Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    23 Jul '15 21:091 edit
    Originally posted by sh76 to RJHinds
    Israel almost certainly does have nuclear weapons. But if by some chance they really don't, then their policy of nuclear ambiguity is truly genius.
    Sh76 seems willing to keep playing along with Israel's disingenuous official position.
    If Israel does *not* have nuclear weapons, then why did Mossad abduct Mordechai Vanunu,
    once an Israeli nuclear technician, and, after a secret trial in Israel, have him imprisoned for 18 years?
    Why did Israel take such exception to Mordechai Vanunu speaking to the British media?
    By the way, Mordechai Vanunu has received awards from peace or human rights organizations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

    While Israel's government keeps refusing to *officially confirm or deny* that Israel has nuclear
    weapons, Israel's position (The lady doth protest too much, methinks.) sounds like a woman
    who's refusing to confirm that she's pregnant as she's being wheeled into the delivery room.
    I already know that many Israeli official statements should *not* be taken at face value.

    I don't know of any well-educated Israelis who would seriously deny in private conversations
    that Israel has nuclear weapons. With some Israeli acquaintances, I have discussed the
    question of when Israel developed its first nuclear weapons, and the consensus is that
    it was in the 1960s, with some suspecting that it might even have been before the 1967 war.
    I have no reasonable doubt, however, that Israel had nuclear weapons before the 1973 war.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13056
    23 Jul '15 21:54
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Sh76 seems willing to keep playing along with Israel's disingenuous official position.
    If Israel does *not* have nuclear weapons, then why did Mossad abduct Mordechai Vanunu,
    once an Israeli nuclear technician, and, after a secret trial in Israel, have him imprisoned for 18 years?
    Why did Israel take such exception to Mordechai Vanunu speaking to the Br ...[text shortened]... war.
    I have no reasonable doubt, however, that Israel had nuclear weapons before the 1973 war.
    Well, let us hope that Israel's enemies don't have reason to doubt it either. 😏

    The Near Genius
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13056
    23 Jul '15 22:16
    It is clear that if Iran obtains only seven nuclear warheads for their missiles that they could completely wipe out israel on the first strike with no chance for Israel to reply, even if Israel does have nuclear weapons. It may be able to be accomplish with fewer nuclear warheads. I think Israel has a right to be very concerned about this deal.
  4. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    23 Jul '15 22:42
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It is clear that if Iran obtains only seven nuclear warheads for their missiles that they could completely wipe out israel on the first strike with no chance for Israel to reply, even if Israel does have nuclear weapons. It may be able to be accomplish with fewer nuclear warheads. I think Israel has a right to be very concerned about this deal.
    Yes the logic of nuclear weapons is mutual assured destruction. Presently, Israel has the option of unilaterally obliterating Iran as a functioning society. Iran has a right to be very concerned at the total lack of restraint on Israeli aggression. In any case, Pakistan is a nuclear power on the Sunni side of an escalating Sunni - Shia conflict, aided and abetted by the US, and as apologists for Israel can confirm, religious war is terribly hard to moderate. Nuclear weapons in this region are potentially catastrophic for everyone and any move towards disarmament is to be welcomed, but the USA is one of the big interests in funding and supporting growing military sales there and has taken no obvious interest in restraining militarism. The insanity now unfolding in the mess formerly known as Iraq is directly related to US interventions. Iran is actually not an aggressor state in the region and has every reason for seeking a strong defensive capability. A deal that reduces the prospects of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is a huge benefit for the region and why you would wish to fight against such negotiations is hard to see, unless you are just a war monger, like Netanyahu.
  5. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    23 Jul '15 23:55
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Yes the logic of nuclear weapons is mutual assured destruction. Presently, Israel has the option of unilaterally obliterating Iran as a functioning society. Iran has a right to be very concerned at the total lack of restraint on Israeli aggression. In any case, Pakistan is a nuclear power on the Sunni side of an escalating Sunni - Shia conflict, aided and a ...[text shortened]... ight against such negotiations is hard to see, unless you are just a war monger, like Netanyahu.
    ===A deal that reduces the prospects of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is a huge benefit for the region and why you would wish to fight against such negotiations is hard to see, ===

    Well, therein lies the rub. Many suspect that this increased the chance of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons by taking the threat of sanctions off the table and officially allowing some enrichment, thereby reducing "early warning" signs that Iran is headed towards a nuclear weapon.

    Nobody or almost nobody who sincerely believes that the deal would decrease the chance of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would oppose it, including and especially Netanyahu. I don't deny that Netanyahu is too hawkish, but he certainly does not want Iran to get a nuke.
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13056
    24 Jul '15 00:373 edits
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Yes the logic of nuclear weapons is mutual assured destruction. Presently, Israel has the option of unilaterally obliterating Iran as a functioning society. Iran has a right to be very concerned at the total lack of restraint on Israeli aggression. In any case, Pakistan is a nuclear power on the Sunni side of an escalating Sunni - Shia conflict, aided and a ...[text shortened]... ight against such negotiations is hard to see, unless you are just a war monger, like Netanyahu.
    It has long been known that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism.

    Feds say Iran’s support for terrorism growing

    By Guy Taylor - The Washington Times - Thursday, May 30, 2013

    Iran’s support of international terrorism has reached levels unseen since the 1990s, but the top cadre of al Qaeda leaders have largely been decimated in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the State Department said Thursday in its latest report on worldwide terrorism.

    “Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism and [its ally Hezbollah‘s] terrorist activity have reached a tempo unseen since the 1990s, with attacks plotted in Southeast Asia, Europe, and Africa,” the State Department said in its analysis, pointing to attacks last year in India, Thailand, Georgia and Kenya in which Iran was implicated.

    The State Department’s designation of “state sponsors of terrorism” — one of the highlights of the annual analysis, known formally as the “Country Reports on Terrorism” — was otherwise largely unchanged from 2011, with Cuba, Sudan and Syria named alongside Iran, which has been on the list since 1984.

    But notably softer language is used in a section on Cuba, suggesting a possibility the State Department may be moving toward taking the communist nation off the list.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/30/feds-say-irans-support-terrorism-growing/?page=all#!

    Just another reason this is a bad deal.
  7. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    24 Jul '15 00:50
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Yes the logic of nuclear weapons is mutual assured destruction. Presently, Israel has the option of unilaterally obliterating Iran as a functioning society. Iran has a right to be very concerned at the total lack of restraint on Israeli aggression. In any case, Pakistan is a nuclear power on the Sunni side of an escalating Sunni - Shia conflict, aided and a ...[text shortened]... ight against such negotiations is hard to see, unless you are just a war monger, like Netanyahu.
    Presently, Israel has the option of unilaterally obliterating Iran as a functioning society

    Whichever of Duchess' dates is correct, in more than half a century Israel has shown no inclination toward a first strike nuclear attack, despite the loud shoutings of Iran's former President, "Death to Israel".

    Do we really doubt that Iran is less likely to initiate a first strike than Israel has been? Besides that it is common knowledge that Iran sponsors and supplies non nation Islamic terrorists in the area. Is it beyond imagination that it might sell nuclear devises, as it does other arms to groups like ISIS?
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Jul '15 01:16
    Originally posted by normbenign
    [b]Presently, Israel has the option of unilaterally obliterating Iran as a functioning society

    Whichever of Duchess' dates is correct, in more than half a century Israel has shown no inclination toward a first strike nuclear attack, despite the loud shoutings of Iran's former President, "Death to Israel".

    Do we really doubt that Iran is less lik ...[text shortened]... eyond imagination that it might sell nuclear devises, as it does other arms to groups like ISIS?[/b]
    "...Israel has shown no inclination toward a first strike nuclear attack."
    --Normbenign

    False, according to Edgar O'Ballance in his history of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.
    Read my post on page 2, post 3.
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10111
    24 Jul '15 15:491 edit
    So once sanctions are lifted and Iran obtains billions more into their economy, what does everyone think Iran will do with all that money?

