BBC: Israel's Secret Weapon

[blankslate]

So we'll have to wait a couple more generations I suppose an hopefully we won't screw that up.

Nevertheless, the threat of potential abuse of nuclear weapons is real. Imadinnerjacket and those who think as he does have the mouthpiece of the press, and the ear of those who make the ultimate decisions. To ignore the reality of the situation is to be as foolish as Bush when he did so. Iran must be kept a known entity. The Bush equivalents of today who say that Iran is no threat have fallen on their head too many times. Their actions have demonstrated it to be true, and no appeal to past sins of ours reverses that truth. The best we can do is reform ourselves and hold Iran close, closer than our friends.

Oh I agree that Iran has to keep any nuclear devices they might build out of the wrong hands.

However they might not be looking to actually build them but to develop what is referred to as a break out capability. The ability to actually do it but not acting on it so as to avoid condemnation for possessing nuclear weapons.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinio...-nuclear-bomb-israel-proliferation/55654248/1

The crisis over Iran's nuclear program could end in three ways. First, diplomacy coupled with sanctions could persuade Iran to abandon pursuit of a nuclear weapon. But that's unlikely: The historical record indicates that a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons can rarely be dissuaded. Take North Korea, which succeeded in building its weapons despite countless rounds of sanctions and U.N. Security Council resolutions. If Tehran decides that its security depends on possessing nuclear weapons, sanctions are unlikely to change its mind.

The second possible outcome is that Iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but develops a breakout capability, the capacity to build and test one quite quickly. Such a capability might satisfy the domestic political needs of Iran's rulers by assuring hard-liners that they can enjoy all the benefits of having a bomb (such as greater security) without the downsides (such as international isolation and condemnation).

The third possible outcome of the standoff is that Iran continues its course and publicly goes nuclear by testing a weapon. U.S. and Israeli officials have declared that outcome unacceptable, arguing that a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel. Such language is typical of major powers, which have historically gotten riled up whenever another country begins to develop a nuclear weapon. Yet every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less.

Given our past issues with Iran I'm suggesting being very cautious in how we go about this issue so that we increase the likelihood of Iran taking a course of action least objectionable to the U.S. and Israel.

Given the above analysis taking a hard line aggressive stance might not be the way to get Iran to take the least objectionable course of action that doesn't involve yet another war in the region.

Because the law of unintended consequences will always be hanging over our head it doesn't help that we have a reputation in the M.E. with some people as agents of repression.

So we have to acknowledge that our options in the M.E. are indeed limited... unless of course we want to launch another pre-emptive war there.

 

[cybrsage]

You apparently didn't see this part of the information previously posted.


http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...ld-happen-if-Iran-had-the-bomb-video/(page)/3

Iran is sane enough to know that they would be immediately attacked if a nuclear device when off in Israel. Because most people would assume that they were involved. And given "Insane"ahdenijad's previous rhetoric who would blame anyone for reaching that conclusion.

What does any of that have to do with what I posted?

 

[blankslate]

What does any of that have to do with what I posted?

Too bad you can't see eh?

 

[cybrsage]

Too bad you can't see eh?

Oh, I can see, but what I see is you talking about something other than what you quoted. You quoted me saying Israel did not use nuclear weapons when attacked on all sides by larger forces, which shows they can be trusted with nuclear weapons (if we assume they actually obtained them when the conspiracy theorists say they did).

You responded with something about Iran. Last I checked, Iran is not Israel nor does Iran have nuclear weapons. Iran also was not attacked on all sides by larger forces while theoretically possessing nuclear weapons.

Your post had nothing to do with that which you quoted.

 

[blankslate]

Oh, I can see, but what I see is you talking about something other than what you quoted. You quoted me saying Israel did not use nuclear weapons when attacked on all sides by larger forces, which shows they can be trusted with nuclear weapons (if we assume they actually obtained them when the conspiracy theorists say they did).

