News Is Israel's Nuclear Program Hindering Peace in the Middle East?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carlos Hernandez
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
AI Thread Summary
Israel's nuclear program, while never officially acknowledged, is widely recognized by experts as a significant aspect of its military capabilities, with estimates suggesting it possesses around 200 nuclear warheads. The country has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which raises concerns about regional security and the potential for escalating nuclear arms development among neighboring states. Discussions highlight the perceived double standards in international reactions to Israel's nuclear status compared to other nations like Iraq and Iran. Critics argue that Israel's nuclear arsenal undermines peace efforts in the Middle East, as it may provoke neighboring countries to pursue their own nuclear capabilities for defense. The ongoing debate emphasizes the complexities of nuclear proliferation and its implications for regional stability.
Carlos Hernandez
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Israel's nuclear programme

While Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, few international experts question the Jewish state's presence on the world's list of nuclear powers.
Its nuclear capability is arguably the most secretive weapons of mass destruction programme in the world.

Unlike Iran and North Korea - two countries whose alleged nuclear ambitions have recently come to the fore - Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global spread of nuclear weapons.

Complete text http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3340639.stm
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Free Vanunu!

Its nice to have you here Carlos!

I’m bloody ashamed of the way ASIO let MOSSAD kidnap Vanunu from Australia. Menashe wrote all about the saga in “Profits Of War” (which incidentally was shredded by publishers at a CIA request).

Here’s some info;
http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Whistleblower

Background info;

“Mordechai Vanunu -
The world's first nuclear hostage
"I have sacrificed my freedom and risked my life in order to expose the danger of nuclear weapons which threatens this whole region. I acted on behalf of all citizens and all of humanity"
Mordechai Vanunu

Mordechai Vanunu was a technician at Dimona, Israel's nuclear installation, from 1976 to 1985. He discovered that the plant was secretly producing nuclear weapons. His conscience made him speak out and in 1986 he provided the London Sunday Times with the facts and photos they used to tell the world about Israel's nuclear weapons programme. His evidence showed that Israel had stockpiled up to 200 nuclear warheads, with no debate or authorisation from it own citizens.
On 30th September 1986, Mordechai was lured from London to Rome. There he was kidnapped, drugged and shipped to Israel. After a secret trial he was sentenced to 18 years for 'treason' and 'espionage' though he had received no payment and communicated with no foreign power. He was held in complete isolation for 11 years, only allowed occasional visits from his family, lawyer and a priest, conducted through a metal screen.
Just to clarify. Before Vanunu went to London, ASIO did a number on him. Vanunu had sought political asylum in Australia before going to London.
 
Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
Its nice to have you here Carlos!

I’m bloody ashamed of the way ASIO let MOSSAD kidnap Vanunu from Australia. Menashe wrote all about the saga in “Profits Of War” (which incidentally was shredded by publishers at a CIA request).

Here’s some info;
http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/

This is a shame indeed.

I have respect for many Jewish heros, such as the one you listed above. Someone accused me of disliking the Jewish people. Incorrect. I simply dislike Zionist/supremacist types. There are many Jewish intellectuals that I greatly respect, such as Noam Chomsky (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm), Israel Shamir (http://www.israelshamir.net/), Dr. John Hartung (http://members.aol.com/toexist/), Edward Said (http://www.edwardsaid.org/modules/news/), Michael Levin (http://web.gc.cuny.edu/philosophy/levin.htm), Israel Shahak (), Norman Finkelstein (http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/), and many many more.

Keep in mind that almost half of Israeli Jews are opposed to Zionism and Sharone, I bear this half no ill-will or resentment, I respect them as fellow human beings.

I see two different Israeli politics: jewish nationalism and zionism. Jewish nationalism is just wanting to keep the borders closed to any further immigration and preserving jewish culture, but at the same time respecting the national sovereinty of neighboring nations. I see this as fine. But zionism is the belief that Isreal should imperialize the rest of the world, this is what I dislike.

Regards,

Carlos Hernandez
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Greetings !
Originally posted by Carlos Hernandez
Keep in mind that almost half of Israeli Jews are opposed to Zionism and Sharone, I bear this half no ill-will or resentment, I respect them as fellow human beings.

