Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East

  1. Jul 19, 2009 #1
    The U.S. is worried that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, tension and volatility in an already unstable area around Israel could lead the way for WWIII.

    Doesn't Israel possess nukes, and does that not in itself create the volatility already seen in the area?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 19, 2009 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I don't think that's remotely correct.

    A World War requires at least one major power to be on the Iranian side … there's no danger of that! :biggrin:

    Also, the whole Middle East is worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons, not just the U.S. :frown:
  4. Jul 19, 2009 #3
    Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons but I don't think they've admitted it to this point. A lot of countries would like other countries to believe that they've got weapons of mass destruction ala Saddam Hussein.

    I don't see nuclear proliferation ending anytime soon... strangely enough it can be a path to lasting peace.
  5. Jul 19, 2009 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I was just reading about that last week.
    Quite the risky move(traversing the canal) considering the following:

    Perhaps Egypt is getting a bit nervous about Iran.
    Which is quite a bit out of the way.

    But I would say that nukes are neither good nor bad. They only become bad when we use them against each other.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  6. Jul 19, 2009 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Israel and Egypt cooperating

    Yes, Israel and Egypt are friendly countries, and on the same side so far as Iran is concerned …

    no wonder they're publicly cooperating to put pressure on Iran. :smile:
  7. Jul 19, 2009 #6
    Well I'm wondering, then, why the U.S. has refused to acknowledge that Israel does in fact possess nuclear warheads? What interest does the U.S. have in Israel; is there an oil field I'm unaware of?
  8. Jul 19, 2009 #7
    Israel has neither confirmed nor denied that they possess nuclear warheads. Israel has always been a close ally of the United States...

    They aren't a threat to the USA so naturally the USA doesn't much care whether they've got WMD's or not.
  9. Jul 19, 2009 #8
    Yes, but why have the U.S. and Israel always been close allies?
  10. Jul 19, 2009 #9
    Because after World War II it was decided that the Jewish people needed a state of their own... what with the holocaust and all. A lot of Arab countries feel like they got shafted on the deal and they want the holy land for themselves. We're just defending their right to exist.

  11. Jul 19, 2009 #10
    I'm not necessarily against a nuclear Iran... that is, I don't think any country should have the right to tell any other country what they do within their own borders. The current Iranian government is pretty fundamentalist, though... and that's scary. Israel hasn't historically been the instigator and the Iranian president has talked about wiping israel off the map which naturally makes everyone nervous.
  12. Jul 19, 2009 #11
    Does the Islamic community feel it was shafted, or were the Muslims really shafted?

    And in keeping with American-Jewish relations: so then the reason we're still, to this day, even with the Israeli state being established, interested in it's affairs is because of 1) a fear of nuclear war and 2) the Jewish community lobbying for the American government to stay involved with the affairs of their homeland?

    What of the UN? It established Iran; why is America the nation with the largest investment in Israel's survival?

    I can't even get my governor to put a stoplight in at the end of the street...
  13. Jul 19, 2009 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Does that sentiment hold once a country violates an international treaty it signed (NPT)? How about a Nazi Germany arming itself to the teeth in the 1930s? Did anyone have the right to intercede before they overran Europe?
  14. Jul 19, 2009 #13
    Isn't telling other countries what to do within their own borders the point of having nuclear weapons? Keeping them out of the hands of Iran makes Iran's enemies safer. It also serves to keep Iran vulnerable to being told what to do.
  15. Jul 19, 2009 #14
    I know that this wasn't directed at me, but perhaps you should ask "why didn't anyone intercede with Germany?"

    Many scholars believe WWII was preventable had the League of Nations been more assertive, had the Treaty of Versailles been less strenuous/embarassing to the German people, had the Soviets remained neutral in the Japanese/Chinese war, etc.

    Alas, that is not the topic of my post, but would be a good conversation at another time.
  16. Jul 19, 2009 #15
    It seems like everyone is in a room pointing a gun at one another; some may be faking that they have a gun, others are offering to lay theirs down if you do first, some have already laid theirs down ("Same time, man! Same time!"), and some are saying "you lay yours down and I won't shoot you in the face... !"

    It's interesting how everything is a "-cosm" of some sort, whether a macro or micro. Peace treaties, proliferations, allies, enemies, and very few constants, (though common history will always be written by the winners).

    Perhaps a strong family promotes a strong community promotes a strong city promotes a strong county promotes a strong state promotes a strong region promotes a strong country promotes a strong world. And vice-versa.
  17. Jul 19, 2009 #16
    Yeah, there's nothing new about conflict. I think you're onto something with your last paragraph. It's my opinion that nuclear weapons are a massive gamble that can accelerate a unified world government or collapse it altogether. In the meantime memes struggle for dominance.
  18. Jul 19, 2009 #17
    Everything is fine, dandy, comfortably tense until Kim Jong-Il launches a nuke that, contrary to popular beliefs, can get some serious range. Though I'm beginning to doubt the idea that if "X" launches a nuke, "Y" will respond and "Z" will back up "X" by preemptively striking "W".

    I think, perhaps I hope, that our leaders, whether or not they're an "Illuminati" bunch or the people who's faces we see in offices are wiser than that.

    Unless one of the hit targets is Israel. Then all hells breaking loose.
  19. Jul 19, 2009 #18

    The problem is that most of the world thinks countries like Iran and North Korea are actually crazy enough to shoot someone else
  20. Jul 19, 2009 #19
    Why are you so sure that if Israel, specifically, gets hit it will spark a global thermonuclear conflict? As much as the United States has a love affair with Israel we've still got to think about our own survival. I think that at the end of the day... Israel just isn't worth it.
  21. Jul 19, 2009 #20
    Neither do I, but look who is in command of many major posts and running major corporations based out of America. Observe who supplies major funds to Presidential campaigns. Aren't these the people who are owed the most favors in politicians eyes?

    It's cynical, but sometimes I feel Israel is the first priority of many liberals, oil for many republicans; who's representing the People's interests here? The people that aren't Jewish, the people who Are environmentalists, the people who can't donate $4,600 per presidential campaign but do honestly need attention? Where is the funding for the reformation of our educational systems? Why are we number one in the world in education -- until 5th grade? Why are we still paying for post-secondary education as we fall further away from being competitive on a global scale?

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook