Temple," Israel's leaders would decide that the Jewish State could not survive, but that it would only "die" together with its pertinent enemies. Joshdboz 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How is that at all different from MAD though? All I got from the Beres papers was that massive nuclear retaliation could come in response to any type of existentially threatening attack, i.e. it would respond to a massive conventional attack as well as WMD. If there is a difference, we need to clarify. What this entry is missing is something like "The Samson Option is...Hersh says that it changed to..." if that is the case. The vague line about deterrence only to also using “Israeli might to redraw the political map of the Middle East.” doesn't really say much - could we get a passage from Hersh that explains what he means? As far as the other material that was added, they consists of vague quoting or information copied from Nuclear weapons and Israel which at best serve as original synthesis here. Tewfik^Talk 13:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass Deletions of Content Against Wiki Policies

I believe User Talk:Tewfik clearly has violated the intent of wiki guidelines as expressed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes

== Step 1: Focus on content ==

Focus on content, not on the other editor. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story. Make sure that you provide reliable sources. Unreferenced text may be tagged or deleted - see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Always explain your changes, especially when you want other people to agree with you. If you can say it in one line, use the edit summary; for longer explanations, use the talk page and add "see talk" to the edit summary.

Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing.

I wrote very defensively, though I knew there were a couple of debateable points. I expected those points to be debated, not all Content deleted en masse. This is at least the third time you have done this on this page. The fact that you have called for deleting the page for not having content and then deleted the content makes this particularly problematic.

I am now filling out a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment form as a first step in dealing with this problem on this page.

Carol Moore 15:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

RfC: Content Deleted En Masse without Discussion by Person Wanting to Delete Whole Article

Should This Content Have Been Deleted En Masse without Discussion by Person Wanting to Delete Whole Article? User:Tewfik has called for deletion of page here and at Talk:Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel because of lack of content, among other reasons. He keeps deleting en masse sourced information pertinent to topic (and re-written after comments from other editors) with no attempt to have item by item discussions or compromises; please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samson_Option&oldid=171588437 and deletions thereafter as most recent example. Carol Moore 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Reasons For deleting following material?

Below are bullet points with (reasons in parenthesis) why material that follows underneath should not have been deleted. For discussion.

• Original Deterrence Doctrine Section (To differentiate from documented more aggressive use later)

• (Use of Samson Option as bullying technique one of main reasons it is known and controversial)

Nevertheless, during the Cold War one major use of the nuclear threat was to convince the United States to support Israel with conventional weapons sales to prevent it from using its nuclear weapons and possibly sparking a world nuclear war.

Another use of the weapons was to discourage the former Soviet Union, which Israel regarded as its greatest enemy, from arming and aiding Arab nations. Israel went on nuclear alert during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, threatening to use nuclear weapons against Egypt, to encourage the United States to supply weapons to it and discourage the Soviet Union from interfering. No nation has attacked Israel since 1973, though some have supported terrorist attacks on it.

• More Aggressive Doctrine After 1977 Section(This highlights the change for readers' understanding)

• (Shahak is NO more fringe than Louis Beres and I will replace him unless other editors also object with NPOV reasons; same for several other people I quoted, including Creveld)

Israel Shahak, an Israeli critic of its policies, claims: "Israel clearly prepares itself to seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East...without hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, including nuclear ones."

• (Because Sharon has been most outspoken on using Samson Option his relevance to sections you left in obvious.)

Ariel Sharon, who was named Minister of Defense in 1981, publicly proclaimed that “his major goals included the overthrow of King Hussein of Jordan and the transformation of that country into a Palestinian state, to which Palestinian refugees would be ‘transferred’ or driven.” Sharon put his allies in charge of Israeli intelligence and Israel’s nuclear weapons.

• (Israeli targeting of the Soviet Union is the essence of the Samson Option since it was only a supplier of weapons to enemies and hadn't made any threats against Israel in that time period or after.)

Because of the Soviet Union’s support for Arab nations, Begin immediately “gave orders to target more Soviet cities” for nuclear attack, which necessitated better targeting information. Israel increased its espionage efforts, including by convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, in order to obtain nuclear targeting information on Soviet cities.

• (The Threat to Use the Samson Option in a crazy, indiscriminate fashion is the essence of the Samson Option; these quotes all directly illustrate that point)

In 1998 Israeli defense analyst Zeev Schiff opined in Haaretz: "Off-the-cuff Israeli nuclear threats have become a problem, even before the onset of the Iraqi crisis." David Hirst notes that “The threatening of wild, irrational violence, in response to political pressure, has been an Israeli impulse from the very earliest days,” and “Israel will remain at least as likely a candidate as Iran, and a far more enduring one, for the role of 'nuclear-crazy' state.” Some “Samson Option” threats seem to be directed against nations which have not attacked Israel. Ariel Sharon has said: "We are much more important than (Americans) think. We can take the middle east with us whenever we go." and "No longer 'Masada Option' - now 'Samson Option.’” A “former Israeli govt official” with “first hand knowledge of his government’s nuclear weapons program” told Seymour Hersh: “You Americans screwed us” for not supporting Israel in its 1956 war with Egypt. “We can still remember the smell of Auschwitz and Treblinka. Next time we’ll take all of you with us.”

• (This may be a more "piling on" section, but no more than the Beres section is, especially Creveld's statement.)

High profile Israeli supporters also brandish such threats. Martin Van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem stated: "We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’...We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under." In 2002 the Los Angeles Times, published an opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter in which he wrote: "What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away--unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans--have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?"

• (This is highly credible quote and story about use of Samson Option that you left in last version after you gutted it. It should remain.)

During the build up to the United States 2003 invasion of Iraq, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated: "If our citizens are attacked seriously - by a weapon of mass destruction, chemical, biological or by some mega-terror attack act - and suffer casualties, then Israel will respond." Israeli military commentator Zeev Schiff explained: “Israel could respond with a nuclear retaliation that would eradicate Iraq as a country.” It is believed President Bush gave Sharon the green-light to attack Baghdad in retaliation, including with nuclear weapons, but only if attacks came before the American military invasion.

• Current Concerns Section (I don't care too much if it has own section, but useful for readers)

• (This again illustrates why the Samson Option is controversial and why it should have own page. I am glad to have a "Controversies" section for all the most controversial material, but you deleted the evidence and then claimed there was no evidence there were controversies.)

Currently, the United States fears Israel will attack Iran pre-emptively because Iran’s nuclear power program could be used eventually to produce nuclear weapons. Iranian threats to retaliate against Israel with 600 missiles if either Iran or Syria are attacked raise concerns about Samson Option retaliation. Dr. Jerome Corsi, author of “Atomic Iran,” states that “Israel's Samson Option” could be “a preemptive strike against Iran, even if the international military and diplomatic reprisals that follow might bring disastrous consequences upon Israel itself.”

Russia is still considered an Israeli target. Russia provides technical assistance to, and diplomatic support for, Iran’s nuclear program. It also has sold advanced missiles to Syria. In January 2007 Israeli officials voiced "extreme concern" over Russia's sale of advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. They warned: "We hope they understand that this is a threat that could come back to them as well."

