babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Why No Objection to Israel’s WMD?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Why No Objection to Israel’s WMD?
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 20 June 2003 11:08 AM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
Why No Objection to Israel’s WMD?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 June 2003 11:11 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The same reason there is no objection to the WMD of every other "western" country in the world who has them, I guess. Hypocrisy.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LocoMoto
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4120

posted 20 June 2003 11:50 AM      Profile for LocoMoto        Edit/Delete Post
Call it hypocrisy if you want, but WMDs possessed by Israel and other western countries do not conern me as much as WMDs that may be developed/acquired by certain other folks.
From: North Carolina | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 20 June 2003 12:44 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I though pre-emptive nuclear strikes was an acceptable policy these days?? Isn't that what your "Resident and thief" says?

By "certain other folks", are you refering to insane people who propose a "first strike offensive nuclear policy" . . . or are you refering to the "Crazed Muslims" who advocate such an insane policy vs a "reasoned Christian" who advocates the same "reasonable" policy??


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ray Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4178

posted 20 June 2003 01:11 PM      Profile for Ray Peterson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel was ready to produce its first nuclear bomb as early as 1965.

If, say, Iraq or Iran was able to produce it's first nuclear bomb by '65, how many minutes do you think Israel would have ?

quote:
"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, blaming on the United States and Britain the "creation of the fabricated entity" in the heart of Arab and Muslim world.

quote:
One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

From: Hinkley Hills | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
LocoMoto
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4120

posted 20 June 2003 02:17 PM      Profile for LocoMoto        Edit/Delete Post
I don't want crazed anyones obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran is an especially disturbing case becasue of a) comments by senior political leaders such as Rafsanjani (who is regarded as "moderate"!) and b) Iran has the technical/economic means to have nukes in a short period of time.

As far as the WMD arsenals of France, UK, the "Great Satan", the "Zionist Entity", etc. are concerned ... well ... yawn.


From: North Carolina | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 20 June 2003 03:29 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you don't think any of those countries you yawn at would ever use a nuke??

Have any US "leading clerics" ever called for nuking another country?? . . . let me rephrase that; are there any countries that "leading US clerics" haven't demanded be nuked??

Now, if we leave out the wackos on both sides, that leaves us with the question originally asked . . . why is it ok for some "aggressive" countries to own nukes and not others??


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 20 June 2003 03:31 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
yawn.


quote:
Masatada Asaeda
3rd Grade Student in 1945

When we were playing in the school ground, an airplane came, but we kept on playing, only saying "Why did they give the all-clear?" All of a sudden, there was something like lightening and I covered my face with my hands. When I opened my eyes and looked around, it was dark and I couldn't see anything. While I was feeling around in the darkness, it became light. I was thinking of going home, and I found that all the houses around me had been destroyed and fires were burning here and there.

I started running home, crying and calling, "Mother! Mother!" But I couldn't tell where my house had been. I just went around this way and that, and then I heard my sister calling my name. I was shocked when I saw her, because she was stained with blood all over. I looked at myself; the skin of both my arms and feet had peeled away and was hanging off. I didn't know what all this meant, and I was frightened, so I burst into tears. Meanwhile, Mother had crawled out from the pile of tiles and dragged an overcoat and Father's cloak out of a trunk and wrapped us in them.


boom

god bless america.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 20 June 2003 03:44 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 20 June 2003 03:49 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When has the USA threatened a frist strike with nuclear weapons in the past 50 years? How about Israel?

Thats what I thought.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 June 2003 03:53 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The US, nor Israel, has never ruled out forst use. Ergo, the threat is implied. Also, it was documented, they considered using a first strike against China during the Korean war.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
LocoMoto
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4120

posted 20 June 2003 04:17 PM      Profile for LocoMoto        Edit/Delete Post
My point is not that nukes are ok, but that they're less of a menace in some hands than in others.

I'm reasonably confident that Israel would not use nukes except as a last resort to ensure it's survival. I can't say the same about Israel's enemies.

Think again about Iran. Here you have a former head of state who is still a higher-up in the gov't describing Israel as a diseased organ that could be removed from the body by means of nuclear annihilation. Just bluster? I hope so, but I'd prefer that regime be overthrown (by Iranians) or that their nuclear "energy program" be dealt with same as Saddam's at Osirak.


From: North Carolina | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 20 June 2003 04:23 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
The US, nor Israel, has never ruled out forst use. Ergo, the threat is implied. Also, it was documented, they considered using a first strike against China during the Korean war.

Never heard of anything about that while I was studying the Korean war a few weeks ago.

And according to your logic, I have threatened to kill you and take all your belonings. I never said it, but I never explicitly stated that I wouldn't do it. Therefore, the threat is implied.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 20 June 2003 04:35 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, when a country that has used a first strike nuclear attack in the past does not explicity rule out further first strike nuclear attacks, why is it not reasonable to assume that they would still be capable of doing what they have shown to be willing and capable of doing??

Especially since whenever the opportunity comes to state a non fist strike policy, they refuse to do so!!

As for trusting Israel or Iran to not use a nuke, I trust them about the same amount, namely I think they both know the reaction from the rest of the world would be a bigger disinsentive than any direct retalitory strike by either side.

Actually when you think about it, Israel taking a first stike would be roundly condemed, but it's unlikely that any other country aside from the one attacked would respond with WMD's.

On the other hand, if Iran took a first strike, even if it totally destroyed Israel, they would be instantly destroyed by US nukes!!

Who do you see as having the most incentive to NOT use nukes as a first strike weapon??


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ray Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4178

posted 20 June 2003 04:37 PM      Profile for Ray Peterson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
On the other hand, if Iran took a first strike, even if it totally destroyed Israel, they would be instantly destroyed by US nukes!!

quote:
One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

From: Hinkley Hills | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
LocoMoto
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4120

posted 20 June 2003 05:02 PM      Profile for LocoMoto        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
On the other hand, if Iran took a first strike, even if it totally destroyed Israel, they would be instantly destroyed by US nukes!! Who do you see as having the most incentive to NOT use nukes as a first strike weapon??

Ok, for argument's sake, I'll agree with you on this point. Now if US were to adopt a foreign policy that most babblers would like to see, what would happen to this deterrent?

Damn, it's a thankless job being global cop, but someone has to do it.


From: North Carolina | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 20 June 2003 05:30 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In the post-Cold War era of “peace” and economic growth, nuclear industries quietly increased their sphere of influence. The nationalistic fervor awakened by the events of September 11th 2001 and the Second Gulf War set a dangerous precedent for unquestioned nuclear military growth and the development of nuclear power as a source of energy. The U.S. still maintains a first-strike nuclear policy against Russia, and the new Nuclear Posture Review for the first time enunciates a strategy to target non-nuclear nations with nuclear weapons.

-Nuclear Policy Research Institute
www.nuclearpolicy.org

US looks into mini-nukes

Nuke facts from the Carnegie Endowment for Peace
(Add North Korea to the list)

quote:

The United States and Russia currently deploy about 6000 strategic warheads each, ready to fire. The other three major nuclear-weapons states, China, Britain and France, together deploy a total of about 945 long-and short-range nuclear weapons Israel, India and Pakistan are the only other countries with nuclear weapons. Each is believed to be capable of quickly assembling dozens of weapons, but none has deployed weapons.

[ 20 June 2003: Message edited by: black_dog ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 20 June 2003 05:42 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by LocoMoto:
Call it hypocrisy if you want, but WMDs possessed by Israel and other western countries do not conern me as much as WMDs that may be developed/acquired by certain other folks.

Of course, dark-skinned people can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 20 June 2003 05:58 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, if Iran took a first strike, even if it totally destroyed Israel, they would be instantly destroyed by US nukes!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Obviously, one of us is a "crazy religious fanatic" that is either playing to his "constituants" for political reasons, or doesn't have a good grasp on reality!!

Your call!! hint -- I do go to church every Sunday, but only because the wife makes me, and no students are protesting in my back yard threatening my position of power!!

[ 20 June 2003: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 20 June 2003 06:05 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

Never heard of anything about that while I was studying the Korean war a few weeks ago.

And according to your logic, I have threatened to kill you and take all your belonings. I never said it, but I never explicitly stated that I wouldn't do it. Therefore, the threat is implied.


The threat is implied if we were in the same room and you were holding a weapon directed at me. The US, on the global stage, carries a weapon capable of destroying all life on the planet. It has never stated it would not strike first. Even the Russians did. Your logic is flawed and your education lacking:

quote:
The United States considered the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a rout of UN forces on the peninsula during the Korean War.

http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0318A_Stanley.html



quote:
32. Did US consider the use the A-Bomb in Korea?

US generals actively considered the use of Atomic Bombs from the very beginning, even before China intervened. US presidents considered the use of the A-Bombs after PVA entered.

[From Blair]

On June 1950, Eisenhower met with Collins, Haislip, Ridgway, Ike suggested use of two atomic bombs in the Korea area.

In July 1950, MacArthur suggested plan to use atomic bombs to 'isolate the battle fields".

[From Hastings]

On November 30 1950, President Truman said in a press conference: "There had always been active consideration of its[Atomic Bomb's] use...".

On December 24 1950, MacArthur submitted a list of 'retaliation targets' in China and North Korea, requiring 26 atomic bombs.

In January 1953, US tested its first tactical nuclear weapon, and the JCS considered its use "against military targets affecting operations in Korea."

In February 1953, in a NSC meeting, President Eisenhower suggested the Kaesong area of North Korea as an appropriate demonstration ground for a tactical nuclear bomb--it "provided a good target for this type of weapon".

On May 19 1953, the Joint Chiefs recommended direct air and naval operations against China, including the use of nuclear weapons. The National Security Council endorsed the JCS recommendation the next day.

Dulles, the Secretary of State was visiting India and told Nehru to deliver a message to Zhou Enlai: if peace was not speedily attained, the United States would begin to bomb north of Yalu, and US had recently tested atomic shells.
33. As a side question, did US threaten China with nukes after the Korean war?

Yes.

US threatened China with nuclear weapons again in 1959.
From recently declassified documents, President Kennedy considered using nukes to bomb Chinese nuclear facilities in early 1960s , when China was on the verge of exploding its own bomb, but JFK was assassinated and the plan was dropped by President Johnson.

Facing nuclear threat, Chairman Mao said:"we need to have some atomic bombs too". In 1964, China exploded its first A-Bomb, 30 months later, in 1967, it exploded its first H-Bomb, since then, China has developed a variety of strategic and tactical weapons, China also produced missiles of various ranges, initially targeting US bases at Japan and Philippines, and eventually the North America continent. Mao also said:"We must have nuclear submarines even if this would take us ten thousand years". China tested its nuclear subs in early 1970s and tested SLBMs later. The exact size of PLA nuclear stockpile is unknown, but reasonable estimate put it in the range of 2000-4000 warheads.

In March 1996, PLA conducted an exercise in the Taiwan Straits, President Clinton sent two carriers to the straits, PLA responded by dispatching its nuclear attack submarines and the US fleet stayed 300 nautical miles off Taiwan, in the meantime, PLA SAF (Secondary Artillery Force) conducted exercise to retaliate against enemy strategic strikes, PLA Vice Chief of Staff, Gen. Xiong Guangkai reportedly hinted that US cares more about LA than Taiwan.

src: http://www.centurychina.com/history/faq7.shtml



From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 June 2003 08:03 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gir, you musta read the Cliffs Notes or something because Gen. MacArthur got thumped for wildly proposing the use of nukes in the Korean War.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 20 June 2003 10:01 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
quote:

The US, nor Israel, has never ruled out first use. Ergo, the threat is implied. Also, it was documented, they considered using a first strike against China during the Korean war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never heard of anything about that while I was studying the Korean war a few weeks ago.


Really? Where exactly did you 'study'? And please remind me not to 'study' there.


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ray Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4178

posted 21 June 2003 09:21 AM      Profile for Ray Peterson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't understand where this is coming from.
quote:
Of course, dark-skinned people can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.

India ? Pakistan ?

How about, people who say this :

quote:
One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

can't be trusted with nuclear weapons. Really now.


From: Hinkley Hills | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 21 June 2003 09:35 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
A state with a nuclear trigger is in reality a suicide bomber in waiting???
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 21 June 2003 11:10 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ray, there are nuts in the USA and Israel that want to "pull the nuclear trigger" as well . . . oh sure, it's very possible they are just talking "hard line" to make the other side think twice before pulling anything stupid (as may well be the case of this Iranian cleric,) but either way, you can't say one side is just bluffing and the other side is dead serious . . . at least not without some real evidence to back up the assertion.

The best evidence I can think of is: who has actually "pulled the trigger" in the past?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ray Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4178

posted 21 June 2003 11:33 AM      Profile for Ray Peterson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No Yards, there's a difference. The US and Israel don't need to acquire nuke's, they already have them. If they wanted to pull the trigger on anyone in particular, they could have. But doesn't it set off warning bells that a man who is described as
quote:
One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric

says that they should acquire nuclear bombs for the sole purpose of wiping out Israel ? Do you not see the difference ?

quote:
The best evidence I can think of is: who has actually "pulled the trigger" in the past?

This is not evidence, this is you implying the US. Things were a lot different back then. If they weren't, then there would be no Afghanistan right now.


From: Hinkley Hills | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 June 2003 01:07 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Didn't nuclear warfare theorists in the USA and the Soviet Union often bluster with bravado that the mass casualties that would go with a nuclear war were "survivable" in the sense of not irreparably damaging most of humanity?
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca