Israel’s nuclear posture of restraint is an element of its security strategy that has achieved a high level of nonpartisan consensus and become deeply entrenched and long-standing. However, contrary to the idea that there is a ‘nuclear taboo’ on public discourse in this realm, over the decades Israel has seen a number of public challenges to this policy in the discourse amongst the security elite and prominent intellectuals from varying directions. Previous research has provided the outline of this debate in Israel as it occurred in its first two decades however, little attempt has been made to present the parameters of the debate in the decades since. This article explores these challenges and gauges their influence on the margins of the Israeli nuclear posture against the influence of external structural factors. The consensus policy has crystalized as one of pragmatism and restraint. But challengers have arisen from two alternative identifiable approaches existing within Israeli elite discourse: nuclear advocates and nuclear skeptics. I survey how these challengers have arisen over the decades and then identify three possible future scenarios that may be of a scale that could strengthen the claims of either the advocates or the skeptics and lead to a serious re-assessment.