I see two different Israeli politics: jewish nationalism and zionism. Jewish nationalism is just wanting to keep the borders closed to any further immigration and preserving jewish culture, but at the same time respecting the national sovereinty of neighboring nations. I see this as fine. But zionism is the belief that Isreal should imperialize the rest of the world, this is what I dislike.
Amazing political knowledge...
I wonder, what are the sources of this extensive
information, if you don't mind disclosing them ?

Israel's possesion of nuclear weapons is and was well known
unofficialy. The signing of the treaty would create
a number of problems - it will provide arab countries with
precise info - which is much less detering. Also,
it will constantly be used by many countries as an excuse
to start their own nuclear programs and receive less
official critisizm for it.

I really don't think it matters when a democratic country
possesses nuclear weapons. As long as it makes sure they
are safe-guarded appropriately. Such a country would
NEVER use them first. The problem is when non-democratic
countries construct or acquire such weapons. Since the
rule is held by force by a small power-thursty bunch -
there's always the danger that the leader will go insane
or would loose control of the people and someone presses
the button.

Live long and prosper.
 
!?

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !
Israel's possesion of nuclear weapons is and was well known
unofficialy. The signing of the treaty would create
a number of problems - it will provide arab countries with
precise info - which is much less detering. Also,
it will constantly be used by many countries as an excuse
to start their own nuclear programs and receive less
official critisizm for it.
Iraq Didn't even own WMD's, but only becuase USA suspected that they have, they got invaded, but when Israel's unoffcial side insure that Israel owns WMD's , nobody gives a 5h!t !
This is very unfair, acually, Jordan has nothing to defence itself against Israeli WMD's but a paper Jordan signed back in 90's, we cannot afford having WMD's but we must have at least a back up plan if this peace between us and Israel got broken.

I really don't think it matters when a democratic country
possesses nuclear weapons. As long as it makes sure they
are safe-guarded appropriately. Such a country would
NEVER use them first. The problem is when non-democratic
countries construct or acquire such weapons. Since the
rule is held by force by a small power-thursty bunch -
there's always the danger that the leader will go insane
or would loose control of the people and someone presses
the button.
Uoi consider Israel a Democratic country ? Try to know more about "Azmi Bushara" and poeple like him, they got prisoned just for some words they say, just becuase they tell their opinion, or maybe you have to know more about the country you support.


Still wondering If Israel has WDM's or producing them, why nobody cares about that ?
 
(quote)I really don't think it matters when a democratic country
possesses nuclear weapons. As long as it makes sure they
are safe-guarded appropriately. Such a country would
NEVER use them first. The problem is when non-democratic
countries construct or acquire such weapons. Since the
rule is held by force by a small power-thursty bunch -
there's always the danger that the leader will go insane
or would loose control of the people and someone presses
the button.(/quote)

I think nuclear weapons weapons should be banned entirely. Even democratic countries shouldn't possesses any WMD's. And certainly not Israel because of the unstable situation in that region. It's just one more reason for the arab countries in the neighbourhood to also start a nuclear programme to "defend themselves". I also don't see any reason why Israel should have WMD's since you are so sure they aren't going to use them. If they would use them somewhere in the future that's even worse, no matter what would cause them to use a nuclear bomb. I don't think there is any justification for using WMD's.
 


Originally posted by Zargawee
Iraq Didn't even own WMD's,

remains to be seen

but only becuase USA suspected that they have, they got invaded,

that, plus the threat of using (or distributing) them

but when Israel's unoffcial side insure that Israel owns WMD's , nobody gives a 5h!t !

the threat isn't there

but I'm sure there is behind-the-scenes discussions about it
 
Phobos

remains to be seen
A great American principle of justice: innocent until proven guilty.

Still, I guess it's too late now, isn't it? That's the peoblem with blowing everything up rather than using diplomacy and waiting for evidence; it can't be undone. And now, as the USA has demonstrated, we can all make whatever whacky claims we want about any nation, forget about requiring evidence to support our claims, and do whatever the hell we want about it.

that, plus the threat of using (or distributing) them
The USA has used such as well. And has threatened to do so again. I trust Saddam more than I trust the US government. Saddam never nuked anyone.

the threat isn't there
WTF are you talking about?

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7567019%255E1702,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,917834,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4629052-103681,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/unitedstates/unpolicy/gen2003/0115us.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/veto/2002/1223israel.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B6E27ADF-9E5B-45CD-A4CD-403A3BCF3D39.htm
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7543145%255E401,00.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EE06A7BC-F8D2-4CE9-8A9F-DC2A62B2C133.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D8B2E59A-F705-48A7-B6F7-588E9F37B5B9.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/67979658-79FE-4CD1-83A4-7D378A081848.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/67979658-79FE-4CD1-83A4-7D378A081848.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7D5620B5-5846-4AD8-8441-BB1B14B6A48A.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D3F4ACBB-A265-4268-AFEC-6996D0F835D0.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1BF523F3-A395-451D-9910-36B7BF02B7DB.htm
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7473991%255E401,00.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AE871B47-A5D9-428E-B8E5-26E52D387622.htm
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,137218-1-9,00.html
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990902/1999090222.html
http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/6686f45896f15dbc852567ae00530132/7738125ef7c2ca9bc1256c4b00470a79?OpenDocument
http://abc.net.au/news/2002/11/item20021127185951_1.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/23/mideast/
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/4227466.htm
http://www.ummah.com/inewsletter/massacres/palestine/index14.htm
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/breaking_news/4227466.htm
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/03/04/News/News.44530.html
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/148/05_3.html
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/020926/afp/020926130246top.html
http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1038396983&view=unsearch&docrank=1&numhitsfound=58&query=Israel%20civilians%20dead&&docid=1904&docdb=pr2000&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1038396983&view=unsearch&docrank=2&numhitsfound=58&query=Israel%20civilians%20dead&&docid=1524&docdb=pr1996&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1038396983&view=unsearch&docrank=4&numhitsfound=58&query=Israel%20civilians%20dead&&docid=1736&docdb=pr2000&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1038396983&view=unsearch&docrank=7&numhitsfound=58&query=Israel%20civilians%20dead&&docid=804&docdb=pr1996&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
http://electronicintifada.net/forreference/keyfigures/sharon.html

And finally, the diary of Rachel Corrie makes interesting reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,916246,00.html

Not a threat, huh?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Originally posted by MHills
(quote)I really don't think it matters when a democratic country
possesses nuclear weapons. As long as it makes sure they
are safe-guarded appropriately. Such a country would
NEVER use them first. The problem is when non-democratic
countries construct or acquire such weapons. Since the
rule is held by force by a small power-thursty bunch -
there's always the danger that the leader will go insane
or would loose control of the people and someone presses
the button.(/quote)

1>I think nuclear weapons weapons should be banned entirely. Even democratic countries shouldn't possesses any WMD's. And certainly not Israel because of the unstable situation in that region. It's just one more reason for the arab countries in the neighbourhood to also start a nuclear programme to "defend themselves".

2> I also don't see any reason why Israel should have WMD's since you are so sure they aren't going to use them. If they would use them somewhere in the future that's even worse, no matter what would cause them to use a nuclear bomb. I don't think there is any justification for using WMD's.

1>Honestly, what would you do when someone illegal developed them then?

2> Removal of Nukes in Israel is a death sentence to the entire country. I support a Nuke free Israel, but not without change in the middle east first. Between the tension, the palestinian argument, and Syria's lack of signing the bio/chem treaty. There needs to be some real movement from all sides. The arabs want Israel out of palestine, but Syria won't get out of Lebanon. The Arabs want Israel to sign an NPT when Syria won't sign the chem/bio treaty, and when you've got people like Saddam saying they'll destroy Israel as soon as they get hte chance. The whole region needs help, but ironically, most of the people hate us that want us to come help them with their Israeli problem. hrrmmmm, a tough call none the less.
 
  • #11


Originally posted by Adam

1>Still, I guess it's too late now, isn't it? That's the peoblem with blowing everything up rather than using diplomacy and waiting for evidence; it can't be undone.

2>And now, as the USA has demonstrated, we can all make whatever whacky claims we want about any nation, forget about requiring evidence to support our claims, and do whatever the hell we want about it.


3>The USA has used such as well. And has threatened to do so again. I trust Saddam more than I trust the US government. Saddam never nuked anyone.

1>12 years isn't enough waiting? What is?
2>Whacky claims?
I suggest that you, and others that believe the UN inspectors were supposed to go running around like detectives, reexamine the inspection process. See South Africa for the proper means of reentering the world via the UN/IAEA inspection process.
South Africa said "we are tired of sanctions, and here is documents, witnesses, video tape of the destruction of the weapons". They wanted to help in anyway to prove themselves clean.
Saddam, on the other hand, had weapons 4 years into the inspection process. Even then, the inspectors couldn't find them until his stepson spoke up. Somehow the inspectors were to do more than their jobs now? They weren't intended to go sifting through the sand. They were intended to validate the claims by the Iraqis that the weapons had been destroyed, and no such evidence was presented. Even Blix said that the soil levels didn't show enough for the entire KNOWN stash to be destroyed there.
Secondly, unlike other countries, Iraq signed a cease fire on the condition that he destroyed all banned weapons within (I don't remeber the exact number of months) after the signing. He didn't then, we gave more time, and more, and more. Enter 9/11 and some loose ends need to get tied up.
To say that these were whacky claims, or that waiting didn't happen is to ignore the facts of the last 12+ years.
3>We have used nukes as a deterrant against nukes and biological weapons. There has been no threat against conventional attacks. This has been a standard policy, and is far greater than say, North Korea (ie. adlibbed - "we will destroy the entire world with nukes if we are attacked in anyway" )
 
  • #12
ohhhhh, rachel corrie - let me show how 'heartless' I can be -


http://www.twin-towers.net/rachel_corrie_photos.htm



Notice the first pictures...
http://www.twin-towers.net/images/rachelcorrie4.jpg
http://www.twin-towers.net/images/rachelcorrie5.jpg

She is to the side of the bulldozer. She should have stayed there.




http://www.twin-towers.net/images/rachelcorrie6.jpg
Now she is in the middle of bulldozers path. Looking at the path, you can see the bulldozer DID NOT deviate from it's straight path. It went straight forward.

This site says "She fell in front of the machine, which ran over her and then backed up, witnesses said.(AP Photo/HO, International Solidarity Movement"
This has been changed so many times. Other accounts say that she climbed on the mound of dirt to yell at the driver and got swept under.

Regardless, the pictures are odd, and Corrie knew the dangers. She had a run in while sitting in a house that was being bulldozed a couple of days before her death.
If you think the machine isn't going to stop, from your experience, what moron goes and stands in front of another? This doesn't seem like a very smart move for someone who wanted to live.


Ohhhh, I found this while looking for those pics online...

http://www.sicmuse.com/corrie/corrie.htm
Links are at the bottom :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
This thread isn't about Rachel Corrie...it is about nukes, which in Israel's case help to further destabillize the region.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by Zero
This thread isn't about Rachel Corrie...it is about nukes, which in Israel's case help to further destabillize the region.
lol, that's nice bit of propaganda. If anything Israel having nukes has allowed us to have less and has been stabalizing in that it is a significant deterrent against surrounding countries attacking her...again.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by kat
lol, that's nice bit of propaganda. If anything Israel having nukes has allowed us to have less and has been stabalizing in that it is a significant deterrent against surrounding countries attacking her...again.
Nope, wrong and wrong, kat...the point of Mutually Assured Destruction is that both sides can destroy each other. Right now, Israel can destroy it's neighbors, so it is only logical(not insane or evil) that Israel's neighbors want nukes of their own. And, of course, Israeli nuke numbers don't affect the American amounts...do they?
 
  • #16
Originally posted by Zero
Nope, wrong and wrong, kat...the point of Mutually Assured Destruction is that both sides can destroy each other. Right now, Israel can destroy it's neighbors, so it is only logical(not insane or evil) that Israel's neighbors want nukes of their own. And, of course, Israeli nuke numbers don't affect the American amounts...do they?

Nope, wrong and wrong..again Zero...you ignore the Soviet Union/Arab alliance in regards to the past. Israel neighbors desire to destroy it nukes or no nukes, holding the upper hand at the very least keeps them slightly at bay. And of course..I'm sure that you have numbers to back up that Israeli nukes did not affect American amts. don't you?
 
  • #17
Originally posted by kat
Nope, wrong and wrong..again Zero...you ignore the Soviet Union/Arab alliance in regards to the past. Israel neighbors desire to destroy it nukes or no nukes, holding the upper hand at the very least keeps them slightly at bay. And of course..I'm sure that you have numbers to back up that Israeli nukes did not affect American amts. don't you?
No numbers, but I didn't see your numbers either, which is why I put up a question mark...besides which, Israeli weapons are nearly America's weapons anyway, considering the close ties involved.
 
