Israel already has an estimated 40 nuclear weapons. And is content to sit on them because the nearby Arab nations know what will happen if they ever get close to wiping Israel off the map.

You'll notice that the Arab nations haven't launched a campaign against Israel since leaks about its nuclear program.

Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU

Israel already has an estimated 40 nuclear weapons. And is content to sit on them because the nearby Arab nations know what will happen if they ever get close to wiping Israel off the map.

You'll notice that the Arab nations haven't launched a campaign against Israel since leaks about its nuclear program.

Indeed but my point is that it is somewhat hypocritical to be demanding nations not arm themselves to the teeth and that they follow international agreements "or else" while nothing is said about an allied nation carrying out the same actions and breaking the same agreements.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Indeed but my point is that it is somewhat hypocritical to be demanding nations not arm themselves to the teeth and that they follow international agreements "or else" while nothing is said about an allied nation carrying out the same actions and breaking the same agreements.

But it would be much more hypocritical if Israel a recent history that was as aggressive as North Korea's or Syria's. Plus, if I recall correctly, Israel is a democracy where as North Korea and Syria are dictatorships. IMO established democracies are much more stable and less likely to do something radical because the politicians are held accountable for their actions.

Originally Posted by Damien435

But it would be much more hypocritical if Israel a recent history that was as aggressive as North Korea's or Syria's. Plus, if I recall correctly, Israel is a democracy where as North Korea and Syria are dictatorships. IMO established democracies are much more stable and less likely to do something radical because the politicians are held accountable for their actions.

Not really, one of the problems the west seems to have is this theory that everyone wants to be "like us" we have a major problem understanding how different others can be.

Essentially if you are going to be "open minded" about things you have to accept that as long as one nation maintains an armament plan then all nations have the right to the same (regardless of political orientation) in order to defend themselves and it is nothing short of hypocritical to accuse a nation of being a danger to the world because it spends 70 billion on its military while you spend 400 billion maintaining a growing military and WMD program.

We may not like other nations politics or religion but you have to respect their right to equality with other nations in all area's.

No matter how you look at it Nuclear weapons are more defensive weapons than offensive weapons. Mostly they are used to prevent a war instead of being used halfway through the war, that or to prevent senseless deaths in a war.

Darcia, you are on the money again - not bad for age 15

The ONLY use of a nuclear device (or devices, since there were 2) as a weapon of war was to stop a war.

The purpose for their use was to save the lives of countless thousands of US and Japanese military members, as well as the Japanese civilian population.

The Battle of Stalingrad - which has been noted on this board as the bloodiest of the 20th century - would have paled in comparison to the Battle for Japan.

Fortunately, we never had to fight that battle.

Since that time, possession of nuclear armaments has been - primarily - for the purpose of defense: to prevent an enemy from launching an attack by pursuading that enemy that the response to such attack would be far to costly.

Remember MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)?

But when renegate states which have a history of not respecting the rule of law begin to lust for and develop nuclear weapons for different reasons, the world must take notice, and act to prevent their spread.

India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons for the same reason the US and Russia had them - to prevent all-out attack by one side against the other.

Israel has nuclear weapons because their ability to destroy Mecca with a single strike is the best defense they have against another all-out Arab attack.

But a third-world country with first-world weapons? The only reasons for that are a - to influence others under threat of attack; b - to attack to right some percieved historic wrong; or c - to attack to eliminate a rival nation, sect, or population.

None of these reasons is valid and permissible in the civilized world.

Originally Posted by jackehammond

BTW> When is China going to pay the US for the design information on the J-10 strike fighter. Yes, I know the information came from Israelis canceled Lavi program, but the US funded 90% of that program. Fair is fair. javascript:emoticon('')
Very Happy

and when is the US going to pay China for the design information on gunpowder, which was invented by the Chinese?

Originally Posted by queens_ranger

and when is the US going to pay China for the design information on gunpowder, which was invented by the Chinese?

The US will pay the regime which actually did the discovering... if they can find the true decendants.. right after they pay slavery reparations...

Originally Posted by MI Blues

The US will pay the regime which actually did the discovering... if they can find the true decendants.. right after they pay slavery reparations...

one would imagine that the decendants of ancient chinese are modern chinese..and you can bet China will pay the US for design info on the J-10 right after all that's done

Sadly the Chinese failed to properly file a patent application for gunpowder and forfeited any monetary gains.

Some say this was actually a brilliant move to avoid possible litigation from those harmed by gunpowder.

Edit: This is sarcasm.