No U.S. Airlift to Israel in 1973

[futurist]

What if the U.S. would have refused to launch an airlift to help Israel during the Yom Kippur War in 1973?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?

[lordroel]

Jul 2, 2016 21:58:27 GMT futurist said:

What if the U.S. would have refused to launch an airlift to help Israel during the Yom Kippur War in 1973?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?

You mean no Operation Nickel Grass, maybe if Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir does not authorized the assembly of thirteen 20-kiloton nuclear warheads on Jericho missiles and F-4s, which were prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets, these together with Soviets conducting a resupply operation of Arab forces by sea forced  United States President Richard Nixon to act, could we have a way to keep the Soviets from resupplying the Arab forces.

[stevep]

I think lordroel raises one key point, the Isreali nuclear weapons. Another is that at the height of the cold war could the US has shown itself not supporting an ally who was the victim of an unprovoked attack? Especially given the political importance of the Jewish vote in the US and the fact they were already withdrawing from Vietnam.

Plus this is less than 30 years after WWII so I think it would be politically impossible to abandon a Jewish population to conquest, especially with the stated aim of the Arabs being to wipe the country off the map.

[lordroel]

Jul 3, 2016 12:26:14 GMT stevep said:

I think lordroel raises one key point, the Isreali nuclear weapons. Another is that at the height of the cold war could the US has shown itself not supporting an ally who was the victim of an unprovoked attack? Especially given the political importance of the Jewish vote in the US and the fact they were already withdrawing from Vietnam.

Plus this is less than 30 years after WWII so I think it would be politically impossible to abandon a Jewish population to conquest, especially with the stated aim of the Arabs being to wipe the country off the map.

I remember there is a book out there called If Israel Lost the War that depicts what would happen if the United States due their embroiled in the Vietnam War, takes no action to save Israel, nor does any other country (except for a valiant but futile sending of some planes from the Netherlands).

[stevep]

Jul 3, 2016 12:30:35 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 3, 2016 12:26:14 GMT stevep said:

I think lordroel raises one key point, the Isreali nuclear weapons. Another is that at the height of the cold war could the US has shown itself not supporting an ally who was the victim of an unprovoked attack? Especially given the political importance of the Jewish vote in the US and the fact they were already withdrawing from Vietnam.

Plus this is less than 30 years after WWII so I think it would be politically impossible to abandon a Jewish population to conquest, especially with the stated aim of the Arabs being to wipe the country off the map.

I remember there is a book out there called If Israel Lost the War that depicts what would happen if the United States due their embroiled in the Vietnam War, takes no action to save Israel, nor does any other country (except for a valiant but futile sending of some planes from the Netherlands).

  Interesting link.  Its actually talking about a 1967 alternative where Israel is the subject of a well coordinating attack by its three main Arab neighbours and is overrun but has some parallels.  There is doubt raised about whether the Arabs could manage things that well, especially since it involves three separate armed forces.  I'm not sure whether Israel had a reliable nuclear force at that stage, especially in the face of possible Arab air superiority.

 

[lordroel]

Jul 3, 2016 12:40:42 GMT stevep said:

Jul 3, 2016 12:30:35 GMT lordroel said:

I remember there is a book out there called If Israel Lost the War that depicts what would happen if the United States due their embroiled in the Vietnam War, takes no action to save Israel, nor does any other country (except for a valiant but futile sending of some planes from the Netherlands).

  Interesting link.  Its actually talking about a 1967 alternative where Israel is the subject of a well coordinating attack by its three main Arab neighbours and is overrun but has some parallels.  There is doubt raised about whether the Arabs could manage things that well, especially since it involves three separate armed forces.  I'm not sure whether Israel had a reliable nuclear force at that stage, especially in the face of possible Arab air superiority.

 

But it could also happen in 1973, but maybe the French will do the airlift or sea transport to keep Israel going instead of the United States or would the French not do that.

[stevep]

Jul 3, 2016 12:52:07 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 3, 2016 12:40:42 GMT stevep said:

  Interesting link.  Its actually talking about a 1967 alternative where Israel is the subject of a well coordinating attack by its three main Arab neighbours and is overrun but has some parallels.  There is doubt raised about whether the Arabs could manage things that well, especially since it involves three separate armed forces.  I'm not sure whether Israel had a reliable nuclear force at that stage, especially in the face of possible Arab air superiority.

 

But it could also happen in 1973, but maybe the French will do the airlift or sea transport to keep Israel going instead of the United States or would the French not do that.

 I'm note sure if any other power would be willing and able to reinforce Israel, since it would involve alienating much of the Arab world and also standing against the USSR when the US wasn't.

  IIRC, when the 1st oil crisis started in 73 after the war the French were trying to get on good terms with the Arabs whereas the Dutch I think were the most openly opposed of the Europeans to accepting pressure from OPEC.  Talking a long time ago so could be remembering wrongly but pretty certain that was the case, although I can't remember what steps France took to distance itself from Israel.  However that does suggest that France wouldn't be a likely alternative to support Israel if the US didn't. 