You responded with something about Iran. Last I checked, Iran is not Israel nor does Iran have nuclear weapons. Iran also was not attacked on all sides by larger forces while theoretically possessing nuclear weapons.

Your post had nothing to do with that which you quoted.

Ok, yet another post that is completely stupid....


Saying that just because Israel never used a nuclear weapon isn't special... no nuclear power has used a nuclear weapon against another nation since the 1940s...

Additionally we don't know how responsible they are because no one is monitoring them.
way to go again...

God at least your moronic posts are vaguely entertaining (and I'm being generous there) at times.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Saying that just because Israel never used a nuclear weapon isn't special... no nuclear power has used a nuclear weapon against another nation since the 1940s...

Thats a totally moron statement.......considering...
Name me another country that has made it known throughout the world that if given the opportunity they would gladly rid the world of another nation....or peoples......
You can`t because none of the nations that have nuclear weapons hate or despise another nation as much as Iran hates Israel.....

Do you honestly believe that if Iran attains nuclear weapons they will become another peace loving member of the International nuclear community........

hmmmm......

 

[blankslate]

Name me another country that has made it known throughout the world that if given the opportunity they would gladly rid the world of another nation....or peoples......

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?_r=0

There is some debate over what exactly was said. It definitely wasn't friendly
however...

"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian," remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was misquoted. "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." Since Iran has not "attacked another country aggressively for over a century," he said in an e-mail exchange, "I smell the whiff of war propaganda."

It could be that he actually used a western idiom or it could be that it's a matter of lame media propagating the most provocative interpretation of that persons words... who knows but in any case the accepted interpretation has been decided by most.

Remember the quote attributed to Kruschev about the U.S. "We will bury you"? It's a similar situation.

Do you honestly believe that if Iran attains nuclear weapons they will become another peace loving member of the International nuclear community........

I think if you have read my posts in this thread you would have gleaned that I think that right now Iranian leaders know that if any nuclear device is used in Israel, Iran would be the first and perhaps only suspect for choosing to use it or letting a device fall into the hands of terrorist who then used it...

And the result of such an occurrence would be an immediate condemnation of and a retaliatory strike against Iran. Because unlike Israel, Iran doesn't have over 100 nuclear devices.

Israeli citizens have said as much.

Unlike you or cybersage I have been diligent in posting links to my sources. They have not been the conspiracy Zionist or Aj-Jahazera sites that some people who are seemingly hostile to Israel tend to use either.

Yet you seem to regard anyone who doesn't support a pre-emtively hostile posture toward Iran as being hostile to Israel's right to exist. If that is your belief that is a stupid attitude to take.

 

[ericlp]

The sooner Israel starts wars with all its neighbors the better. Yeah we might lose a few people ... but most of our problems in the ME would be solved.

We can just go in and clean up ops after 100 years or so.

I for one wouldn't care if there was a bit of radioactive substance in my weedeater fuel... Matter of fact I think we should start selling Iran some nukes so we can get more money! Lets arm both sides and bust out the popcorn!

It would make a great movie at the very least!

 

[William Gaatjes]

SandEagle, you miss the worst kept secret in the world. As the French Government built the Israeli breeder reactor at Dismona on a French design that is identical to to a now French retired breeder reactor everyone in the world knows alot about. Because French Israeli relations have turned from warm to a very chilly relationship now.

But Israeli security is so tight, that the rest of the world can only estimate how many Plutonium based nuclear weapons Israel now has. From a low ball estimate of about 120 to as high as 300+. But when Israel is questioned, Israeli officials play cute and will neither confirm or deny.

After the US elections of 11/2012, Israel is very likely going to be facing international community and US support to make the Mid-east into a nuclear weapons free zone.

As Israel's free ride may end, as Israel hypocracy may come to a screeching halt under increasing international inquiries on a variety of different fronts.

The other thing to point out is the Israeli breeder reactor at Dismona was not well built and is arguably as dangerous as the Russian reactor at Chernobly. There are already massive cracks in the Dismona containmnt dome and may be a very dangerous accident waiting to happen. Already very dangerous statistics are emerging that employees at Dismona are suffering cancer death rates that are really off the charts.

At least Dismona is now protected by the so called Israeli iron dome defnse system. That may partially protect Dismona from low and slow scud type missiles, but when Iran has high and extremely fast ballistic missiles that are very accurate, I for one really doubt the iron dome will protect Dismona in any way.

As any succesful attack against Dismona could render Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and parts of Iraq as unihabitable for at least 500 years into the future if not longer.

That part of the world has been a war zone for a very long time. For egoistic reasons mainly. I fear that if they do not stop, karma might catch up with them.
That part of the world has also geological activity.
If they hate each other enough, they will not spend enough time on checking safety measures because of many stress related reasons.
I worry.

 

[William Gaatjes]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=178254070504611595

how come this video isn't more mainstream? i was not aware of this! :whiste:

I have posted the video about Dimona a few times here in this section of the forum.

It makes sense, if you feel scared, you want to protect yourself. If you give into to paranoia based on actual massacre events, you will go to extreme measures to protect yourself. That is basically what has been going on. It is not unusual, Just think of the cold war.

 

[cybrsage]

Ok, yet another post that is completely stupid....


Saying that just because Israel never used a nuclear weapon isn't special... no nuclear power has used a nuclear weapon against another nation since the 1940s...

Additionally we don't know how responsible they are because no one is monitoring them.
way to go again...

God at least your moronic posts are vaguely entertaining (and I'm being generous there) at times.

How many of those nations were faced with anhilliation after obtaining nuclear weapons? Let me answer that for you, since I do not want to hurt your brain by you having to think critically, only Israel. To claim the others would not have used them is only opinion, we actually know (provided we assume Israel obtained nuclear weapons when the conspiracy theorists say they did) that Israel did not use them.

Yeah, without an active monitoring program, we would not know if Israel used a nuclear weapon against the invading armies. Are you really this stupid?

Very sad that you think a nation can use nuclear weapons during warfare and no one would notice.

EDIT:

Unlike you or cybersage I have been diligent in posting links to my sources. They have not been the conspiracy Zionist or Aj-Jahazera sites that some people who are seemingly hostile to Israel tend to use either.

It is not possible for me to find sources showing Israel has not used nuclear weapons against the invading nations because this would not be news...if they did there would be many sources showing they did. It is silly that you think they used nuclear weapons against the invading Islamic armies and no one noticed.

 

[blankslate]

How many of those nations were faced with anhilliation after obtaining nuclear weapons?

In the cold war both the U.S. and the Soviet Union faced mutual destruction from each other because of the amount of weapons both had aimed at each other. However, both nations were rational enough to avoid that.

Yeah, without an active monitoring program, we would not know if Israel used a nuclear weapon against the invading armies. Are you really this stupid?

Are you really implying that a monitoring program is just to try and figure out if someone uses a nuclear weapon? Are you plumbing the depths of idiocy just so you can make some "clever" reply?

Hey before you make another completely f#!ktarded post... A monitoring program in Israel's case would be for determining how they store their weapons, roughly how many they have (as opposed to wildly varying estimates that go from 50 to 100 to over 200), and how many they can produce in a year. However, Israel enjoys that privilege and it is a substantial deterrent that protects them from organized invasion from an army.

But thanks for showing us how you're willing to drop all logical thought because you think a smart-aleck remark is a great way to get your nonexistent point across.

It is not possible for me to find sources showing Israel has not used nuclear weapons against the invading nations because this would not be news...if they did there would be many sources showing they did. It is silly that you think they used nuclear weapons against the invading Islamic armies and no one noticed.

Really wtf man...

Maybe you should try to understand that no nuclear power has seen another country make a real effort to invade them either because no one would risk a retaliatory strike from a nuclear power that truly felt threatened.

That is why Iran is continuing nuclear research and your reply is completely stupid and besides the point.

Why? Because my links have shown that experts on the Middle East say that Iran would not attack Israel with a nuclear device if they obtain the ability to get one because they would face not only condemnation from the world but a withering counterstrike.

You have not been able to produce any link form any person who is saying that Iran wants nuclear weapons because they want to start bombing nearby countries or because it'll be fun to have them.
Much less any link that shows any one thinks that they want a nuclear weapon so that they can start invading someone else.

What experts say is that Iran wants the knowledge to construct a weapon at which point any other nation would not try to invade them like Afghanistan was invaded or Iraq was invaded.

Iran knows that if they show that they have built a nuclear weapon they will have violated the non-proliferation treaty, however, having other nations think (or know) that they are capable of building a weapon is nearly as good a deterrent against invasion as actually testing a nuclear weapon for all the world to see (or rather detect seismically)

Remember that Israel has an estimated 100 to over 200 nuclear warheads. But no one really knows... Considering that it took only two early (much weaker) nuclear devices to shock the world and devastate two cities, Iran would have to be almost as stupid as the posts you've been making to even dream of a nuclear attack on Israel

If you think that Iran isn't conscious of the fact that Israel would likely strike back with more than two weapons and that the warheads on cruise missiles (being amongst the lightest warheads) are at least 3 times as powerful as the atom bombs used in Japan there's just no help for you.

This could be a sober discussion about a nation going nuclear (building nuclear weapons), but you instead make dumb shitty "smart" ass remarks because you can't or won't provide substantive counter arguments.

WTF dude... WTF...

 

[cybrsage]

In the cold war both the U.S. and the Soviet Union faced mutual destruction from each other because of the amount of weapons both had aimed at each other. However, both nations were rational enough to avoid that.

If the USSR launched a full scale ground invasion of the US, do you honestly think the US would not nuke a few Russian cities to make them stop? Are you really that idiotic?


]quote]Are you really implying that a monitoring program is just to try and figure out if someone uses a nuclear weapon? Are you plumbing the depths of idiocy just so you can make some "clever" reply?[/quote]

You are the moron who pretends I was not talking about using nuclear weapons when your nation is invaded by a far larger force whose purpose is to anhilliate you. Stop being so stupid and stop pretending idiotic things.

Really wtf man...

Maybe you should try to understand that no nuclear power has seen another country make a real effort to invade them either because no one would risk a retaliatory strike from a nuclear power that truly felt threatened.

Yet the Arab nations DID invade Israel after the time the conspiracists say Israel obtained nuclear weapons. This means you are both wrong AND stupid, since that was told to you more than once yet you still said the idiotic thing you just said.

You have not been able to produce any link form any person who is saying that Iran wants nuclear weapons because they want to start bombing nearby countries or because it'll be fun to have them.
Much less any link that shows any one thinks that they want a nuclear weapon so that they can start invading someone else.

I never claimed they did. You are again being a moron and inventing things I never said so you can rail against them. But hey, you are good at being a moron so you might as well keep doing what you are good at.


Rather than continue to prove you are a moron, you really should just stick to replying to what you actually quote. Not inventing things never said and pretending they were so you can be all upset. Your roar sounds like the bleating of a baby goat...yeah, it is that pathetic.

 

[DCal430]

Why is it ok for Israel to enough WMDs to kill hundreds of millions people, women and children included, but Iran can't.


Not that I think Iran should have WMDs, I just think Israel shouldn't either.

 

[blankslate]

If the USSR launched a full scale ground invasion of the US, do you honestly think the US would not nuke a few Russian cities to make them stop? Are you really that idiotic?

That is why the USSR didn't invade the USSR. and vice versa.

Yet the Arab nations DID invade Israel after the time the conspiracists say Israel obtained nuclear weapons. This means you are both wrong AND stupid, since that was told to you more than once yet you still said the idiotic thing you just said.

The only time anyone ever gained any traction into Israeli territory was immediately after the Israeli 1948 war for independence. Most of the incursions into Israeli Territory since then were Guerrilla style attacks. Not some thing that is the equivalent of an army ground invasion.

FYI the Israelis didn't start construction on their nuclear reactor with the help of the French until the 1950s and didn't finish until the early 60's well after the major incursions into Israeli territories took place.

Israel took back the West bank in 1967.

Although they fought wars they were conventional wars and in case you missed it the first time here were no major incursions into Israel itself after the early 1960s.

Are you stupid as to assume that the immediate response to conventional invasion would be a nuclear response.... Well based on the above post that seems to be the case.

Rather than continue to prove you are a moron, you really should just stick to replying to what you actually quote. Not inventing things never said and pretending they were so you can be all upset. Your roar sounds like the bleating of a baby goat...yeah, it is that pathetic

You really post stupid pathetic shit. Rather than proving that's all you can do how about responding like an adult.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Why is it ok for Israel to enough WMDs to kill hundreds of millions people, women and children included, but Iran can't.


Not that I think Iran should have WMDs, I just think Israel shouldn't either.

If Iran acted a little more responsible, there might be less concern.

Given their overt support of terror groups that have no compulsion on killing women and children; Israel was a reason to be concerned.

Israel has destroyed two reactors of countries that have attempted to harm her.

Both countries had attacked her previously and one attacked her after with WMD.

Fairly good track record on picking and choosing where the danger lies.

 

[cybrsage]

Why is it ok for Israel to enough WMDs to kill hundreds of millions people, women and children included, but Iran can't.

Not that I think Iran should have WMDs, I just think Israel shouldn't either.

From an ethical standpoint, you are correct. No one should have WMDs, imo.

From a legal standpoint, it is because Israel is not part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and Iran is. It says no nation which already does not possess nuclear weapons will attempt to obtain them, and that any civilian nuclear program will be subject to investigation and inspections.

So, in short, morally they are equals and neither should have them, legally Israel is allowed to have them but Iran is not.

 

[cybrsage]

I really post stupid pathetic shit. Rather than proving that's all I can do how about I start responding like an adult.

I do not know why you do not respond like an adult.

 

[boochi]

Israel should turn Tehran, Cairo and Damascus into glass if attacked.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why is it ok for Israel to enough WMDs to kill hundreds of millions people, women and children included, but Iran can't.


Not that I think Iran should have WMDs, I just think Israel shouldn't either.

In a perfect world where everything is equal yes. In this reality nukes permit Israel to exist. Thats the way of it.

 

[spinejam]

Here is some info taken from a physics forum:


http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/How-does-a-neutron-bomb-work_12207.html

good info -- tx! :thumbsup:

 

[Oyeve]

From an ethical standpoint, you are correct. No one should have WMDs, imo.

From a legal standpoint, it is because Israel is not part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and Iran is. It says no nation which already does not possess nuclear weapons will attempt to obtain them, and that any civilian nuclear program will be subject to investigation and inspections.

So, in short, morally they are equals and neither should have them, legally Israel is allowed to have them but Iran is not.

I say make israel part of that treaty or tell them to fuck off and drop support for them. i am sick of their whiney shit.

 

[blankslate]

I do not know why you do not respond like an adult.

Because your replies have not indicated that you wish to be responded to in such a manner....

Israel should turn Tehran, Cairo and Damascus into glass if attacked.

If Iran foolish enough to attack Israel with a nuclear device or is careless enough to allow a terrorist cell to obtain one and use it against Israel... then that's exactly what Iran would deserve, although it's unclear afaik that Egypt or Syria are developing such weapons.

 

[cybrsage]

I say make israel part of that treaty or tell them to fuck off and drop support for them. i am sick of their whiney shit.

You cannot force a nation to join an International Treaty.

 

[cybrsage]

Because your replies have not indicated that you wish to be responded to in such a manner....

Neither have yours. You started with an alternate reality and got worse from there.