4) Suppose Israel barely survives a nuclear attack. You could imagine that the next thing that would happen (as soon as the fallout clears to acceptable levels) is that Arab armies or "militias" are going to try to finish the job. In this situation in particular, even more than before the first strike, it is important that Israel will be able to credibly pose a threat to its foes. Will it have enough nukes and the logistics to operate then to do that? (Once a few airfields and the missiles camps are jeopardized it's game over...) To me what this means is that MAD is not a viable proposition for Israel, because even if there is assurance of destruction in practice, the enemy has to be convinced of that, and due to the above reasons, it may rather assume that its destruction will be far from complete. One additional comment to all these folks that say that Iran never attacked another country: this is not true. It just happened last month. Don't forget that.
Law expanding definition of terrorist activity passes first Knesset reading (Haaretz)
from the article: Let them have nukes