From invasion or forced regime change? Yes (But I don't think the nukes actually helped in that regard).
replyIt did not keep them safe from the invasion 2 years ago.
replyThose attacks were horrific, but certainly nothing that rises to the level of an "invasion".
replyThey were invasion by definition: Palestinians crossed into Israel, invaded villages and towns. How come it's not an invasion?
replyUsually an invasion entails an intent to capture territory and occupy. A suicide terror attack is qualitatively different even if it’s large-scale. The boots on the ground could just as well have been rockets, whereas an invasion needs a longer term presence.
replyPalestinians crossed into israel from israel (occupied territories by israel). How can you invade yourself?
reply> occupied territories by Israel)
replyGaza was not occupied. There was zero military presence in Gaza prior to October 7th.
Aim of an invasion is by definition to conquer.
replyI think the meaning of 'invasion' in the context of nuclear deterrence refers to an attempt to occupy.
replyPretty safe if you ask me, judging from their…location and historical context.
replyHistorically, Israelis have been much safer than most of their neighbors Oct. 7th notwithstanding.
replySafer from what?
replyIsraeli neighbors that are at peace with Israel are safe as well, e.g., Egypt and Jordan.
And what about Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon? And, in this latest case, Iran?
replyThe last time Israel faced an existential threat from its neighbors was 1973. The timeline isn’t entirely clear, but that’s right around the time when they started to have operational nuclear weapons. Many factors contributed to their relative safety since then, but the timing certainly works out for nuclear weapons helping to make that true.
replyWell, proximity is a factor...
reply