  • #18
phatmonky

12 years isn't enough waiting? What is?
They were investigated until I think 1998, when the USA pulled out all inspectors. Iraq didn't kick them out. The USA exercise its inlfluence to pull them out. Then later they went back in. And Hans Blix said two important things. 1) The inspection process is working. 2) There is no evidence to support the USA's claims.

Whacky claims?
Indeed, whacky claims. First teh USA claimed Iraq had something to do with those 11/9 attacks, and provided no evidence for the accusation. Then they claimed a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and couldn't provide evidence for the accusation. Then they accused them of trying to import uranium from Niger, and it was proven the "evidence" was a forgery. So they settled on claims that Iraq was making biological and chemical weapons, again without any evidence. Thus, whacky claims.

See South Africa for the proper means of reentering the world via the UN/IAEA inspection process.
Ah, I see. You're saying that South Africa endnig Apartheid shows that all those claims against Iraq were true, regardless of the lack of evidence. Right.

Saddam, on the other hand, had weapons 4 years into the inspection process. Even then, the inspectors couldn't find them until his stepson spoke up.
I suggest you re-examine events. Perhaps read this: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=138664&sid=6583a1ebfef1b6eca4e8d7aae50a1e0a

Secondly, unlike other countries, Iraq signed a cease fire on the condition that he destroyed all banned weapons within (I don't remeber the exact number of months) after the signing.
1) An agreement signed under duress has no binding value.

2) Since no evidence has ever been found of the weapons the USA accused Iraq of possessing... they are gone. Duh.

Enter 9/11 and some loose ends need to get tied up.
What has 11/9 got to do with Iraq?

To say that these were whacky claims, or that waiting didn't happen is to ignore the facts of the last 12+ years.
Dude, you just ignored all the facts.

We have used nukes as a deterrant against nukes and biological weapons.
No, the USA used nukes against two civilian populations as a political exercise. And before you pop out the classic bit of conscience-soothing denial "It saved thousands of lives!", read this:
According to Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (General Dwight David Eisenhower Commander in Chief of Allied Forces in Europe).

"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." (UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946.)

"General Curtis LeMay: 'The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.'

Field Marshal Montgomery ( Commander of all UK Forces in Europe) wrote in his History of Warfare: It was unnecessary to drop the two atom bombs on Japan in August 1945, and I cannot think it was right to do so ... the dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining standards of the conduct of modern war.

Truman's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, wrote: It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in this fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

"The dropping of the first atomic bomb was also an act of pure terrorism. It fulfilled no military purpose of any kind. Belatedly it has been disclosed that seven months before it was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur's headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: in July 1945, as we now know, Roosevelt's successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsberg the Japanese offer to surrender...The Japanese people were to be enlisted as human guinea-pigs for a scientific experiment."
- F.J.P Veale, Advance To Barbarism: The Development Of Total Warfare From Serajevo To Hiroshima (California: Institute for Historical Review, 1979), pp.352-53.

This has been a standard policy, and is far greater than say, North Korea (ie. adlibbed - "we will destroy the entire world with nukes if we are attacked in anyway" )
Let's see, the USA already has nuked people, has one of the world's largest nuclear arsenals, and has threatened to use nukes again. Yeah, I trust that government...

PS: You didn't read those news articles and other webpages at all, did you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Originally posted by kat
lol, that's nice bit of propaganda. If anything Israel having nukes has allowed us to have less and has been stabalizing in that it is a significant deterrent against surrounding countries attacking her...again.
Yet amazingly does not stop Israel attacking every nation around it...
 
  • #20
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
you ignore the Soviet Union/Arab alliance in regards to the past.
Past is gone, Now Arabs Are USA Allies.

Israel neighbors desire to destroy it nukes or no nukes, holding the upper hand at the very least keeps them slightly at bay.
Not True... and If that was true, We can't.
Anyway, let's talk about Israel's Neighbors:

Jordan: It own the longest border with Israel, the two sides signed an agreement to end the war between them in 1996, In Amman(The Jordanian Capital) the Israeli embassy stands peacufully.

Egypt: The first arab country to sign an end of war agreement with Israel, And both countries Capitals have each others embassy, and some economical relations between the two sides is developing.

Syria: A week country, it's army is not very well organised, it suffers from some economical problems, it can't afford having a stong Air force, therefore, it can also afford having Nuclear weapons or any kind of WMD's.

Lebanon: it suffers from so many polotical problems, very poor economy(they deal with US Dollar rather than Lebanese Lira), they also teared apart becuase of the too many political parties.

