Israeli Nuclear policy....? - Page 4




View Poll Results :What should Israels nuclear policy be:
A) Admit having Nukes, refuse to disarm them, and threaten arab nations that any WMD attack on Israel would earn a nuclear response. 5 22.73%
B) Keep the current policy, admit nothing, denie nothing. 8 36.36%
C)Admit having nukes, agree to disarm them. 9 40.91%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
June 15th, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
Yeah I sure do, bro. Its walking on eggshells here-

Well let's agree on democracy as not perfect but the least of all evils. It really is.

On top of that, I believe that we should be brave enough sometimes to call the evil EVIL and the enemy ENEMY. You said define who the good and bad guys are depends on your point of view: exactly, of course you have a personal opinion here: voice it. My view is evident. I'm not saying Palestinians are 100 % bad guys, I'm not saying Israel's 100 % good either. But if I believe Israel is way better than Palestinians for its democratic system, its concern for human rights, its freedom of everything and so on, well let me call it for what it is.
June 15th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
Hmmmmmm........
June 15th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
hello: i shall be be briefly off-topic.

Hitler was never elected. head on over to the hitler post in the history topic section, and i ll tell you why there.

By the way, i still think israel needs to keep its nuke program just the way it is.

Mark
--
June 15th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
I completely agree with Mark. For it's own safety!
June 15th, 2004  
silent driller
 
 
Keep em and threaten to use em. It may prevent some of the ist ings in the country.
June 16th, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
Yep I bow to Mark's infinite knowledge.
June 16th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
O thank God I'm not the only one that answered A)
June 17th, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Conley

From what I understand, Israeli nuclear devices are not ssembled...the plutonium cores are kept seperate from the physics package, guidance system, and the like. It is not until they are needed do they put the whole thing together, and have a thermo-nuclear device, or weapon. They can be put together rather quickly and utilized.
How quickly though ? I dont hink it can be done within a certain reaction limit in case of nuclear attack. I mean it doesnt make sense. But I might just be ignorant.
June 17th, 2004  
Eric
 
I am finally back!!! Missed you guys...
A couple of points first:
- Don't blame Israel for coming up with the separating of the nuke components in order to tell anyone on their face and without lying that they do not have nuclear weapons....after all, they learned from the masters that created Binary ammunitions. These are shells or missiles with all the different chemicals components separated in order to tell the world they are not chemical weapons. The components only mix and turn into lethal chemical agents after having been fired...by the way...that happens to be US...like U.S!
It is a good legal way to go around international treaties and oversight WITHOUT LYING!
Like stating a ******** cannot be considered as having sex, thus, stating "I did not have sex with....blah blah" is not lying!!!!
- Israel did not develop its nuke to protect itself against Iranian or Iraqi nuclear ventures...it just started it first! Is it bad? I guess in sieged Israel, the only democratic system in that part of the world (I did not really say Democracy), people and government know / knew it would be a matter of time before the enemies will try or come up with nukes and beating them at the nuclear race was a matter of priority and survival. Who care who was there first, the chicken or the egg? Both are necessary!
- As far as over-nuking oneself, remember the MAD theory! I guess Israel does not want to put all its (nuke) eggs in the same basket while preserving its capacity to simultaneously destroy a couple of countries if needed. RemeMber that the country is small and that it has most often than never been attacked by coalitions of countries.
- I'd venture to say that nuke or military power is safer under a "democratic" control than under a dictatorship. The word "safer" is relative but we have to make do with it. Nuke proliferation is a current fact of life and technology is now more simple, affordable and mastered. Eventually, whether we like it or not, we know that nukes will end up in non-governmental entities that have nothing to loose.... yes, Sweet Dreams!
- Should Israel disarm or reduce its nuke? Should they aknowledge them?
I don't know....their call...they know how many in their inventory are aleready obsolete against current anti missile defense... keeping everybody in the dark is the best deterrence, isn't it? Furthermore, the deterrence works both ways: towards its traditional enemies and toward the so-called superpowers. When America, the European Union or Russia deal with the region, they have to keep in mind that they cannot afford to corner Israel and force them to use its last resort "equalizers".
June 17th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
Hi eric! glad to see you back...

lets look at your post...and savor the momment...ummmmm now on with the steak sauce!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
I am finally back!!! Missed you guys...
A couple of points first:
- Don't blame Israel for coming up with the separating of the nuke components in order to tell anyone on their face and without lying that they do not have nuclear weapons....after all, they learned from the masters that created Binary ammunitions. These are shells or missiles with all the different chemicals components separated in order to tell the world they are not chemical weapons. The components only mix and turn into lethal chemical agents after having been fired...by the way...that happens to be US...like U.S!

Not bad...Yes, we came up with a binary nerve gas weapon system in order to make the storage and transport of the devices safer and more expediant to the troops that were to use them...not as a means to confim or deny their existance though.

It is a good legal way to go around international treaties and oversight WITHOUT LYING!


well in Israel's case...they dont violate any treaty I know of...because they havent signed any dealing with nuclear weapons. Oversight is another issue of the treatys

like stating a ******** cannot be considered as having sex, thus, stating "I did not have sex with....blah blah" is not lying!!!!

In this mans case..i would suspect that it wasnt sex...just another appetizer to the main course. of course, it was his definition...

- Israel did not develop its nuke to protect itself against Iranian or Iraqi nuclear ventures...it just started it first! Is it bad? I guess in sieged Israel, the only democratic system in that part of the world (I did not really say Democracy), people and government know / knew it would be a matter of time before the enemies will try or come up with nukes and beating them at the nuclear race was a matter of priority and survival. Who care who was there first, the chicken or the egg? Both are necessary!

Israel survived as a nation without a hint that they had nuclear weapons for almost 20 years...I guess that the wars interim to their development, with the massed attacks by a multi-nationed force suggested to them that a force equalizer was in order...

- As far as over-nuking oneself, remember the MAD theory! I guess Israel does not want to put all its (nuke) eggs in the same basket while preserving its capacity to simultaneously destroy a couple of countries if needed. RemeMber that the country is small and that it has most often than never been attacked by coalitions of countries.

wouldnt disagree there...

- I'd venture to say that nuke or military power is safer under a "democratic" control than under a dictatorship. The word "safer" is relative but we have to make do with it. Nuke proliferation is a current fact of life and technology is now more simple, affordable and mastered. Eventually, whether we like it or not, we know that nukes will end up in non-governmental entities that have nothing to loose.... yes, Sweet Dreams!

nor here....

- Should Israel disarm or reduce its nuke? Should they aknowledge them?
I don't know....their call...they know how many in their inventory are aleready obsolete against current anti missile defense... keeping everybody in the dark is the best deterrence, isn't it? Furthermore, the deterrence works both ways: towards its traditional enemies and toward the so-called superpowers. When America, the European Union or Russia deal with the region, they have to keep in mind that they cannot afford to corner Israel and force them to use its last resort "equalizers".
This is a different outlook on the topic...yes i guess a weapon non-use can be just as effective as its use.

not bad! looking forward to your next post!