Israel's nuclear programme

  • #26
Zero
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
FZ+
1,561
2
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
kat
26
0
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
kat
26
0
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
russ_watters
Mentor
19,244
5,242
Originally posted by Zero
Whatever, Russ...again, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Compelling arguement 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
FZ+
1,561
2
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 possess - 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
russ_watters
Mentor
19,244
5,242
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.
 

Related Threads for: Israel's nuclear programme

  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
654
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
Top