• (You can delete this. I guess it's really the lead in for opinion pieces on the Samson Option)

On November 8, 2007 President George Bush said: "If you want to see World War Three, you know, a way to do that is to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon."

Carol Moore 17:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I have explained the problem with this information several times, in detail, both on this Talk page and in edit summaries. It keeps getting readded without the substance of the points that I raised being addressed: much of it is synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, a good part of the rest is not related to this page's topic, but to the main Nuclear weapons and Israel page, and already appears there. Looking back at the talk page, I seem to be the second or third editor over the past months who has taken issue with this same material. Tewfik^Talk 22:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage in a point-by-point discussion just yet (though I will if you want it). I'm still not sure how the article, either before Tewfik's deletions or after, differentiates the "Samson Option" from any other nuclear deterrent policy. Every point that I see could just as easily be applied to the US or China. Maintaining a nuclear arsenal to deter conventional attack necessarily implies the threat that, if a massive conventional attack does occur, the attacker's cities will be destroyed. This is the essence of US defense policy in Germany in the Cold War. Should the Soviets have ever crossed into West Germany in force, US nukes would not have been used to save American soil, but to punish the Russians. I don't see how this situation is any different than Israel's.

The opening sentence now reads: The Samson Option is a term used to describe Israel’s alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well. The first portion of the sentence (The Samson...existence) is uncontroversial, and could easily be covered under the Israel & Nuclear Weapons article under the doctrine section. The second portion (and possible...as well) is only supported by one quote (the Auschwitz referenc). As for the quotes that have been removed, I've said before that many of them are vague and unrelated. Of those that do not relate specifically to nuclear policy, it is hard to see how they can be anything but synthesis. I have not read the Hersh book (and being a grad student upon the verge of finals, I don't have the time in the near future) but I would feel much better if a quote were added where Hersh explicitly defines the term "Samson Option". Dchall1 23:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to get involved in this article's details simply because I have not read through all the source material to see what is justified in being included and what is irrelevant/risks being OR. I would just reiterate that the term "Samson Option" was invented before Hersh wrote about it, and obviously has been written of since. Even if it is tactically only a manifestation of MAD, it is country-specific, and is a notable topic that deserves an article, even if only a stub. Joshdboz 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's just what the Israelis call their deterence doctrine, why can't we just create a redirect to the portion of the Nuclear weapons and Israel article?Dchall1 02:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We could, but why the heck not have another article if someone's willing to write it? Joshdboz 11:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on what is being written. If the article merely states that "the Samson Option is what the Israelis call their deterrence doctrine", then it seems like a needless fork. That wouldn't be terrible in and of itself, but it has proved to be quite the POV magnet for all sorts of inappropriate material. Tewfik^Talk 12:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate why? Because it makes it clear to people WHY the Samson Option is worth its own page? Or just because it INFORMS people that Israel threatens to nuke non-nuclear nations. That there is a wide understanding that it threatens to nuke nations which have not attacked it - and even threatens to nuke Russia for supplying weapons to Arabs and Persians for decades. I mean Israel's partisans BOAST about it. So why is the truth INAPPROPRIATE for a WIKI article? Plus if you delete this article the debate just goes over to nuclear weapons and Israel. Hmmm. A nice big section filled with juicy quotes might pass muster there. Every cloud has a silver lining. :-)

Carol Moore 13:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[User:Carolmooredc]] User talk:Carolmooredc

I think this is the kind of POV pushing Tewfik is talking about. There is nothing POV about the Samson Option, or writing about it in an objective manner, I fully support that and this article - but throwing around things like "there is wide understanding that it (Israel) threatens to nuke nations which have not attacked it" really is pushing it. I have certainly heard of unverified Israeli plans to use nuclear weapons in this way (ie possibly against Iranian nuclear bunkers), but such a broad statement as this is frankly way off the mark. -- Joshdboz (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

---

---

Synthesis (much same as Original Research) means: "If A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C." But what if A says X and B says X and C and D and E all say X? Then X is a NPOV fact/or assertion/or position. The issue is more putting the same X's together, which I have tried to do, though perhaps not perfectly.

I see the quote that says "Israel wants hegemony over the middle east", then "Sharon wants to take over Jordan" then "Sharon's allies are in charge of nuclear weapons". In my mind that's the perfect definition of synthesis - take three quotes that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and chain them so that they make a plausible, if unstated, argument. -- Dchall1 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hersh Definition of Samson Option: His only detailed one is the quote from Norman Podhoretz which TEWFIK deleted and I didn't bother to put back in since he complained about too many Hersh quotes. Do you want me to put it back??

I'm not familiar with the Podhoretz quote, and I couldn't find it in the history. However, although Podhoretz may be Jewish, he does not speak for Israel any more than I as an American speak for President Bush. Are you saying that in ~300 pages, Hersh never defines the title of his book? -- Dchall1 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Samson Option is NOT Mutual Assured Destruction Because that can only be between TWO nations with nukes that can equally destroy each other. (It might be MAD against Pakistan, though I don't think they currently are official enemies.) However, I believe you are correct that it is the first time nukes have been threatened repeatedly by a state against nonnuclear state(s), and that needs to be expressed. For that reason alone it deserves its own page. Shall I make this point clear with an appropriate quote? There probably is one in all that material I've read.

Nuclear deterrence is not limited to MAD - it can just as easily deter large-scale conventional forces. And if I remeber correctly, China has a large number of nuclear missiles pointed at Taiwan. You can split hairs and argue that Taiwan is not a country, but I think the principle still applies. -- Dchall1 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indiscriminate, disproportional revenge is one Understanding. Obviously, we can't expect Israel leaders to give us a quotable sentence admitting that. OH, that's right, Hersh has TWO in his book: "We can take the middle east with us whenever we go." "Next time we’ll take all of you with us." But TEWFIK keeps deleting them; others say they are "Vague". (And their supporters rant obviously don't count either, even though they are part of the POPULAR UNDERSTANDING of Samson Option.)

You're right, it's probably a lot to ask for Olmert to define Israel's nuclear doctrines. However, I don't see anything unreasonable about those two quotes. "If your country invades my country, we'll nuke your capital city." And its fine if you want to include quotes about how the policy is perceived by Israel's supporters, but you can't use those quotes as evidence for the policy, any more than we can use Podhoretz's statements about Iran as evidence that the US is about to start bombing. -- Dchall1 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for actual responses above. I do think the most important thing about the Samson Option is what it has become in popular imagination, because of the kind of connections I traced. But I also can see where wikipedia has made things strict enough that such interpretation can get squashed fairly easily, even if it all was in a "Controversies" section showing WHY people think this - which would be fine with me.

Of course, if it became an even more high profile event with Bush yelling "Samson Option" ha ha ha, instead of not making it clear WHY Israel getting nuked will lead to WWIII, it would help. If he keeps flapping his mouth, he may yet do so, and create a wiki-pedia entry SOMEWHERE. Like I may have said, I have learned a lot of good phrases for a number of pages where this thing is done much more outrageously and POV.

User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Anyway, I'm not going to argue about this too much more, though I'd like to make two changes mentioned above. This exercise has forced me to come up with a great and well organized list of evidences of Israel's Samson Option (explaining Bush's recent quote too!!) -- far better than what I had before, which I now can circulate to a very wide list of people who may end up writing high profile articles about the topic. :-) Carol Moore 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

What specificly needs verification??

TEWFIK Wrote when he deleted most of Hersh's quote on Israel using the Samson Option to redraw the map of the Middle East: (as it stands much of that quote has nothing to do with this page, but a non ellipsed version would still be necessary to understand what this much is saying)

Then he added a

I'm not sure of what the point is. To divide up the quote so it doesn't have ellipses? As I did below?

Seymour Hersh notes the "surprising victory of Menachem Begin's Likud Party in the May 1977 national elections" and states it "brought to power a government that was even more committed than Labor to the Samson Option and the necessity of an Israeli nuclear arsenal."

Or to include everything between the ellipses? And is the refimprove a reference to that sentence specifically, the section, the whole article? Thanks.

Carol Moore 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Reviewing recent edits

I was asked to come and take a look at this article at the request of Carolmooredc. She thought that, as a disinterested outside party, I might have input on the editing going on in this article.

I've looked over the history of this article, paying particular attention to the most current round of somewhat contentious editing starting on 3 November 2007. Before I give my opinion, please be aware I'm only giving my opinion as an editor of Wikipedia. I was recently made an admin but the issues in the article itself don't seem to call for any intervention or judgment on my part in that capacity at the moment.

Carol, I really think Tewfik's edits are improving the article and focusing it. Much of the material you seem determined to add is actually diluting and obfuscating the subject. Just because there are sourced quotes pertaining to the subject doesn't mean they must all be included. Yes, information needs to be reliably sourced but not every bit of it has to be put into the article. An encyclopedia also needs to distill info, preferably without straying into original research territory. If people want to read an essay or book on the subject, then they should but that isn't necessarily Wikipedia's intent for its articles. Articles are intended to convey a general understanding of the subject with detail enough to answer most questions and sources to go to for more detailed information.

As to Tewfik's proposal to merge the article into Nuclear weapons and Israel, I lean towards keeping this a separate article because I think the subject is interesting and appears to have a goodly amount of supportive background and sources. While it is similar to MAD, as a tactical possibility for Israel's specific situation, it remains rather more unique than conventional MAD scenarios involving other countries. In this sense, it is notable I think.

I think the external links section needs serious pruning and refinement. It's a hodgepodge and all over the place.

I can't comment on the exchanges which have happened on this talk page because, frankly, I couldn't make myself go through it all in detail. However, looking at the version of the article from 12 October 2007 compared to the current version, it's obvious to me that it has improved substantially in form, tone and content. Just to be clear, I'm neither pro- nor anti-Israel in this matter. I'm commenting here as an encyclopedist with an eye toward what seems best for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

I'm not sure these comments are helpful but I hope so. Looking over it, I seem to have got my pomposity on full throttle. Sorry about that. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Cheers, Pigman^what?/trail 04:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I still think a bit more info could be included since it is so bare bones. But guess I've left lots of info here others could include if they felt like it. Especially if there was a section on the various public perceptions and controversies about the Samson Option, which is what the external links refer to. Well, hopefully more objective info will be generated in the future that will pass muster here :-)

Carol Moore 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Comment in response to RFC-- I agree that much of the material that was removed was not germane to the article topic. I'd also like to say that the Samson Option should not in any way be confused with MAD, which deals with relations between two opponents who both possess nuclear weapons (and MAD was largely obsolete by the 1980s anyway, due to technological advances in offensive weaponry that raised the possibility of a successful first strike, one that could destroy an opponent's ability to shoot back.) --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

400 "atomic and hydrogen weapons"

The intro says: "It is estimated Israel has as many as 400 atomic and hydrogen nuclear weapons." The reference is this dubious article (at least, the internet-based news site is unknown to me and not notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it), which mangles things a bit. It refers to this report by an USAF Colonel and takes practically the last line of the report as the story: "1997: >400 deliverable thermonuclear and nuclear weapons." (Note here that "thermonuclear" doesn't necessarily mean that it is a hydrogen bomb, as the Wikipedia line implies. It is much easier to imagine them deploying boosted weapons than it is hydrogen bombs; the latter definitely require testing to be sure that they work, whereas you could get away with the former without testing.) This section is about other people's estimates on the Israeli nuclear capacity and in fact the next line says "1999: 74-130 bombs (@ 5 kg/warhead)" which is a significantly lower number. The 400 estimate (by far the largest I have ever seen of Israel's nuclear capacity) comes from an article in Jane’s Intelligence Review, which is not a bad source but is not quite as official as the article citing this article makes it out to be (which claims it is the USAF making that estimate). In any case I haven't seen the Jane's article in question but quotes from it elsewhere make it seem that Brower was intentionally trying to guess very high, arguing that it's not inconceivable that they could have a program more sophisticated than others had been estimating. While an interesting point, it is a pretty specific estimate—specific to one person and one set of assumptions—and not anywhere near the level of generality that this article implies.

Anyway—my suggestion is to instead use the source and number that is used in List of states with nuclear weapons, which is much more in the ballpark of standard estimates, between 75-200 weapons, type unspecified, given by the National Resources Defense Council, whose estimates are pretty well respected and can be considered pretty conservative. In any case, the weird chain of citations here does not warrant the current sentence on this page, and is not exactly a showcased effort of Wikipedia's sourcing policy. I'm going to change it, but I wanted to make it clear why I was doing so (I'm no crackpot, I don't have an agenda except making Wikipedia look reliable). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI. Brower's number is included in the widely reproduced Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army article The Third Temple's Holy Of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons, USAF Counterproliferation Center,Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. He references: Brower, Kenneth S., “A Propensity for Conflict: Potential Scenarios and Outcomes of War in the Middle East,” Jane's Intelligence Review, Special Report no. 14, (February 1997), 14-15.

So some note that the number 400 is out there should be made, even if it is shown as being highly speculative, or else it looks like Wikipedia is out of the loop.

I'm sure the CIA and Russian intelligence have their own estimates (and likely locations) for all those first strike contingency plans they are always making against other nuclear nations - for example if it ever looks like Israel really is getting ready to use the Samson Option. Come on, boys, cough it up for wikipedia!!

