A Nuclear Middle East

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: yllus
First, kudos for posting threads regarding policy, as opposed to what amount to gotcha threads about what politician said something vaguely incorrect in the last thirty minutes. If only this forum had more of this instead of that.

My contribution: On the flip side, it may be possible that the possession of nuclear weapons will cause nations in the Middle East to "grow up". The dictators (excuse me, I meant "monarchies") of the Middle East will have to think twice about making veiled or outright threats against fellow nations who possess the ability to wipe them out completely.

After all, the one objective that we can all rely upon the nutballs of the third world having is an extremely well-developed sense of self-preservation. Maybe possessing the world's biggest guns will force them all to shut up and attempt to actually solve some of the squabbles they have with each other and the rest of us.

That would be nice, but I am unsure if a leader such as a Hitler or Stalin say who had nuclear weapons and either felt threatened or wanted something would really hesitate to use them if he/she felt the advantage was theirs.

The only reason MAD really worked was because of stable governments in both the USSR and the US/Europe. I am not sure a MAD scenario would e realistic in the ME. Be nice if I was wrong though.

 

[jpeyton]

With a nuclear-armed Israeli regime that flaunts international law and invades neighbors whenever it feels like it, why wouldn't other Middle Eastern nations want the same weaponry?

I say let them build it. MAD might keep Israel on a tighter leash.

 

[Xellos2099]

But didn't Iran head of state publicly claim that Israel cannot exist and need to wipe of the map?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
With a nuclear-armed Israeli regime that flaunts international law and invades neighbors whenever it feels like it, why wouldn't other Middle Eastern nations want the same weaponry?

I say let them build it. MAD might keep Israel on a tighter leash.

I am unsure when Israel invaded another country "whenever it felt like". In all cases of which I am aware, Israel either acted after an attack or in immediate preemption of a forthcoming attack, eg 1967.

Could you provide an example to substantiate your assertion where Israel invaded another sovereign country when Israel was not first attacked or on the verge of being attacked and it was a "well I just feel like it" time?

Thanks.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
But didn't Iran head of state publicly claim that Israel cannot exist and need to wipe of the map?

Nope.

Of course, if you ask Fatbaugh, McCain or Palin, they might give you a different answer.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
But didn't Iran head of state publicly claim that Israel cannot exist and need to wipe of the map?

Nope.

Of course, if you ask Fatbaugh, McCain or Palin, they might give you a different answer.

:laugh:

I can see why you like the guy though. You guys probably have very similar views.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
With a nuclear-armed Israeli regime that flaunts international law and invades neighbors whenever it feels like it, why wouldn't other Middle Eastern nations want the same weaponry?

I say let them build it. MAD might keep Israel on a tighter leash.

Your chief concerns indicate that Israel is public enemy number one, instead of Islamic extremists who you'd like to see wield nuclear weapons. No wonder there cannot be any civil debate between our two sides, for there is only blood between us. Which is exactly where this is heading.

A nuclear armed middle east will result in the denotation of nuclear weapons, one way or another. You find people are not fit to carry guns, yet nuclear weapons are fine and dandy? Freaking insane, if you ask me.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Craig234
How about 'a nuclear west, where is it all leading'. I guess our nukes are sacred cows, and others' are dangerous.

It's apples and oranges, but start a new thread anyway.

No, it's not - it's you calling middle eastern apples 'oranges'. You're missing the point that the fact that WE have nukes has implications on the Middle Eastern nations wanting nukes.

by and large, the western nuclear nations are a lot more stable than, say, Pakistan.

Yet, we used nukes on Japanese civillians... i haven't heard of pakistan nuking anyone. yeah, we're the 'stable' one.

/facepalm

careful, you can't afford to lose the few braincells you have left smacking yourself like that.

 

[jpeyton]

I'm all for banning nukes in the Middle East, but Israel needs to practice what they preach if they want any traction.

Israel has never used or needed nuclear weapons; I don't understand why they insist on perpetuating this cold-war-esque arms race in the Middle East.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
How about 'a nuclear west, where is it all leading'. I guess our nukes are sacred cows, and others' are dangerous.

Religious fanatics who live life through the use of violence and celebrate martyrdom are somehow equal to the United States? The depths at which Dems hate us continue to astonish.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
But didn't Iran head of state publicly claim that Israel cannot exist and need to wipe of the map?

Nope.

Of course, if you ask Fatbaugh, McCain or Palin, they might give you a different answer.

What, no "witty", insulting nicknames for McCain or Palin?

No "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!!!1! :frown::shocked::brokenheart::disgust::|:roll:

:Q:thumbsdown:"?

I'm speechless...yall aren't even trying any more.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm all for banning nukes in the Middle East, but Israel needs to practice what they preach if they want any traction.

Israel has never used or needed nuclear weapons; I don't understand why they insist on perpetuating this cold-war-esque arms race in the Middle East.

Once again your concern is to stop our ally instead of our killers. That is backwards and indicates loyalties.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234
How about 'a nuclear west, where is it all leading'. I guess our nukes are sacred cows, and others' are dangerous.

Religious fanatics who live life through the use of violence and celebrate martyrdom are somehow equal to the United States? The depths at which Dems hate us continue to astonish.

Absolutely. They would rather defend a country that stones female rape victims and adulterers, and persecutes gays then their own country.


They either truely believe some of this crap, or they like to be internet devil's advocates and just argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Once again your concern is to stop our ally instead of our killers.