    1. Build Homeless shelters?

    2. Create Mohammadcare? Next best thing to Obamacare.

    3. Create a Salvation Army for Muslims?

    4. Invest in infrastructure that has been ignored by the hard line conservatives?

    Wut?
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Jul '15 20:532 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "...Israel has shown no inclination toward a first strike nuclear attack."
    --Normbenign

    False, according to Edgar O'Ballance in his history of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.
    Read my post on page 2, post 3.
    What might have happened in Edgar O'Ballance's scenario of Israel using nuclear weapons in the 1973 war?
    The central premise is that Israel's government accepted Moshe Dayan's pessimistic
    judgment about the war's outcome and acceded to his urge to use nuclear weapons.

    First, here's some background about the war:
    Egypt and Syria never expected a decisive victory in the 1973 war because they already
    conceded that Israel had clear air superiority. The Arabs were hoping for a limited victory
    that would upset Israel's previous judgment on 'Make peace or war?' that the Arabs
    must have no war option because they were too weak militarily to threaten Israel.
    Egypt hoped to seize and retain a bridgehead on the east bank of the Suez Canal.
    Syria hoped to reclaim as much of the Golan Heights as it could. The Arabs had no plans
    or realistic expectations of overrunning (pre-1967) Israel and liberating the Palestinians.

    Let's suppose that the IDF had kept retreating in some disorder and Moshe Dayan
    had told Golda Meir that the fronts were collapsing. Then Israel would have proceeded
    to set the triggers on its nuclear weapons, presumably aimed at major cities in Egypt and Syria.
    Israel presumably would hold some nuclear weapons in reserve for future 'counter-retaliation'.
    I don't know if a majority of Israel's cabinet minister rather than Golda Meir alone would
    have had to sign off on Moshe Dayan's idea to use nuclear weapons. But let's suppose
    the decision was made and Israel proceeded to annihilate Egypt's and Syria's major cities.
    Killing millions of Arab civilians would have made Israel a pariah outside the United States.
    The US government probably would have been the only major government to excuse
    Israel's nuclear first strike in response to a military crisis that did not threaten Israel's existence.
    The often squabbling Arab states would have called for pan-Arab unity and for the USSR
    to supply nuclear weapons to retaliate against Israel. What would the USSR have done?
    Would the USA's threat of its nuclear strikes against the USSR be enough to deter the
    USSR from helping the Arabs retaliate against Israel? Would World War 3 have ensued?

    In the event of Israel launching a general nuclear first strike against Egypt and Syria,
    I would foresee no realistic peace between Israel and the Arabs. Either Israel (supported
    by the USA) would destroy all the Arabs or the Arabs (supported by the USSR) would destroy Israel.
    Fortunately, I could write about this scenario in a novel rather than in a history book.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13056
    24 Jul '15 23:50
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "...Israel has shown no inclination toward a first strike nuclear attack."
    --Normbenign

    False, according to Edgar O'Ballance in his history of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.
    Read my post on page 2, post 3.
    If Israel actually has the ability to make the first nuclear strike against Iran, I hope they make it before it is too late. 😏

    The Near Genius
  12. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45668
    25 Jul '15 04:59
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Does it really matter? The agreement gives Iran everything it wants, and we get nothing.
    Iran's nuclear capability is considerably reduced. (Almost to zero)
    Iran is incentivised to join world economy.

    You do realise that Iran is not some backward state of towel-heads don't you?
    They are a big economic power.

    Smart Whitehouse investors will have some of their pension
    money in Iran companies which are seriously under-valued.
  13. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45668
    25 Jul '15 05:00
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    If Israel actually has the ability to make the first nuclear strike against Iran, I hope they make it before it is too late. 😏

    The Near Genius
    I hope that no country makes it too early.
  14. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45668
    25 Jul '15 05:01
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It is clear that if Iran obtains only seven nuclear warheads for their missiles that they could completely wipe out israel on the first strike with no chance for Israel to reply, even if Israel does have nuclear weapons. It may be able to be accomplish with fewer nuclear warheads. I think Israel has a right to be very concerned about this deal.
    Israel isn't part of the deal.
  15. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45668
    25 Jul '15 05:02
    Originally posted by whodey
    So once sanctions are lifted and Iran obtains billions more into their economy, what does everyone think Iran will do with all that money?

    ?
    obtains?

    You mean earns.
Back to Top