Military procurement from the US impairs the Israeli economy. Generals, who are all too human, want fashionable things, and American weapons are fashionable. On many occasions, Israel has developed her own weapons. Are they better than the American weapons? It doesn’t matter that much. Israelis depend on military skills, and would defeat Arab armies even without a major technological advantage. The American military-industrial complex protects its markets by dumping weapons on Israel, and the stupid Israeli government lauds the situation instead of putting an end to it. At the very least, Israel can play European and American suppliers against each other, and get much better terms than we do now. Israel can copy American weapons, and occasionally does, as does China. For Israel, with the world’s fourth-strongest army, to procure weapons abroad is bizarre. Transferring military production to Israel would boost the local economy. Israel should become a net exporter rather than an importer of weapons. American military industries are exceedingly wasteful. New systems are developed for old wars. The digitalization of the American army is lackluster. Israel should sever herself from American supplies and concentrate on developing new-generation weapons for digital war and anti-terrorism. Now Israel rolls down the path of the American military behemoths: she has an exceeding technological military advantage over her enemies, with no major war in sight. Preserving such an advantage is extremely costly and bankrupts Israel. In effect, Israel is permanently mobilized. Mobilization is often thought of in terms of troops, yet much more important and costly is the mobilization of equipment. Arabs start buying new weapons only when preparing for war with Israel, as Egypt did in 1971. Israel continuously maintains militarily preparedness. No country can survive economically in a permanent state of mobilization. The real issue is not the cost of locally manufactured vs. imported weapons; neither option is economically sustainable. Whether she imports weapons or manufactures them, Israel should use them: start the war, finish it, and disarm her enemies.

Israel’s announced doctrine on the first use of nuclear weapons would not somehow legitimize their use for Arabs. Legitimate or not, Muslims will use their nuclear weapons—on one another, but also against Israel. Weapons need no legitimization. European knights and Japanese samurai despised firearms. Efficient weapons are always deployed on occasion. By rejecting the first use of nuclear weapons, Israel provokes her enemies. The announced readiness for first-use of nuclear weapons might also give Arabs the pretext they are looking for to end their belligerency. Faced with an overwhelming threat from a dreadful and reliably vengeful enemy, Arabs could agree to peace while preserving their perceived honor. In the end, peace depends on threat. MAD worked between the superpowers. Its mere enhancement, the first-use, is the best strategy for Israel. It is, moreover, the only military strategy that will not bankrupt the country.

A Jewish state with defiantly different culture, sitting in the place where it was destroyed several times, where the conflict never ends, where Christian kingdoms did not survive, has to be prepared for prolonged belligerency and would be at risk even if a formal peace treaty were signed. Israel needs an economically viable long-term military strategy, and the first use of nuclear weapons is the only such strategy because it precludes all but the really mad Muslim rulers from attacking Israel. And if attacked by a madman and a strong army, Israel would have to use her nuclear deterrent in any case, so why not save money by using nuclear weapons from the start?

An Arab nuclear weapon will not arrive in Israeli by missile, but in an inconspicuous cargo container. What would the Israeli government do after seeing a nuclear mushroom appear over Tel Aviv? It strikes me that they would do nothing, not knowing the perpetrator and fearing escalation. To me, the perpetrator is clear—the Muslims. Yes, Egypt and Iran would threaten reprisal for an Israeli nuclear response. The point is, we do not care. Five nuclear bombs would virtually destroy our country, and we must be prepared to exact vengeance for vengeance’s sake. Israel must make it a law that she would fully and immediately use her nuclear arsenal against Muslim population centers in response to nuclear explosions in her cities. Let the world consider Israelis madmen—that does not matter. Israel’s formal adherence to MAD might force the West to finally deal with rogue nuclear arsenals by all necessary means. If it won’t—well, this time Gamla will fall differently. With a bang.

How would the world react to an Israeli doctrine of first-use of nuclear weapons? Besides the rhetorical condemnations, probably with understanding. Many people are fed up with rogue states, and not surprisingly right movements are on the rise everywhere in Europe. The world traded with the apartheid South Africa, and the sanctions were inefficient. The world acquiesced to the Soviet incursion in Afghanistan and to the American invasion of Iraq, as well as to the French slaughter of Algerians, and to Algerians slaughtering each other. The world’s tolerance is limitless. If the Israeli economy is important for the world, it will cooperate with Israel. The real issue is not placating Arabs or pacifists, but economic development. The first-use doctrine would allow Israel to shed the military burden and develop economically.

Muslims would also understand the Israeli nuclear doctrine. They always use military power to the maximum extent, and have no moral scruples about inflicting the maximum possible damage on their enemies. If anything, a cruel and realistic doctrine of first-use of nuclear weapons would raise Israel in her enemies’ eyes, and make Israel recognizably like them, a true cousin.