...So, who is the threat ?
 
  • #22


Greetings !
Originally posted by Zargawee
Uoi consider Israel a Democratic country ? Try to know more about "Azmi Bushara" and poeple like him, they got prisoned just for some words they say, just becuase they tell their opinion, or maybe you have to know more about the country you support.
Actually I live there, so I have a bit of a clue...:wink:
When people call for violence they end up in jail,
just like violent settlers. Certainly if they are involved
in the planning of or assistence to such actions. Be it
Arab, Druz, Jew or whoever. Israel indeed has a difficulty
of maintaing a perfectly democratic approach sometimes
because when some of the citizens of the country actually
don't want it to exist you get a very weird and difficult
to handle situation. That's why the legal system does its
best to assure democracy and justice.

As for Israel using WMDs... Look, I know it's difficult
to accept - 'cause occasionaly I hear and see what they
say and show on T.V. in most Arab countries and what they're
told by religious leaders every friday - though Jordan is certainly
a very liberal country in that sense, by comparisson.
But, do you really actually THINK that Israel would EVER
use WMDs against ANY country (unless, of course, it first
suffered a really massive WMD attack from that country and
had no other choice)?
I mean, forgive me, but this is ridiculous. It's like saying
that the US will nuke, for example, North Korea. Such
things simply don't happen to democratic countries in the
21st century, no matter how much imagination you use.
Unfortunetly, there are some leaders of undemocratic countries
with whom - you can never be certain. And when an uncertainty
exists about such a matter, it's clearly considered to be
a major threat.

Peace and long life.
 
  • #23
Greetings !
Originally posted by kat
lol, that's nice bit of propaganda. If anything Israel having nukes has allowed us to have less and has been stabalizing in that it is a significant deterrent against surrounding countries attacking her...again.
Israel's possesion of nuclear weapons is indeed a stabalizing
factor. However, it does not have a lot to do with being
a deterrent adainst the attacks of neighbouring Arab countries.
First of all, these countries know that Israel will never
use them first unless it was facing defeat in a total survival
war or something. Second and primary, WMDs or not - since
the last major war of Yom Kipur in 1973 it seems that these
countries finally realized they don't stand a chance even
in any conventional type of warfare. :wink: Not to mention
the fact that Israel's military capability has only increased
since then - relative to those countries.

However, it is certainly a factor when one looks at more
ditstant countries like Iran, Lybia, Pakistan and Iraq - in
the past. Countries that do possesses WMDs and the ability to
use them against Israel.

P.S. Really lots of sun in Australia, the surf's up too...

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #24
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Israel's possesion of nuclear weapons is indeed a stabalizing
factor. However, it does not have a lot to do with being
a deterrent adainst the attacks of neighbouring Arab countries.
First of all, these countries know that Israel will never
use them first unless it was facing defeat in a total survival
war or something. Second and primary, WMDs or not - since
the last major war of Yom Kipur in 1973 it seems that these
countries finally realized they don't stand a chance even
in any conventional type of warfare. :wink: Not to mention
the fact that Israel's military capability has only increased
since then - relative to those countries.

However, it is certainly a factor when one looks at more
ditstant countries like Iran, Lybia, Pakistan and Iraq - in
the past. Countries that do possesses WMDs and the ability to
use them against Israel.

P.S. Really lots of sun in Australia, the surf's up too...

Live long and prosper.
All of those reasons you listed are destabilizing factors, IMO. Because Israel can destroy its neighbors, they are much more eager than they would be otherwise to get nukes themselves, and the constant threat ensures that more moderate voices will be shouted down.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by Zero
All of those reasons you listed are destabilizing factors, IMO. Because Israel can destroy its neighbors, they are much more eager than they would be otherwise to get nukes themselves, and the constant threat ensures that more moderate voices will be shouted down.
You keep saying that, Zero, but the implication there is that before Israel had nukes the region was MORE stable than it is today. Was it? Before Israel had nukes, her neighbors attacked her every chance they got. Now sure, you could argue that the ass-kicking they got in 1967 convinced them direct attacks are a bad idea, but still - its hard to argue things are less better.

Also, these "moderate voices" - where were they 40 years ago? The fact that they even EXIST today is progress.
 