[lordroel]

Jul 3, 2016 16:43:46 GMT stevep said:

Jul 3, 2016 12:52:07 GMT lordroel said:

But it could also happen in 1973, but maybe the French will do the airlift or sea transport to keep Israel going instead of the United States or would the French not do that.

 I'm note sure if any other power would be willing and able to reinforce Israel, since it would involve alienating much of the Arab world and also standing against the USSR when the US wasn't.

  IIRC, when the 1st oil crisis started in 73 after the war the French were trying to get on good terms with the Arabs whereas the Dutch I think were the most openly opposed of the Europeans to accepting pressure from OPEC.  Talking a long time ago so could be remembering wrongly but pretty certain that was the case, although I can't remember what steps France took to distance itself from Israel.  However that does suggest that France wouldn't be a likely alternative to support Israel if the US didn't. 

So with out any US airlift the country of Israel will be doomed to use their nuclear weapons to avert defeat which ironically will draw in the United States into a nuclear war.

[stevep]

Jul 3, 2016 16:50:48 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 3, 2016 16:43:46 GMT stevep said:

 I'm note sure if any other power would be willing and able to reinforce Israel, since it would involve alienating much of the Arab world and also standing against the USSR when the US wasn't.

  IIRC, when the 1st oil crisis started in 73 after the war the French were trying to get on good terms with the Arabs whereas the Dutch I think were the most openly opposed of the Europeans to accepting pressure from OPEC.  Talking a long time ago so could be remembering wrongly but pretty certain that was the case, although I can't remember what steps France took to distance itself from Israel.  However that does suggest that France wouldn't be a likely alternative to support Israel if the US didn't. 

So with out any US airlift the country of Israel will be doomed to use their nuclear weapons to avert defeat which ironically will draw in the United States into a nuclear war.

  There's a danger of a wider nuclear war, which could be fairly high.  However it wouldn't be certain.  The ME would definitely be a mess however and any surviving Israeli state would be hated even more by the Arab/Muslim world.

  Checking the Aswan High Dam had been completed by that date but the resulant Lake Nasser wasn't completely filled until 1976.  So not sure of the impact if that was hit but could be very bad for much of Upper Egypt since that is pretty much a narrow valley. 

[lordroel]

Jul 4, 2016 16:23:31 GMT stevep said:

There's a danger of a wider nuclear war, which could be fairly high.  However it wouldn't be certain.  The ME would definitely be a mess however and any surviving Israeli state would be hated even more by the Arab/Muslim world.

There will also be backlash in the United States when it is learned that the Israeli Ambassador had warned President Nixon of "very serious conclusions" if the United States did not airlift supplies.

[futurist]

Jul 3, 2016 12:40:42 GMT stevep said:

Did the Arabs actually have air superiority over Israel back in 1973, though?

[lordroel]

Jul 6, 2016 2:48:18 GMT futurist said:

Jul 3, 2016 12:40:42 GMT stevep said:

Did the Arabs actually have air superiority over Israel back in 1973, though?

If they could replace their losses with Soviet supplied planes and even pilots yes they would have air superiority over the skies of Israel.

[stevep]

IIRC the Israelis too heavy losses, in air and armour in attacking prepared defences due to Soviet supplied SAMs and AT missiles. OTL the Israelis adjusted and were able to defeat their opponents when the latter advanced beyond those prepared positions. How possible that might or might not be without US equipment replacements I don't know. However possibly that the Arab airforces could have gained air superiority over Isreal, which could have been very bad.

[deltaforce]

Jul 3, 2016 12:40:42 GMT stevep said:

Jul 3, 2016 12:30:35 GMT lordroel said:

I remember there is a book out there called If Israel Lost the War that depicts what would happen if the United States due their embroiled in the Vietnam War, takes no action to save Israel, nor does any other country (except for a valiant but futile sending of some planes from the Netherlands).

  Interesting link.  Its actually talking about a 1967 alternative where Israel is the subject of a well coordinating attack by its three main Arab neighbours and is overrun but has some parallels.  There is doubt raised about whether the Arabs could manage things that well, especially since it involves three separate armed forces.  I'm not sure whether Israel had a reliable nuclear force at that stage, especially in the face of possible Arab air superiority. 

Many experts believe that Israel had already achieved a very limited nuclear capability by 1967 (source). If Israel had AN-11 class nuclear weapons it would have been possible to use its fleet of Sud Aviation Vautour aircraft to deliver a strike. More advanced weapons akin to the AN-22 or AN-52 could have been deployed using a Mirage III.

[deltaforce]

Jul 2, 2016 21:58:27 GMT futurist said:

What if the U.S. would have refused to launch an airlift to help Israel during the Yom Kippur War in 1973?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?

There isn't much reason for the United States to refrain from sending military aid to Israel during the conflict. The Soviet Union had its own resupply effort during the 1973 Yom Kippur War and actually sent more aid to the Arab states during the conflict than the United States sent to Israel (source[/url)], and it also started those efforts before the United States did. In fact, the Soviet resupply efforts have been cited as one reason why Operation Nickel Grass was initiated.