Israel: nuclear since the 80's

[jimmy p]

OK, so i just heard on the news that Israel has had nuclear weapons since 1986. Which means the search for WMD could have started a long time ago. How come Israel can have illegal WMD and not even have inspectors go in but there is such a huge fuss over Iraq?

 

[hughes johnson]

Don't worry, no one thinks that Israel will attack Great Britain in the near future, that's the good news. The bad news is that you can expect a terrorist attack from anyone of the hostile muslim nations at any time. I hope this helps you understand the current situation.

 

[member 5645]

Explain how they are illegal :)

 

[jimmy p]

They are illegal cos they arent supposed to have them...but they are allowed to cos they are our allies...

It's not the point that they are our "allies" or not if they shouldn't have them in the first place. They should have been removed a LONG time ago. Maybe Mr. Ben-Ariel was right...

 

[kat]

they arent supposed to have them

Based on which treaty? which law?

 

[jimmy p]

I don't know, i heard it on the news! i haven't researched it, it is just some piece of news that i thought was interesting. Would they be reporting it if they WERE allowed the weapons and had them since the 80's? i doubt it.

 

[kat]

I don't know, i heard it on the news! i haven't researched it, it is just some piece of news that i thought was interesting. Would they be reporting it if they WERE allowed the weapons and had them since the 80's? i doubt it.

Well, first of all it's been known for awhile that Israel has nuclear capabilities..I can't remember when it first came out off the top of my head, but it's been awhile.

Secondly, it seems to me..what you're saying here is that you think they must be illegal because the news is reporting they have them, but you have no idea on what basis they are illegal? is that correct?

 

[member 5645]

I don't know, i heard it on the news! i haven't researched it, it is just some piece of news that i thought was interesting. Would they be reporting it if they WERE allowed the weapons and had them since the 80's? i doubt it.

Israel is not part of the NPT, and never was.
Israel keeps a sort of "strategic ambiguity" about it's nuclear weapon arsenal's existence or nonexistence.
The report of nukes in Israel came out in 86 from van(can't remember his whole name).
No one really know what they have exactly.

It is every sovereign nation's right to treat Israel how they wish, due to their not signing the NPT. And likewise, allies of Israel are welcome to respond.
Syria is not part of the chem/bio weapons treaty, and that is their right. They are however, obviously, trying to make themselves ATLEAST appear to have some sort of these weapons, just like Israel.

 

[jimmy p]

Look, i don't really care. I thought it would be interesting to discuss that no-one really cares that Israel has WMD when they shouldnt, and Iraq and the rest of the middle east are being hounded. I heard it on the news. It was interesting. I don't know ANYTHING other that what i heard. But what would be the point on reporting on it if the Government KNEW for 16 years of so. Seems like rubbish news to me. I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me!

 

[russ_watters]

Look, i don't really care. I thought it would be interesting to discuss that no-one really cares that Israel has WMD when they shouldnt..

Wait, you just acknowledged that you don't really know. Wouldn't it be better to get the facts straight before making a judgement on an admittedly incomplete (at best) perception?

This is the biggest problem with politics. For some reason, people's opinions are more important than the facts. If the facts don't support your opinion, in science you must re-evaluate your opinion (theory). Politics works the same way and people need to start being faithful to the facts.

 

[kat]

. But what would be the point on reporting on it if the Government KNEW for 16 years of so.

The point is that due to the release of Vananu, old news..is new again...

 

[jimmy p]

OK point taken, I don't know the facts and maybe I shouldn't have bothered posting. But, it just seemed unfair to me that the fact that Israel has had WMD for so long and no-one cared because the Israelites have had such a hard time anyway just seems wrong. Rules are rules (supposedly). Even some of the Israeli people said they were suprised that no inspectors had been round!

 

[russ_watters]

OK point taken, I don't know the facts and maybe I shouldn't have bothered posting.

Thanks for acknowledging it, but my point was that when you don't know something, that's ok. The reason this BB exists is for people (moderators included) to LEARN. Don't be afraid of learning.

International law on this issue is for the most part, one document: http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/

Brief Background

The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.

As already pointed out, Israel didn't sign the treaty. They are not bound by it. No other international law has anything to say about this. Where the confusion comes in is how Iraq and North Korea factor in. Both of them signed the treaty, though N. Korea revoked its signature (not sure if you can really do that). In addition, Iraq has a number of UN resolutions and the terms of the end of Gulf I denying them the right to have nuclear weapons.