US arms Israeli subs with nuclear warheads

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by toontra, Oct 12, 2003.

  1. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #1
    It would appear that the roadmap to peace has resulted in the US arming Israel with the capability of destroying any Arab state.

    To an outside observer, this does not seem the sort of "even-handed" treatment of both parties that was expected.

    LINK
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    Nice complication to introduce.
    Interestingly, there is a quote from an Administration official saying that they "tolerate" nuclear weapons in Britain and France. Charming language. Is that a threat?
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    " 'We tolerate nuclear weapons in Israel for the same reason we tolerate them in Britain and France,' one of the LA Times' sources told the paper. 'We don't regard Israel as a threat.' "

    "Tolerate" strikes me as a bit of an inappropriate word, but what's more important is the official view about "no threat". "We're not concerned about..." might have been clearer.

    Given Israel's possession of 200 nukes, and what was also said about its existing missile technology ("It had been understood they would carry a version of the 'Popeye Turbo' cruise missiles being developed by Rafael Armament Development Authority of Israel.") I wonder just what we've actually done...Provide any actual warheads? Provide Popeyes made here? Provided some sort of technological assistance in the form of software? Dunno.

    'Rat
     
  4. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #4
    We thought it was safe to arm Bin Laden.
    We thought it was safe to arm Iraq.
    What's next.
     
  5. JackStorm macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Location:
    Sweden
    #5
    Sigh...I don't know if it's my pessimistic view of the world or something else. But I find it disturbing when ANY country is given "help" or "technology" to another country to further their nuclear capabilitys in this manner. It seems the current U.S administration is doing more and more to destabilize the world. This is starting (ok, it already is) looking like some kinda cold war arms raise. I mean, this sure isn't going to make the world more stable. And should Israel actuly start using their WMD's in the name of combating terrorisim, then ***** will truly hit the fan.

    Now it sure is looking like Israel will attack syria in some way soon. One can only wonder what will happen after that. I for one don't see the world getting any better, now that people are suffering from this pre-emptive strike mentality.
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    "Tolerate" is an extremely inappropriate word: the patronising implication is that you have an option not to tolerate.
     
  7. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #7
    Since Israel is already a nuclear power, adding to that capability is far different than giving nuclear technology to a country that does not posses it.

    I would guess that theory behind giving Israel submarine based nuclear weapons is to ensure that they will possess a "retribution strike" ability as opposed to a "first strike" ability. This would, along that line of thinking, help to prevent any local conflict from escalating to a regional war.

    I believe that this line of thinking is seriously flawed but I can see the reasoning behind it.
     
  8. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #8
    The Cold War standoff between the US and the USSR via "Mutually Assured Destruction" always struck me as rather, er, "Mad". But, it worked.

    I'm not so sure about the equivalent M.A.D. in the mideast...

    'Rat
     
  9. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #9
    This is an excerpt from a StratFor "Morning Intelligence Brief". (StratFor is a sort of think tank full of political science types who try to analyze various world events and trends and offer their interpretations through a subscription service. Many national magazines use them as a source.)

    "Iran's case is much more complex. The United States and Iran share a common interest in preventing the victory of the Saddam Hussein-Islamist guerrilla force -- but that's not really a threat. The issue is not its victory but its defeat, and for this, the United States needs a highly motivated indigenous force. The Iraqi Shiite community -- so far, fairly quiet and tacitly accepting of U.S. occupation -- has been indispensable to that occupation. Without it, the U.S. position would be enormously more difficult. Iran wants a sphere of influence in Iraq and the United States might provide it -- depending on how badly the United States needs Iran. If Syria were to crumble, Iran's position would be far weaker -- and the price for its help lower.

    At issue has been the price the United States would pay for Iran not becoming a nuclear power. Over the weekend, the United States tried to demonstrate -- with the reference to Israel's nuclear triad -- that Iran is not going to become a nuclear power under any circumstance. The message to Iran was that it could either negotiate away its capability at a reasonable price, or lose that capability to an Israeli first strike. Israel cannot risk an Iranian nuclear device and will destroy it before it becomes
    operational. Iran, of course, knows that. The United States has now told Iran that it knows it, too. Iran is now trapped between two facts: First, the device isn't operational -- and Israel won't let it become so. Second, the United States won't stand in the way of Israel. That leaves Iran, like Syria, with relatively few strategic options.

    The interesting part of all this is that the United States increasingly relies on partners to support its strategic maneuvers. The three countries it now turns to are Israel, above all, but also Turkey and India. The United States has depended on all three since the beginning of the war, but now its relationship with Israel is becoming much more open. This appears to be a
    strategic decision on the part of the United States. It needs to break out of the bind it finds itself in Iraq; it needs to make something happen to move the war along. The United States understands the price of playing the Israeli card. It also understands that it needs help where it can get it."

    Some of StartFors' economic forecasts seem a bit rosy, to me, but I've been impressed with their understanding of the meaning of various international events.

    'Rat
     
  10. 512ke macrumors 6502a

    512ke

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    #10
    Nukes Oil Kyoto

    I used to be very confused by the Bush administration. Why give nukes (for example) to Israel while we're supposedly trying to contain nukes in other countries? Why break the Kyoto accord when we know glaciers (for example) are melting in California and oceans are melting in Texas? Why attack Iraq when they have no apparent WMD (for example) while North Korea has nukes and is selling missles to Yemen?