Carol Moore 19:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I think that the present solution of including both numbers is a good one. --Marvin Diode 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent detective work 24.147.86.187, however, I would suggest that any higher estimates be included in a footnote for thoroughness. Joshdboz (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely useless article

Okay, so I read the article, and still don't know what the Samson option is. Could someone in the know fix this article, because it is pretty uninformative. Everyone isn't an expert in nuclear weapons doctrine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.236.78 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The substance of it is actually explained in the last paragraph of the "Doctrine" section. It's not probably not in the lead paragraph, because it's based to a significant degree on rumor and speculation (though it's as well-founded as anything based to a significant degree on rumor and speculation can be). If someone could look at Hersh's book, then probably we could incorporate what Hersh says that the Samson Opion is into the first paragraph... AnonMoos 17:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's always good to read previous entries in a talk page because as you can see I am about to update this article so that it will finally make sense, deal with concerns expressed previously, and have lots of sources - including many pages from Hersh's book which I just went through,taking copious notes. Carol Moore 18:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

This is my point exactly. We need the "doctrine" section, but for some reason people object to it's inclusion. However, this is the entire focus of the article! The Samson Option is a nuclear doctrine- not including the doctrine makes no sense. Please explain to me (Carol Moore) why you object to my doctrine section. Rudy Breteler 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Am still awaiting explanation. Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't remember off hand seeing your Dec 3 note; i usually respond to things. Anyway, I just took a quick look at your edits and my edit summaries of Dec 3. It seems to me that variations on most of them had been reversed repeatedly by others - often because they demanded a specific references for everything, which you did not have. And you were coming in late and starting discussions that had been finished and it was just frustrating. Please reread my revert edit summaries.

Also there is a doctrine section, so the question is expanding it. You can always start to make edits again and see if those people show up again. (Note: I might make some of same criticisms.) I certainly have some material I'd like to put in. But read the talk page and see the issues that you are likely to run in to again. Carol Moore 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I agree that the article needs to be much more blunt about the point of "The Samson Option." The point as I understand it from Hersh is that if Israel is attacked, it has nuclear weapons pointed at the United States and Russia. It will launch missiles at these nations in order to cause nuclear armageddon. This is the reason it is called "Samson" (see the Biblical story). That's what the term means. Debate if it is true or not, but that's what the term means, and it should be described bluntly. MBVECO (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)MBVECO

We probably should archive so old discussions don't get replied to. While Hersh's book did talk about targeting of Russia, did not of US and I don't think I've seen a reliable source asserting that. But there definitely has been some much more detailed and explicit material from WP:R since this article was last extensively updated that I've been meaning to put in. I've gotten a lot better at editing since 2008 and probably would be more successful at keeping such info in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why this article remains POV

Since new people are looking at it I just wanted to comment that the bottom line is that Israeli Doctrine is PURELY Speculative because the government has never announced one, only hinted at it.

Some feel it is merely self defense, others feel also is a policy of aggression to intimidate others with threats of wide retaliation. I certainly included lots of quotes from Israeli leaders, critics and supporters illustrating why many believe that latter point. I only wanted to get BOTH opinions in.

Ganging up and using wikilawyering to delete information harmful to any particular cause is really a problem hurting WIKIPEDIA's credibility and a lot of people are getting fed up with it. I am now looking around at other means of dealing with it.

Meanwhile, I'd like to repeat this WIKI golden rule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes

== Step 1: Focus on content ==

Focus on content, not on the other editor. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story. Make sure that you provide reliable sources. Unreferenced text may be tagged or deleted - see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Carol Moore 22:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

M.A.D.

I'd like to point out that the sentence The strategy can be considered an Israel-specific variant of mutually assured destruction is clearly Original Research. If a suitable source could be found, it would be OK for inclusion. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

In order to avoid random comments or unnecessary opening of old issues, how about I just archive what's here now? Hearing no dissent will do soon, if remember ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is retarded

Most of it is general stuff about Israel's nuclear program, and there's nothing about "massive retaliation". Even the supposed "option" is based on rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.44.6 (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a terribly intelligent or policy based comment, plus "retarded" now considered a bigoted word. The article does need updating since there have been a lot of news developments regarding the use of the phrase and the existence of the strategy. Plus perfectly WP:RS material that was deleted by POV editors in the past. CarolMooreDC 14:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's fucked up is what it is. Just my two cents. There should be something in this article about criticism of or efforts to oppose this horrific policy.

I have a lot of reliable sources I've been saving and haven't looked for criticism yet. Of course, many just criticize their nuclear program in general, without mentioning Samson Option. On my agenda, but not too high on my list. CarolMooreDC 23:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Who uses phrase

I just specified that it is commentators who use the phrase "Samson Option" so as not to leave the impression the Israeli govt does. This because a confused anonymous IP took out one of the commentaries under "retaliation strategy" writing "unreliable source of quote; person being quoted is a historian and not a reprepsentative of Israel or policymaker." Obviously, neither are the other three people he left in that section reps of Israel. I'll put it back in a few days unless s/he comes up with a policy based reason. Also soon I intend to create a section called something like "Regional dominance strategy" since I have a few quotes that link the nuclear program and the samson option as just such a strategy. No need to discuss til references are there that make this clear. CarolMooreDC 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The notion that the Samson option as a globally assured destruction, even affecting allies is only vaguely outlined whereas it is the principle reasoning of the theory. Why is this not properly outlined in the outset? It is made to sound like a two state MAD option which it clearly is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.41.183 (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Complete Lack of Reliable Sources

This article does even begin to meet the wikipedia standards for reliable sources. The only sources which MIGHT be reliable in this article are:

• Norris, Robert S; Arkin, William; Kristensen, Hans M; Handler, Joshua (September/October 2002), "Israeli nuclear forces, 2002", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 58 (5): 73–5

• I don't know anything about this source but it seems to be from a scholarly journal that is behind a paywall.

• Eberhart, David (October 16, 2001), Samson Option: Israel's Plan to Prevent Mass Destruction Attacks, NewsMax.

• Newsmax seems to be a right-wing propaganda website, but I don't know ... so it might be ok.

• Farr, Warner D (September 1999), The Third Temple's Holy of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons, Counterproliferation Paper, USAF Counterproliferation Center, Air War College.

• This seems to be a scholarly article, but I don't know if this is a true peer-reviewed journal or more of an opinion-report source for the USAF

• Brower, Kenneth S (February 1997), "A Propensity for Conflict: Potential Scenarios and Outcomes of War in the Middle East", Jane's Intelligence Review (14): 14–5.

• I don't know if Jane's is considered a reliable source in the typical sense but I know that it has high circulation in military circles and tends to be well regarded

Every single other source is either an opinion piece in a newspaper, a book promoting the author's views, or non-existent.

This article needs to be completely scrapped and merged with other conspiracy theories. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you joking? Do you even know who Seymour Hersh and Avner Cohen are? Why don't you take your concerns to WP:RSN and see what they think about your dismissal of these impeccable sources, published by Columbia University Press and Random House?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. For instance, Martin van Creveld is one of the leading experts on the Israeli military (and a very highly regarded military theoretician), yet he's being dismissed in the above post. The article looks fairly well sourced and neutral to me, and I'm removing the tag given that the criticisms don't seem at all justified. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with your removal of the tag. I was going to do it myself but thought I'd wait a while to see what developed here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Before adding this tag I went to the wikipedia IRC channel and brought this page to the attention of numerous mods. They mostly wanted to delete it outright because it completely ignores wikipedia's standards. I suggested that instead we tag it and allow people the chance to properly source. All of the opinions you mention above do not constitute WP:RS. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not? And which 'mods' said such a thing? As an admin myself I find it fairly unlikely. Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This was on the wiki IRC channel. One of the people I spoke with is Huon ... who is contributing below. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you're getting wikipedia confused with reddit, where edits to this article are being madly canvassed even as we speak?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I'm one of the "mods" Zuchinni one spoke to on the IRC help channel, and at that time the artilce's lead looked much more dubious. I may have been insufficiently diligent in checking all of the sources myself before advising him on a course of action. I still think the "nuclear ambiguity" section is largely off-topic, several of the "retaliation strategy" section's sources are dubious, and parts of the "deterrence doctrine" such as the detailed description of the Biblical Samson should be removed. But enough good sources remain to either significantly improve Nuclear weapons and Israel#Doctrine or leave a short stand-alone article. Huon (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the article should be merged into Nuclear weapons and Israel#Doctrine. It's highly redundant to that article anyway, and with Cohen, Hersh and Rosenbaum there are still very few reliable sources for the article's content. The "retaliation strategy" section, for example, looks like original synthesis and pure original research to me. Huon (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the last section is the weakest. I think that this is notable in isolation though. Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I could stand to see everything in the last section go except for the Martin van Creveld quote. The Perlmutter quote is only seen by Rosenbaum as related, and Rosenbaum's not exactly the sharpest crayon in the box. Even accepting Rosenbaum's interpretation the long Perlmutter quote seems to me to be undue weight. The Yaoz-Kest business is tangential at best. I'd oppose a merge, though, as Cohen, Hersh, and van Creveld seem to me to be sufficient to justify stand-alone notability.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we may all be in agreement here. The main problem I had with this was the last section and the way that the article claimed that Israel intended to destroy the entire world. But the discussion about its nuclear deterrence policy and nuclear ambiguity seem to be mostly OK. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Since we seemed to be in agreement, I removed the last section. The article could still do with some cleaning up, but it has been much improved. It could still probably be merged with some other nuclear deterrence article, since that is what it is basically about. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We're not in agreement. I said I could lose everything but the van Creveld quote. Others have expressed interest in keeping more of this section. There seem to me to be three main parts to the section. Why don't we start a talk page section for each part and discuss their inclusion or deletion separately? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Van Creveld quote is far and away the worst of the bunch. This is a single opinion upon which is based the idea that Israel will attack friendly nations. It is trash. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The worst in what sense? It's the most relevant to the subject of the article and seems to me to be the most securely based on reliable sources. It sounds as if your problem with it is that you don't like what's being said. How is that even a consideration?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please explain to me how the outrageous opinion of one person = Israel military and foreign policy. Also let me inform you that I am not a defender of Israel. I can't stand most of their current policies, especially towards the Palestinians. But where I draw the line is when someone from either side of the debate wants to inject extremist fantasy into a discussion as if it was reality. I would be fighting just as hard if someone tried to put in a reference about how all Palestinians are brought up from a young age to be terrorists. And you and I both know that there are people who have published works saying exactly that. But their fantasy does not equal reality and does not belong in Wikipedia. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No one said that the van Crevald quote describes actual policy. It's more than clearly labeled as his opinion. It would be easier to discuss the issue at hand if you'd drop the red herrings.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about Israel's nuclear deterrence program and as such it should be based on the actual policies. This quote is designed to create a false perspective of reality. And we could include many such quotes, from both sides if you wish. But none of them belong on this page. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Some questions

• The strategy itself

The option is defined as: "massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well." Hersh's 1991 book and a GlobalSecurity.org article are given as sources. The latter article uses the former as a reference, so what evidence is given in Hersh's book that the option would be possibly used against other targets?

• Irrelevant sources?

In the "Retaliation strategy" section the following sources are used: Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter, Israeli historian Martin van Creveld, American journalist Ron Rosenbaum, Israeli poet and Holocaust survivor Itamar Yaoz-Kest. None of these people are Israeli military officials so I don't really see how their dramatic writings really add anything to the article. Innspring (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Van Crefeld is a military historian and has written on the IDF, so he would arguably have something to say about the subject. But we should try and find better sources than a book quoting his personal "pessimistic opinion". If he had said the same in a peer-reviewed scholarly article, that would be a much better source. If Israeli military officials were the only permissible sources, we couldn't write on Israel's nuclear strategy at all.

Regarding Perlmutter's opinion piece I agree, and the article on the poem seems a piece of trivia to me. I haven't checked Rosenbaum's book and have no opinion on it. Huon (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hersh's and Cohen's book seem to be the only actual sources on the Samson Option. From what I read in the Google Books preview, Cohen's book doesn't mention attacking other countries. Does Hersh's? If not, then it seems that Creveld is just making things up, so doesn't really belong under the section titled "Retaliation strategy". Maybe it should be added that it is only "his pessimistic opinion" too. Innspring (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would Martin van Creveld make stuff up? He's an academic expert on the IDF and warfare more generally. His assessment of Israel's nuclear strategy may well be wrong (I sure hope it is), but his views are notable and significant. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because it was just an interview he wanted to be dramatic for the purpose of riling up people. Either he got his information from someone (Hersh or Cohen or someone else), or he did his own research into the Samson Option, or he's making things up.Innspring (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of bad / OK references with explanation for each

Here I go through every single source and give some reasoning for why it might be good or bad.

THE BAD

1) Hersh 1991, pp. 42, 136–37, 288–89:

• POV book. Seems to be quite controversial. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Samson_Option:_Israel's_Nuclear_Arsenal_and_American_Foreign_Policy. Not RS for the extraordinary claims being made.

2) www.globalsecurity.org:

• See this wiki discussion [[2]]

3) Hedges, Chris (Monday, October 9, 2006) - http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1009-20.htm: Originally published on Truthdig.com.

• This is an opinion piece.

4) Perkovich, George (February 19, 2006), "The Samson Option: The story behind one of the world's worst-kept secrets: the Jewish state's atomic arsenal, a review of Michael Karpin's book The Bomb in the Basement", The Washington Post: BW03.

• This is a book review

5) Syndicated Radio Talk Show Host Paul McGuire Has Called President Bush To More Actively Support The Nation of Israel, And Work For Peace In The Middle East (press release), 1888, July 2, 2006.:

• This does not exist/is a dead link

6) Holsinger, Thomas ‘Tom’ (June 20, 2002), Staying Alive — Saddam's Samson Option, Strategy page.

• This seems to be a blog/opinion post

7) Keinon, Herb (2002‐1‐31), "Selling the 'Samson option’", The Jerusalem post.

• This does not exist/is a dead link

8) Young, Michael (Monday, August 7, 2006), "The Samson Option: Is Hezbollah on the verge of destroying Lebanon?", Slate Magazine.

• This is an opinion piece

9) In March 1976 the CIA accidentally publicly admitted that Israel had 10-20 nuclear weapons "ready to use." Arthur Kranish, "CIA: Israel Has 10-20 A-Weapons," The Washington Post, March 15, 1976, p. 2 and David Binder, "Information Abstracts," The New York Times, March 16, 1976, p. 1.

• I was not able to verify this ... but if verified and properly linked it might be OK.

10) Frantz, Douglas (Sunday, October 12, 2003), "Israel Adds Fuel to Nuclear Dispute, Officials confirm that the nation can now launch atomic weapons from land, sea and air", The Los Angeles Times (Common dreams).

• An opinion piece originally published in the LA Times.

11) Eberhart, David (October 16, 2001), Samson Option: Israel's Plan to Prevent Mass Destruction Attacks, NewsMax.

• Newsmax appears to have problems being an RS ... but I am not an expert on them. However the controversy surrounding their webpage makes me highly suspicious that they could be an RS.

12) "Israel’s Strategic Doctrine", Weapons of mass destruction, Global Security.

• Globalsecurity again ... See this wiki discussion [[3]]

13) ^ Hersh 1991, pp. 129, 136–7. ^ Cohen 1998, p. 236.. ^ Hersh 1991, pp. 225–7. ^ Cohen 1998, p. 236.

• Repeats

14) Dimona, The Third Temple: The Story Behind the Vanunu Revelation

• Hard to say for sure about this one ... but seems to be considered controversial and POV.

15) Farr, Warner D (September 1999), The Third Temple's Holy of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons, Counterproliferation Paper, USAF Counterproliferation Center, Air War College.

• This one MIGHT be OK ... I have zero knowledge of whether or not this is a legitimate peer reviewed journal.

16) Cohen, Avner (6 October 2003), "The Last Nuclear Moment", The New York Times.

• A NY Times opinion piece which can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/opinion/the-last-nuclear-moment.html

17) Hersh 1991, p. 259.

• Repeat

18) Daniel Project final report, IL: ACPR.

• Might be OK ... this is an opinion piece and it does not make any reference to Samson as is claimed in the wiki article.

19) Israel and Samson. Biblical Insights on Israeli Strategy in the Nuclear Age, Jerusalem summit.

• Potentially OK but again this seems to be an opinion piece, but in the wiki article it is simply stating what the author of this piece thinks.

20) Rosenbaum 2012, pp. 22–3.

• From Rosenbaum, Ron (2012), How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III. This is a fantasy piece about what might happen when the world ends. Not RS.

21) Perlmutter, David (April 7, 2002), "Israel: Dark Thoughts and Quiet Desperation", The Los Angeles Times.

• Opinion piece in the LA times found here: http://articles.latimes.com/2002/apr/07/opinion/op-perlmutter . This might be ok since it is referenced as an opinion piece but it seems to have WP:UNDUE weight given to it.

22) "We have the capability to take the world down with us", The Guardian (UK).

• This is a book review

23) The war game, "The Observer", The Guardian (UK), Saturday 20 September 2003.

• This is a book review

24) Rosenbaum 2012, pp. 21–2, 141–2.

• Repeat

25) Ronen, Gil (April 8, 2012), "Israeli Letter-poem to Grass: If We Go, Everyone Goes", Israel National News.

• This is a poem.

THE OK

1) Comay, Joan; Ronald Brownrigg (1993) (in English). Who's Who in the Bible:The Old Testament and the Apocrypha, The New Testament. New York: Wing Books. pp. Old Testament, 319. ISBN 0-517-32170-X.

• A Tangential but valid reference ... since it just speaks about where the name Samson comes from

2) Cohen 1998, pp. 1–3, 7, 341. A better way to see what the book is about: http://books.google.com/books/about/Israel_and_the_Bomb.html?id=Y4xBmM-f06cC

• Seems OK to me but its hard to know without being able to look inside

3) Cohen, Avner (2001), "9", in Spiegel, Steven L; Kibbe, Jennifer D; Matthews, Elizabeth G, The Dynamics of Middle East Nuclear Proliferation, Symposium, 66, The Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 187–212.

• Its hard to tell exactly what's going on with this ... but it is not used to make any extraordinary claims ... probably OK

4) Van Creveld, Martin (2008), The Culture of War, Random House Digital, p. 284, ISBN 978‐0‐345‐50540‐8

• Seems OK at on its face ... but probably given too much significance.

5) Norris, Robert S; Arkin, William; Kristensen, Hans M; Handler, Joshua (September/October 2002), "Israeli nuclear forces, 2002", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 58 (5): 73–5

• Its behind a paywall ... but seems like its probably OK

6) Brower, Kenneth S (February 1997), "A Propensity for Conflict: Potential Scenarios and Outcomes of War in the Middle East", Jane's Intelligence Review (14): 14–5.

• Seems to be OK ... but I don;t know if Jane's is normally considered an RS

Zuchinni one (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't remove or dismiss references because the link has gone dead or because they were published in the pre-internet era - please see WP:DEADLINK (and note that the The Jerusalem Post story is available online on other websites if you Google its title). Likewise, we don't dismiss works written by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists and/or published by major publishers simply because they've been criticized by some people or are "considered controversial" - we try to cover both sides of the story if there are differing views (please see WP:NPOV). Note also that the The war game article is an "edited extract" from the book, and not a book review as you've stated above. Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I submitted my reasoning behind why I thought some of these references were bad so that those reasons could be considered, criticized, corrected, or complimented. And if you look you will see that there are many links where I simply don't know how they should be considered. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And it was primarily the major bad claims, which have since been removed, that I had a problem with. The other issue was where the article claimed as fact, the opinions of some of these individuals. An opinion is NEVER a fact no matter how many Pulitzer prizes someone has won. To be fair to the sources ... these seemed to mostly be cases of the original Wikipedia editor taking extreme liberties with reality, and again much of that has been fixed. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See the article on Jane's. Unless they've gone way downhill, they're an eminently reliable source. The poem is a good source, but that's simply because the portion about the poem discusses what the poem means. Whether or not it be relevant here is a different question — basically, the situation is the same as the Perlmutter article in the LA Times. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up some refs and responding to User:Zuchinni one, so don't get deletion happy since MOST of your criticism will NOT pass WP:RSN. CarolMooreDC 17:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm bothering to respond to most comments - and did do some clean up in the article itself as I went through. I believe User:Zuchinni one is largely dismissing refs he doesn't like with rationales I know would NOT pass WP:RSN:

• 1) Herch ditto on above. Don’t mention the book that publicized the idea - right...
• 2) www.globalsecurity.org: better sources for two factoids easily can be found; a LOT has been written on this topic since article beefed up 4-5 years ago.
• 3) Hedges, Chris...This is an opinion piece. By a high profile noted journalist and author specializing in security topics.
• 4) Perkovich, George...This is a book review You mean a secondary source published in the washington post??
• 5) Syndicated Radio Talk Show Host Paul McGuire -6) Holsinger, Thomas 7) Keinon, Herb 8) Young, Michael: Do we even need to mention the various other ways the term is used at all?
• 9) Arthur Kranish and David Binder; I was not able to verify this ... but if verified and properly linked it might be OK., Learn to use Books.google': feel free to add this book mention of article and factoid and for Binder ad this book mention.
• 10) Douglas Frantz An opinion piece originally published in the LA Times. Looks like a news story to me.
• 11) Eberhart, David Newsmax appears to have problems being an RS ... Unless it publishes someone who’s an expert: "David Eberhart is the former news editor for The Stars and Stripes and Stripes.com. A retired military officer and the published author of five novels, he recently contributed to the New York Times best seller "Chicken Soup for the Veteran's Soul."
• 14) Dimona, The Third Temple: The Story Behind the Vanunu Revelation http://www.amana-publications.com/ Reputable publisher
• 15) Farr, Warner D (September 1999), The Third Temple's Holy of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons, Counterproliferation Paper, USAF Counterproliferation Center, Air War College. This one MIGHT be OK ... I have zero knowledge of whether or not this is a legitimate peer reviewed journal. Then search Wikipedia for Air War College or do other research and don’t expect others to.
• 16) Cohen, Avner (6 October 2003), "The Last Nuclear Moment", The New York Times. By author and expert on topic.
• 18) Beres: he’s probably most vocal supporter of concept and there are some newer and better articles which mention Samson Option more explicitly so eliminating first one not a problem.
• 20) Ron Rosenbaum 2012 ..This is a fantasy piece ... Book published by Simon and Schuster by a well known author on this topic.
• 22) "We have the capability to take the world down with us", The Guardian (UK). This is a book review A secondary source, actually.
• 23) The war game, "The Observer", The Guardian (UK), Saturday 20 September 2003. This is a book review A secondary source, actually.
• 25) Ronen, Gil (April 8, 2012), "Israeli Letter-poem to Grass: If We Go, Everyone Goes", Israel National News. This is a poem. It’s a news story that explicitly compares ideas in the controversial poem to the samson option. Did you read the article? CarolMooreDC 17:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone see what's up with the talk archives?

The link in the template goes to the wrong place. I can see that the bot's been archiving them, and I'm going to manually link to the ones I can find soon, but I'm not sure how to fix the underlying problem.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, nevermind. For some reason the bot counter was started at 3, so there are no missing archives. I'm just going to leave it as is since who knows what will happen if I try to reset it now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I accidently saved my note on archive "3"; before realizing that if it's automatic we can't rename archives. I'm not an expert on doing this either. At some point I assume it starts a new one. CarolMooreDC 18:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's set to start another archive when the current one hits 150K. I'm just afraid that if we change midstream it'll confuse the bot. I think your note is a good idea, and that unless an expert comes along, we should just leave the status quo alone.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I made some changes to the round in circles template that I hope will clarify the situation with the archives. Please feel free to revert and discuss, of course. The details of what I did are in the edit summary.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Starting cleanup

I have a mass of new high quality WP:RS material which I'm now starting to organize. I am going to go through and get rid of or otherwise tag a few sources that two of us above agreed is questionable; some of the weaker sources can be replaced with better ones, so no censorship is going on here. I'm also checking refs, especially for Cohen and Hersh. I have both books, so I can see a lot of pages that used to ref other things have been thrown in as if they ref'd current material. So I will correct that as I find it. Getting this out of the way now so there is no question when I start adding or replacing material that current material is problematic. Feel free to double check as I go, but don't re-add anything that you cannot personally verify. CarolMooreDC 22:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI Beres doesn't specifically mention Samson Option in the current Project Daniel report, so that only should be used as a ref. He does as a preemptive option in a number of other articles and more will be added later. CarolMooreDC 00:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Hypothetical" is original research

You wrote in this edit summary: (Since Israel has never made any statements about such a course of action it is by definition hypothetical.) I am trying to motivate myself to finish off the last 25% of my new info/edit of article with lots of good new WP:RS that make it clear how hypothetical the policy is or is not. In the meantime, I don't think you should be describing it as "hypothetical" unless you find a WP:RS that says so. As a matter of fact, it is many things to many people (including different things to different Israeli leaders) and there may be a source that says that, as there are sources that say everything. But it's not for us to decide the one and only description, especially without any evidence at all. CarolMooreDC 21:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hypothetical is factual. Israel has never said it would do any of the things suggested in this article. The entire premise of the article is based on the ideas of various authors, analysts, etc ... who presume that this is what Israel might do in an extreme situation. That is the definition of a hypothetical policy. To claim that the opinions of the authors and analysts referenced here are in fact the actual policy of Israel ... that would be Original Research. Zuchinni one (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow what a monumental load of WP:FRINGE in this article. This article is a serious case of where wiki policy fails spectacularly, as I highly doubt Israel would instigate this so called Samson Option and attack its allies on the European continent. Yet due to the nations official policy of nuclear opacity, it is pretty impossible to get confirmation of this. However Occam's Razor would suggest that probably their most extreme use of their arsenal would be to utilize it in a manner to prevent the state from being overrun if Israel began to lose in a conventional war, meaning that sure, it probably has a first strike doctrine, but attacking its allies around the world as part of their response to being invaded is certainly not at all logical, or likely, as they would quickly make enemies out of their former allies. Honestly, it should require a very robust document from the likes of the CIA in the US, or Israel itself, to convince readers otherwise.

Boundarylayer (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I came up with a bunch of new good sources for the article and have just been waiting for someone to kick my butt by criticizing the current one to put it in. Will that person be you? CarolMooreDC🗽 06:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Retaliation strategy section needs to go

The rest of the article is mostly OK. But the last section is worded as if Israel wants to destroy the world. It is all based on an extremist POV and does not in the least bit reflect reality or Israeli foreign policy. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In the past I believe it was called "Controversy" and something like that is more appropriate. But at some point it drifted to this and no one has noticed/cared. CarolMooreDC 21:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems more like what it is. Whatever ends up staying in it, perhaps we should rename it. Most of the objections to it seems to be based on the idea that it's describing the reality of Israel's policy. That is a valid objection, I think, because, as Israel won't say what their policy is, any statements about what it is must necessarily be speculative.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course now I just looked at it again and the sources do in fact describe it as retaliation and having had Samson Option on google alerts for several years I know there are a lot of non-WP:RS nuts who describe it just like that. Plus we DO need sources that say that using nukes in retaliation ala Samson is "controversial." Perhaps we should find some AND rename it to "Controversial retaliation strategy." In any case, more research on the topic would help. I'll have to start looking through my best few dozen saved google alerts.