Why is Israel my ally?

Why is Iran my killer?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Once again your concern is to stop our ally instead of our killers.

Why is Israel my ally?

Because your elected representatives, including the one you campaigned for, fund their defense?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Once again your concern is to stop our ally instead of our killers.

Why is Israel my ally?

Why is Iran my killer?

How about answering my question? I try to keep up on events but may have missed where Israel did what you claim she did.

As for your questions, my answer to the first is Israel is a democracy who is protecting its legitimate interests.

For the second, Iran was (may still be) a major supplier of technology used in making IEDs that killed hundreds of our troops.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Once again your concern is to stop our ally instead of our killers.

Why is Israel my ally?

Because your elected representatives, including the one you campaigned for, fund their defense?

We give military aid to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well. Might as well let them have nukes.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Once again your concern is to stop our ally instead of our killers.

Why is Israel my ally?

Because your elected representatives, including the one you campaigned for, fund their defense?

We give military aid to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well. Might as well let them have nukes.

So write Obama a letter telling him to give them all nukes.

If that is how you feel, why do you support Obama?

 

[Moonbeam]

It is heading where it has always been heading.

May will either awaken and become what we can't imagine today or he will go extinct.

Day by day, year by year, our collective acts of violence add to the sum total of human rage and lust for revenge, to the sum total of human self hate. We will either become conscious of how our own hate of ourselves is killing us or we will go extinct. We are all suicide bombers.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Once again your concern is to stop our ally instead of our killers.

Why is Israel my ally?

Because your elected representatives, including the one you campaigned for, fund their defense?

We give military aid to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well. Might as well let them have nukes.

So write Obama a letter telling him to give them all nukes.

If that is how you feel, why do you support Obama?

My point was how stupid your argument was, that anybody we give aid to is our ally.

We gave military aid and training to the Taliban, Osama, Saddam, etc. They must be our allies as well.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Aimster
the Arabs have contracts out for nuclear plants to be built in their countries.
Good Luck.

We dont live there so let them kill each other. We are too far away to care.

Except for when we can no longer burn their oil due to it being contaminated with nuclear fallout.

Not to mention the destabilizing factor nuclear weapons tend to have on a region. Nor that a lot of these countries either outright despise the US, or turn a blind eye to terrorists that attack their "enemies"; which means that we now have terrorists armed with nuclear weapons. Imagine instead of the 90's WTC bombing a nuclear version of that. We have 9/11 with many more deaths (immediately and long term).

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Craig234
How about 'a nuclear west, where is it all leading'. I guess our nukes are sacred cows, and others' are dangerous.

It's apples and oranges, but start a new thread anyway.

No, it's not - it's you calling middle eastern apples 'oranges'. You're missing the point that the fact that WE have nukes has implications on the Middle Eastern nations wanting nukes.

by and large, the western nuclear nations are a lot more stable than, say, Pakistan.

Yet, we used nukes on Japanese civillians... i haven't heard of pakistan nuking anyone. yeah, we're the 'stable' one.

There were many things that all had to fall in place for us to arrive at that decision. First off, we were in a global war. Secondly, to invade Japan would have cost many tens of thousands of US soldiers deaths. Third, we used conventional weaponry to kill more people (fire bombing of Tokyo). Fourth, the Japanese were committed to their cause which at the time was never surrender (because to surrender would mean that their "God" was wrong, and he was infallible). Fifth, we issued a warning (not directly mentioning the bombs, the Potsdam Declaration) which was ignored. Sixth, we picked targets that had military value, and would help the war effort. Yes they were civilian cities obviously, but at the same time they were targets that had significant military value. Seventh, after we dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima, Truman says "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." While that doesn't say directly "hey we will bomb another city if you don't surrender", it does provide a warning of sorts.

Now, if you think the ME countries will be as cautious about using nuclear weaponry then by all means, I agree let them have it. Do you really believe that countries like Pakistan are responsible enough to not use them in any war/conflict, or to just use them against their "enemies" like Israel? I don't believe that a lot of these countries are responsible enough to have nuclear weapons. Maybe I'm "out of touch" or something.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Once again your concern is to stop our ally instead of our killers.

Why is Israel my ally?

Because your elected representatives, including the one you campaigned for, fund their defense?

We give military aid to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan as well. Might as well let them have nukes.

So write Obama a letter telling him to give them all nukes.

If that is how you feel, why do you support Obama?

My point was how stupid your argument was, that anybody we give aid to is our ally.

We gave military aid and training to the Taliban, Osama, Saddam, etc. They must be our allies as well.

At the time we gave funds to those regimes they were. Except afaik we never funded the Taliban. The mujahadeen(sp) became the northern alliance. This isnt rocket science.

 

[cwjerome]

I don't think there's any stopping nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Better start thinking about what it means and how we deal with it.

 

[ZeGermans]

I like how this entire pretense of this thread is that arabs are some sort of towel-head-wearing madmen that doesn't believe in MAD.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
I like how this entire pretense of this thread is that arabs are some sort of towel-head-wearing madmen that doesn't believe in MAD.

Why do numbnuts like you always think you know the secret pretense behind everything?

At least there is no pretense or ambiguity to your stupidity... coverting concern over nuclear proliferation in a volatile region to racism is so bush league.

Unleashing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East could bring potentially devastating consequences for global security. Stay in your lane, these matters are for people with brains.