    It all makes sense when you think about short term financial gain for Bush and his cronies. As in, I'm gonna make my money, now, and the heck with the consequences for others or even for myself. Nukes to Israel? We're selling military assistance not giving it. Attack Iraq for no apparent reason? Control the oil and give the "rebuilding" contracts to Halberton et all.

    Gotta make a buck right now. Oh, and better if we smile and tell the world we're doing it for their own good.

    Pardon my rant. Oh, actually don't pardon it, arrest me for anti American rhetoric and CONSPIRACY with the members of Mac Rumors Forums.

    Patriot Act, anyone?
     
  11. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #11
    512ke-
    And ignore the DPRK because there is no profit in it? This is a crass and cynical analysis. But I have to agree with it.
     
  12. 512ke macrumors 6502a

    512ke

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    #12
    Crass and cynical

    I am not a crass and cynical person. But man, reading the news each day does not make me very optimistic and hopeful about our country's path.
     
  13. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    Re: Nukes Oil Kyoto

    this made me think of an exercise:

    "you're GW Bush. your party is going to put you in the whitehouse. your goal is to make as much money as possible for your friends and business associates. you have four years."

    in thinking through how i'd do that, it's not a whole lot different than what's happened.

    anyone else care to play?
     
  14. abdul macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    East Midlands, UK
    #14
    the point about making as much money as possible , being the reason for the selling is absurd. If you want an economy to suceed you create more jobs and stablise the economy in many other different ways.

    they could have sold powerful domestic weapons to israel, but being the most powerful country in the world and trying to stay on the moral high ground, this is the wrong way to do it.

    They should have NEVER given nuclear wepons to Israel.

    They dont have enough influence over the government to prevent them from using them.

    this is a very childlike act by the US and has no justoification so pisses everyone off!!
     
  15. caveman_uk Guest

    caveman_uk

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts, UK
    #15
    This is dumb. Why give Israel nukes ?

    1) They've got their own
    2) Their conventiional forces are far superior than any of their neighbours and could easily repel a military attack.

    Giving Israel more nukes just pisses off the arabs more. What's the point of trying to negotiate a peace plan when you're so obviously on one side? It's like Cuba trying to mediate between the USSR and the USA during the cold war.
     
  16. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #16
    Well, lemme ask (sorta, again) where is there specific wording that says the US gave nukes to Israel? "Assistance" with respect to nukes and rockets is of many forms.

    IOW, while the US government MAY have indeed provided some sort of warheads, y'all are operating under the assumption that it's an absolute given--and you don't at all know that.

    What was it, some 30 years ago? The US government threw hissy fits over Israel's then-new nuclear capability. Seems to me that in 30 years, scientists/engineers as bright as theirs don't need a whole heck of a lot of new assistance. And they're up to, what, 200 nukes?

    Seems to me that when you're dealing with folks who will never, never forget what a tatooed forearm is all about, treading cautiously in the face of nukes would be a wise thing for nearby governments to consider. When it's practically a national motto that "Masada shall not fall again." I don't think hostility is very practical.

    'Rat
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    Ok 'Rat, here's a question... Would you consider it a hands-off kind of thing if North Korea decided to "give some assistance" to, oh say al Qaeda in there nuclear department? Or if Russia "helps" Iran develop technology that golly gee whiz helps them develope nuclear technology that can be used for a weapons program? Is that the same as what the US has done for Israel, or is it somehow a different matter? I know, I know, there are some differences between the situations, but stick to the issue of helping a friend with their nuclear arsenal even if you don't provide the assembled warheads and missles. It's ok for us to do, but not for others right? Kind of like pre-emptive war?

    And yes, the US gov't threw hissy fits about it 30 years ago. Seems to have dropped off the radar since though hasn't it? Sorta the "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" saying for the Israelis.

    And isn't Israel our biggest beneficiary of our foreign aid largess?

    On a side note, the US has vetoed a UN resolution condeming the Israeli fence because it didn't simultaneously condemn the Palestinian suicide bombings. Wonder what our reaction would have been to the country that vetoed 1441 because it didn't condemn the US strongly enough....
     
  18. Sailfish macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    #18
    You don't need a submarine or a missle to deliver a nuclear weapon.

    Given the present Palesinian delivery system and the loss of the city of Tel Avid for instance, all those submarines and missles are useless.
     
  19. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    mac, I guess one's view of the rightness of somebody helping a friend is a function of whether or not the purpose is retaliatory or "initiatory".

    Various Arab countries have a history of initiating war with Israel. Various Arab countries have a history of sponsoring such groups as Hamas, etc.

    Israel has no such history. All their actions have been in response to others' actions or preparations for action.

    'Rat
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    In other words, your perspective on right or wrong depends on where you sit?
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
  22. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #22
    this is a deterent just as we had ours vs soviets. remember israel is a true democracy how many of those peace loving arab states are???how many?
     
  23. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #23
    I'm not sure how one can call a nation that stops millions of people from having any basic rights to self-determination a "true" democracy. I would take the Israeli parliamentary system over the ones in its neighbors, but that doesn't mean it is a beacon of democracy.
     
  24. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #24
    if you're equating "true democracy" with goodness, then you should move to switzerland, which is essentially run by referendum.

    if you can't get there, move to california. and enjoy your "true democracy."
     
  25. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #25
    change the argument, and until palestine can act civil and stop bommbing i dont blame israel a bit. that warmonger arafat could have made real peace many years ago but that wasnt his objective. anyways it is a beacon of democracy because most of those countries have no idea what democracy is. at least israelis can vote. can Saudi's??Iranians?Afghanistans,and the list continues........
     

Share This Page