Also in an undated saved copy (perhaps draft I failed to label?) I have the following which could be an intro, but again "controversial" is not ref'd:

David Hirst noted that “The threatening of wild, irrational violence, in response to political pressure, has been an Israeli impulse from the very earliest days.” and “Israel will remain at least as likely a candidate as Iran, and a far more enduring one, for the role of 'nuclear-crazy' state.” [REF:David Hirst, The War Game, a controversial view of the current crisis in the Middle East, The Observer Guardian, September 21, 2003.] Below are several such controversial statements:' CarolMooreDC 21:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well Israel has pretty openly stated that it won't be the "first" to introduce nuclear weapons to the region. But they have also deliberately fostered the idea that if they are attacked and going to be wiped out ... that the attacker will suffer the same. This mutually assured destruction (MAD) philosophy is quite real and can easily be sourced by both Israeli politicians and military personnel. The problem is SOLELY with the idea that this event would include Israeli strikes on non-involved countries or the aim of striking with enough force to intentionally create a nuclear winter. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is true that Israel would not attack non-involved countries, there is no doubt that there is a perception it would that is communicated by various WP:RS (and I probably can add more). Removing that info is Whitewash (censorship). Why not try to find a better name for the section. Maybe "Perception of retaliation strategy"? CarolMooreDC 01:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Either this is a factual article about Israel's nuclear program and their policies, or this is an opinion piece. And this is not about censorship but rather giving undue weight to the imaginations of people who do not make policy. Wikipedia is not a conspiracy theory site Zuchinni one (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite that either/or. As I read last night and notated someplace in files I'm reorganzing, according to a Avner Cohen the phrase was first popularized by Seymour Hersh and he meant it both as the nuclear program AND as a program of massive retaliation, including especially against Russia. (A more detailed paragraph on Hersh's book obviously is needed.)

I've also found a few more quotes from Israeli officials and advisors and other sources saying something to that effect. So it's not just odd ball opinion, but seen as a threat by enemies and friends alike. This article really is already rather "white washed" to that extent.

Also the phrase is becoming more widely known as one meaning killing all your enemies and has been used to describe a variety of non-nuclear retaliation scenarios and there are probably another dozen good examples. So a more detailed paragraph on uses also might be in order, though frankly I may not have the energy to put it together. Feel free CarolMooreDC 20:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Carol I found your blog post about the Samson Option [here] and this one suggesting that sunspots are related to global politics and how you personally predicted the fall of the Iron Curtain [here] and also this one where you talk about how the US and Israel plan to start a nuclear war with China and Russia [here]. Please remember as you edit, that while your blog is free to say whatever it likes, that wikipedia is supposed to present a neutral POV of the facts and reality. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just reverted this change by Zuchinni one which added in an unreferenced paragraph which attacked the reputations of several living people - please see WP:BLP and WP:V. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not attack a single person. All of the people quoted in that section were referred to as mainstream. But the idea that Israel's foreign policy plan is to destroy the world is conspiracy and unfounded. If this section remains it needs to reflect reality not fantasy. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User: Zuchinni one: Please remember that what matters is editing within wikipedia policy, whatever one's POV. So for example your retitling "retaliation" to "Expanded Samson Option Theory" is pure WP:original research since you won't find any WP:RS that calls it that. I have lots that describe it as retaliation strategy - among other strategic uses - and will just throw a couple in tomorrow and change the name back and better introduce the section.

"The bottom line is Israel has not announced its strategy so various WP:RS theorists and news people have had to guess at it. If you did some research instead of just cutting/criticizing what you don't like you might find some relevant information yourself. But you are motivating me to do it, and that's all that matters.

User: Nick-D: You were right to remove his WP:Original research introduction. However, having a well known author quote someone and says his quote justifies an attack is not a personal attack, it's a political analysis and perfectly OK BLP wise. Take it to WP:BLPN if you don't believe me. What is the WP:V problem? (I know one which I'll fix soon but don't know what you think is one. CarolMooreDC 06:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Implying that the people named in the section are conspiracy theorists as was added is a clear BLP violation, especially as several of them are highly respectable. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Carol, let me be very clear. I think its fine to talk about stuff like the Samson Option and its perfectly valid for there to be a wikipedia page about it. I also think its OK to reference well known and respected authors who have opinions about what they think might occur. What is unacceptable is when that information is presented as if it was the foreign policy of a country. If it stays it needs to be clear that this is not, nor ever has been, the actual policy of the state of Israel, but rather pure conjecture.

Also, I did forget to reference the beginning portion of that previous edit, but it was just a restatement of previously referenced material already included in the article. The second part was merely a statement about the fact that the sources which followed were not representing official Israel policy. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As noted on my talk page, if there are differing views on Israel's nuclear strategy (as seems likely) or this view has been criticized in reliable sources (also likely), please make use of these sources. Adding material based solely on your personal views isn't OK. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that my personal views do not belong here ... but wrong that the material contained those views, I simply forgot to re-reference the already source material from earlier in the article. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's three sources I put together since I posted a few minutes ago saying the Samson Option is a retaliation strategy (though not necessarily denying it also may be a deterrence strategy). They easily can be put together as a fitting intro to the section.

• Space Policy in Developing Countries: The Search for Security and Development on the Final Frontier, Robert C. Harding, Routledge, 2012 - see here
• Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel's Security & Foreign Policy, Zeev Maoz, University of Michigan Press, 2009, see here
• How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III, Ron Rosenbaum, Simon and Schuster, 2012,

see here. But enough for tonight. CarolMooreDC 07:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The extended non-notable quotes from Ron Rosenblaum are clearly undue in this article, which is supposed to describe the actual strategy, and not the opinions of an American novelist. The section should be trimmed down. Avaya1 (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Samson vs Mutually Assured Destruction

Samson is different than M.A.D. Why is this not clear in the opening of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimatus (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Why? If Isr. uses nukes that will not go unanswered. Isr. cannot survive a usage of nukes. 213.136.77.237 (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence is cumbersome

Current opening sentence is "The Samson Option is the name that some military analysts and authors have given to Israel's deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against the specific country that its military destroys Israel."

My issue is with the wording towards the end. I propose changing it to either:

1. "as a "last resort" against the specific country whose military destroys Israel," or

2. "as a "last resort" against the specific country, the military of which destroys Israel," or,

3 "as a "last resort" against the specific country that destroys or attempts to destroy Israel" (my personal choice).

Thoughts?

N^oformation ^Talk 06:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The "Samson doctrine" is not Israel's deterrence strategy. It is a myth about a strategy involving the destruction of other countries if Israel is threatened. Those other countries include Europe and the USA. The idea being that the West is obliged to defend Israel, or risk being treated as an enemy by Israel. Personally I believe that the doctrine is either a journalistic myth, or deliberate misinformationRoyalcourtier (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Isr. strategy is to stir up a war aginst Iran, in which mostly non-Isr. are supposed to perish. Also your argument breaks down when you insinuate that Isr. treats anyone as her 'friend', which is demonstrably false even in the case of the U.S.. 213.136.77.237 (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

So Beres posits that Isr. use nukes as weapon of aggression !

Beres (quoted in article) carefully avoids the term "aggression", but that is exactly what it comes down to. Preemtive strikes are ALWAYS aggression. He suggests to use nukes as an attack weapon effectively. So all the rhetoric about "defense" is just a smokescreen! 213.136.77.237 (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)