Israeli Nuclear policy....?

What should Israels nuclear policy be:

  • A) Admit having Nukes, refuse to disarm them, and threaten arab nations that any WMD attack on Israe

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • B) Keep the current policy, admit nothing, denie nothing.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • C)Admit having nukes, agree to disarm them.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
S

SHERMAN

Active member
OK...So according to foreighn sources Israel has a growing arsenal of neuclear weapons.
These include by all foreighn sources:
-At least 100 nuclear warheads.
-A few dosen Jericho Medium Range Ballistic missiles.
-A few dosen Lans Short Range Missiles.
By some forieghn sources:
-3 Submarines armed with nuclear Medium Range Cruise Missiles
By very few sorces:
-Nuclear mines burried in the Golan Heights.

Israel keeps a low profile and the offficial line is "no comment". Israel dose not confirm or denie these reports. Now, my poll question takes for granted that Israel DOSE have nuclear weapons. This is not due to any real knowledge I have, but I see it as obvious.

The qustion is 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.

B) Keep the current policy, admit nothing, denie nothing.

C)Admit having nukes, agree to disarm them.
 
sure..go ahead and disarm the nukes.

One thing about Israel...they do employ a different way of describing their nuclear status. And really not lie about it either.

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.

So...when that Israeli governmental representative is asked point blank..do you have any nuclear weapons on your soil...it is answered truthfully no.

Continuing the current policy is the safest way for them to go...but if you just got to do something Disarm the nukes, and employ the EMP and anti-power station bombs instead.

Either of these groups will take a country back to the stone age... :D
 
now no-one needs THAT amount of nuclear arsenal. today's world TERRIFIES me and my family. i'm scared :cen: that the whole world will nuke itself and we will all die. sweet dreams all! :lol: but seriously, today's nuclear threat is quite terrifying. methinks i'll go and live in a zone (ie the wilderness of Canada) where the threat of nuclear weapons being used is relatively slim.
 
as ainstajn said"WWIII will be fought with nuclear wapons,and WWIV fill be fought with sticks".Does that tels you anything at all :?
 
is there actually 500000000 arabs at all,and any way if we can make "peace" with Albanians so can you with the arabs :?
 
Well, maybe not all of these hostiles are arabs, some are parsian or african. Anyways, UNTILL we have peace.... :?
 
Well we all know that peace aint coming anytime soon... so if u do have i say keep them, but dont use em until u have too. Which we all hope it doesnt come to that.
 
I guess the best way to use nukes is to treathen people with them. Detonating them is hardly ever a good idea. Still, I voted B, because now Israel isn't under a lot of outside pressure to disarm them.
 
Yes...prettey much when you use a nyke, it means it failed it spurpose....But with Iran going forward to preduce nukes, and Syrians having dosens of SCUDS and Chimical warheads, Israel needs a retaliatory option...I voted B 2....
 
Hmmm...tough question.

Personally I am not in favor of nuclear weapons. As Dr. Oppenheimer put it on 16 JUL 45 when the very first nuclear weapon was exploded. "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." No good can come from the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world, and it is only a matter of time before such a weapon is used again...probably by a terrorist group. And it doesn't really matter WHERE you think might be a safe place to hide; sooner or later the use of such a weapon will impact you, even if indirectly.

The problem with total disarmament, however, is that there is no guarantee that your neighbor is going to do so as well...and if said neighbor possesses ideological (such as those possessed by the vast majority of Israel's neighbors), then you do not have, as Marksman said, "some percentage of 2 milions people being safer". You are instead condemning an entire people to death.

So I suppose that Israel's current policy is probably the safest, relatively speaking. They don't deny that they have nuclear weapons, but they don't flaunt them either. That actually takes a lot of guts...and it's the ultimate bluff: Yes, you can attack us, but you have to ask yourself just how much are we capable and willing of retaliating.
 
As you guys might already know ( my opinion being here the closest to Conley's ) I believe the good guys should keep nuclear armaments. The present policy is good- and gosh you learn so much from Mark Conley here: didn't know anything about it.
The point is whether you divide the world into good guys and bad guys: I know Sweden's not used to do so, it's always been neutral ( almost always ). But hey I am not.
Sherman poses just doubts: when your country has been repeatedly ( and cowardly ) attacked by several neighboring countries, and all around you are millions of people who genuinely hate you and pray for your country's destruction every day, and are taught in school accordingly, and don't even name your country, and think your race is a lower race and ' there won't be peace on earth as long as the last jewish kid won't be killed ' ( I know a couple of Arabs myself, they say so ), and those people are all around your borders, and your country's tiny and little populated- SO NOW YOU GUYS MEAN ISRAEL SHOULD NOT KEEP AT LEAST A NUCLEAR PREPONDERANCE ?? (which it wouldn't have without the US backing it of course ).
Some of you guys talk as if you dont have kids, dont have family to protect. You'd change your mind in that case.
Again, I might have a knife when surrounded by criminals- would you reasonably deprive me of that? Unless you dont believe the Arabs hating Israel and the terrorists to be the bad guys.
 
As you guys might already know ( my opinion being here the closest to Conley's ) I believe the good guys should keep nuclear armaments. The present policy is good- and gosh you learn so much from Mark Conley here: didn't know anything about it.
Click to expand...
That is such a childish excuse Anto,how will you know that the good guys will be good guys???or that they are good guys at all??My opinion is if you mind me something you come down here and say it in my face,you dont send the nuke to wipe me out and a 2 milion people with me!! :?
 
Marksman said:
As you guys might already know ( my opinion being here the closest to Conley's ) I believe the good guys should keep nuclear armaments. The present policy is good- and gosh you learn so much from Mark Conley here: didn't know anything about it.
Click to expand...
That is such a childish excuse Anto,how will you know that the good guys will be good guys???or that they are good guys at all??My opinion is if you mind me something you come down here and say it in my face,you dont send the nuke to wipe me out and a 2 milion people with me!! :?
Click to expand...

First, you repeatedly asserted the Albanians are a bunch of thugs, so watch your language and dont tell me that I come up with childish excuses.
Second, yes dude, YOU have to distinguish between the bad guys and the good guys: how can you live other than that way? You have friends and you have enemies.
Osama, Saddam, Hamas etc are the bad guys. Democracies are the good ones. I protect my family and friends.
As far as the Palestinians, they as a people are neither good or bad by themselves: they will be good guys in my view when they stop criminalizing Israel and being so racist. When they definitely help themselves out of being manipulated by extremists, It'll be no problem calling them the good guys too. Until then, dont deny the right of the attacked to be able to deter such attack with the main weapon, at least as long as you are safe in your home and not exposed to some Hamas thughs blowing up the bus your kid takes everyday .
 
First, you repeatedly asserted the Albanians are a bunch of thugs, so watch your language and dont tell me I come up with childish excuse.
Click to expand...
Oh c'mon you know fair well what is going around there,anyway it is not related to the topic,but why do people find the answer in WMD's??
And 'bout good guys,bad guys im just asking how can you know who is a good guy???Thats all.......dont crusifie me or anything now
 
Marksman said:
And 'bout good guys,bad guys im just asking how can you know who is a good guy???
Seven killed in attack in Israel


The hall was full of guests at a Bat Mitzvah

Seven people have been killed and more than 30 injured after a man attacked a reception hall in the northern Israeli town of Hadera.
Initial Israeli reports said that a man entered the Armon David banquet hall and opened fire on hundreds of guests attending a teenage girl's Bat Mitzvah celebrations.

Israeli army radio said the attacker was a Palestinian suicide bomber who tried to detonate explosives attached to his body at the entrance to the hall, but was overtaken by security guards.



The attacker then threw a hand grenade into the crowd, the radio reported.

The attacker was later shot dead by Israeli police.

Israel's government immediately blamed the attack on the Palestinian Authority and said its leader Yasser Arafat had "chosen the path of terrorism".

Israeli government spokesman Avi Pazner said: "We hold the Palestinian Authority and (Palestinian President Yasser) Arafat directly responsible for the deaths of those who died today in this horrible terrorist attack".

"We are going to respond in a manner which will teach the Palestinian Authority a lesson they will not forget," he said.

The United States condemned the killing as a "horrific act of terrorism" and told Mr Arafat to act against militants.

"Chairman Arafat must take immediate action against those responsible for these acts and confront the infrastructure that perpetuates terror and violence," deputy State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said.



Forensic scientists collected evidence after the attack

An emergency services official said that dozens of people have been injured in the attack, some of them seriously.

The attacker was apparently gunned down by police from a nearby police station. It is not yet known whether he was acting alone.

The attack comes after a number of militant Palestinian groups announced they are no longer obeying a ceasefire ordered by Mr Arafat last month.

The militant Palestinian group the al-Aqsa Brigade, an armed group associated with Mr Arafat's Fatah organisation, said the attack was carried out by Fatah member Abed al Salem Tsadek Hasson, from the West Bank town of Nablus.

The Al Aqsa Brigades said the attack was in revenge for the killing of Fatah member Raed Karmi on Monday.

Raed Karmi died when a device exploded outside his home in the Palestinian-ruled town of Tulkarm, a killing which prompted Al-Aqsa to say it was calling off its ceasefire.

Thursday night's attack was close to a bus stop where four Israeli women were shot dead by two Palestinian police officers on 28 October, 2001.
WATCH/LISTEN

ON THIS STORY

The BBC's James Reynolds reports from Jerusalem
"Just as guests were leaving the hall, the attack began"


Israeli government spokesman Arie Mekel
"We are determined to protect our citizens"

Or: http://www.pmw.org.il/

Ask me for more examples about who's what.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top