Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, May 24, 2010.
Yep, its pretty shocking.
While not surprising that Israel has nuclear weapons, I am amazed that they would try and sell them to another country. This is very disturbing. Hopefully in the 35 years since then, they have come to their senses about trying to sell them.
Oh dear, that's certainly not gunna work in their favour...
I'm going to go for a, "No, it isn't" here, because...
...this claim was never credible to begin with. Without claiming that the US's track record has exactly been perfect, there has never been a time in Israel's history when they've provided any real, credible evidence that they have any intention to use their military force in a just way. They have never shown any real evidence that they intend to live in peace with the Arabs, the Persians, or anyone else in the Middle East.
To me, this underscores the problem with the "Us v. Them" mentality of permanent Security Council membership, as well as the NNPT. "Us" have a pretty terrible track record (particularly China, but, well...) on non-proliferation. In contrast, there is very little evidence that many of the "thems" (e.g., India) are engaging in proliferation outside of their own internal development of nuclear weapons.
We need to replace the "Us v. Them" with some actual concept of what we consider, internationally, as human beings, acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and whatever that standard is, the same standard has to apply to the US, Russia, the UK, Iran, Israel, and everyone else.
This isn't news. FW De Klerk's autobiography, The Last Trek, admitted that the National Party government in South Africa had temporarily possessed nuclear weapons thanks to Israel, but had discontinued the program.
My humblest apologies.
Man, you lot are touchy today
And one ruled by a racist regime at that.
What I find most troubling is that they would try and sell them to one of the most repressive regimes in the world.
Israel is morally bankrupt and with the growth of its fundamentalist settlers and ultra orthodox whackos, you can be sure that the nuclear weapons they own will be sold if the leadership can gain from such a sale.
The two governments had quite a bit in common at that time IMO. Both surrounded by Soviet backed hostile countries and both attempting to suppress a hostile population.
Racist, and terroristic. And Israel complains today about how Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons because they might sell them to terrorists.
I have opinions, but no interest other than right vs. wrong. I do, have a couple of questions for people who do have opinions.
How long have we assumed Isreal had nuclear weapons?
How many times have they used them?
How many times since question 1, has Isreal been attacked? On the other hand...
How long have Isreal's enemies had nuclear weapons? How many times has Isreal invaded, how nset off suicide bombs, or attacked without provocation. How many times has Isreal used nuclear weapons?
Why hasn't isreal turned their muslim neighbors into parking lots?
So.... anyone else see why Isreal might be treated differently than a country that has actively said they would use nuclear weapons in that area of the world?
Clearly, I'm no expert. I'm merely a guy in the middle of the US who has no interest in the resolution of the middle east questions other than I'd prefer peace. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have yet to have anyone explain how or why I'm wrong.
Which country in that part of the world has said they would use nuclear weapons?
Really? Iraq, Iran? So, if they had Nukes, and something happened, they wouldn't use them?
(edit) I would prefer Isreal not have Nukes, but they do, and they haven't used them. That has to count for something.
On the other hand, 9/11?!?!
(edit2) Pakistan is really the one example of how a Muslim country can possess nuclear arms and not sell them, use them, or otherwise endanger the rest of the world. However, that's the east side, on the west side, look what's been going on. Where the f.... is Osama Bin Laden?
Almost certainly not.
Has any country said they'd use nuclear weapons?
If they used them they'd lose all support from Europe and almost certainly even the US.
Iran has never said it would use nuclear weapons, and as we know very well Iraq never came close to having them (unless the Israeli salesmen also had Saddam down as a possible lead).
What the hell does an air-based attack by a Saudi dissident funded terrorist group who trained in Afghanistan have to do with the topic at hand?
Isn't "something happening" the whole reason to have nukes?
North Korea has nukes, and they haven't used them. Does that count for anything in your evaluation of how dangerous they are?
How about the fact that North Korea has attempted to sell nuclear technology? Does that play into your evaluation of the danger they present?
What, exactly, does 9/11 have to do with this discussion?
Just like the Israelis...
N. Korea has China on the west and S. Korea and the US on the south. A nuclear exchange would result in all out war. That makes no sense, even in the mind of a nut like Kim Jong Il.
Yes, and that's why nuclear weapons are so dangerous. People who don't have a respect for life, and don't care about war, may end up with nuclear weapons. Am I wrong?
Maybe because any people who think that that type of attack is justified may also think a nuclear attack is also justified.
(edit) Just like the Isrealis? Have they sold nuclear secrets to any group that has utilized terrorism as a method to get what they want? I'm MORE THAN HAPPY to to agree with you, I'm just not aware of any examples if Isreal selling nuclear secrets to anyone whose interests are opposed to the USA.
Whereas Iran only has Russia to the North, Pakistan and India to the East, and a whole bunch of US forces to the West and South....
You mean a country that is governed by a military-industrial complex, demonises every country that disagrees with their hegemony, and teaches its people to believe war is something glamorous?
The same logic would apply to an Iran / Israel conflict if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons. I'm not sure how that helps your case.
You're wrong in that you don't perceive a danger that "people who don't have a respect for life" could get nuclear weapons from Israel in just the same manner that a different group could get them from Iran or North Korea.
Sure, but by that same token, people who thought the Irgun were hunky-dory may also think a nuclear attack is justified.
OTOH, King David Hotel, right?
Actually it doesn't at all. Nukes aren't small enough to fit in a suitcase, whatever Hollywood may have taught you.
Nukes can only now be used defensively to prevent invasion. That's been the case ever since more than one country obtained them.
So no actual nukes were sold 36 years ago?