  • #26
Originally posted by russ_watters
You keep saying that, Zero, but the implication there is that before Israel had nukes the region was MORE stable than it is today. Was it? Before Israel had nukes, her neighbors attacked her every chance they got. Now sure, you could argue that the ass-kicking they got in 1967 convinced them direct attacks are a bad idea, but still - its hard to argue things are less better.

Also, these "moderate voices" - where were they 40 years ago? The fact that they even EXIST today is progress.
Whatever, Russ...again, we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
  • #27
Before NK had nukes, the region was full of war and killing. Before papa Saddam had chemical weapons, the region was really unstable...

What are we waiting for? Why not hand them out like candy?

Actually, the profound idiocy is the secrecy of the Israeli nuclear arsenal. If nukes have any value, it is as deterence. Invisible deterence is madness.
 
  • #28
Originally posted by Zargawee


...So, who is the threat ?

I'm going to take this to another thread for discussion. I hope that you will have an opportunity to respond/comment.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by FZ+

Actually, the profound idiocy is the secrecy of the Israeli nuclear arsenal. If nukes have any value, it is as deterence. Invisible deterence is madness.
I've pondered this a bit myself. It does seem "odd" at best. Perhaps they feel they need the secrecy to insure security of the weapons? or perhaps they're releasing just enough information to allow for enough fear, or perhaps their stocks are soooo huge it'd create such a tremendous stink?
Israeli's seem to believe that having nuclear capability in 1973 contributed to their survival. However, because of the possibility of being de-commisioned by a first strike they are now developing/deploying nuclear armed subs, giving second strike capabilities (is this proper use of terminology?).
Iran has stated it would use nuclear weapons against Israel, how does Israel having second strike capabilities affect their strategy?
 
  • #30
Originally posted by Zero
Whatever, Russ...again, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Compelling argument as always, Zero.

Look, the enemies of Israel have always and still desire to annihilate her. They need no further motivation to get nukes.
Actually, the profound idiocy is the secrecy of the Israeli nuclear arsenal. If nukes have any value, it is as deterence. Invisible deterence is madness.
Since it seems everyone believes Israel has them, where is the invisibility? If you mean the exact capabilities of their arsenal, well - a little secrecy there just adds more fear for their enemies. Fear of the unknown. Thats why I've said the US should get rid of about 90% of her nuclear weapons, keeping only a half dozen SSBNs.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Since it seems everyone believes Israel has them, where is the invisibility? If you mean the exact capabilities of their arsenal, well - a little secrecy there just adds more fear for their enemies. Fear of the unknown. Thats why I've said the US should get rid of about 90% of her nuclear weapons, keeping only a half dozen SSBNs.
This sort of second guessing would be great, if it were not inconsistent with Israeli actions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3340639.stm
Vanunu's evidence led to a sharp upwards revision of the number of nuclear warheads Israel was believed to possesses - to at least 100 - and possibly as many as 200.
And Israel's arsenal is certainly a impedance to Bush's current gestures. Not only is it at least providing neighbour powers with an excuse to arm themselves, but it is also rendering hypocritical the US's demands for full disclosure on other nations' arsenals.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by FZ+
This sort of second guessing would be great, if it were not inconsistent with Israeli actions.
I'm not sure what actions you are referring to.
And Israel's arsenal is certainly a impedance to Bush's current gestures. Not only is it at least providing neighbour powers with an excuse to arm themselves, but it is also rendering hypocritical the US's demands for full disclosure on other nations' arsenals.
Maybe, but to Israel, strategic security takes precedence over a tactical cease fire. I don't see it as unreasonable to demand peace BEFORE dismantling your last line of defense.
 

Similar threads

News What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?
10
Replies
490
Views
40K
  • Poll Poll
News Speculation mounting of an attack on Iran
3
Replies
124
Views
16K
News What were the consequences of Israel's attack on the Gaza Aid Flotilla?
11
Replies
531
Views
70K
News Is the World Ready for a New Nuclear Era?
2
Replies
51
Views
8K
News What If Iran Announced They Had Nuclear Weapons?
Replies
36
Views
5K
News Is the US Report on Iran's Nuclear Program Misleading?
Replies
8
Views
2K
News What are the implications of the US nuclear deal with India?
Replies
40
Views
5K
News Iran nuke program stopped in 2003
Replies
48
Views
8K
News Russia Threatening Israel with Nukes?
Replies
2
Views
4K
News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
Replies
6
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top