Boy who cried wolf.

[Jim Bowen]

Why does this kind of advice seem all too familiar to me...? Where have I heard it before...?

Ah, yes, Churchill's The Gathering Storm, where he recounts Britain's 1930's twisting of France's arm. IIRC, Stanley Baldwin and Ramsey MacDonald pressured the French to cut their weapons spending in the 1930's, in the starry-eyed belief that Hitler would see that France was not a military threat to Germany, and would stop his arms buildup.

As I recall, things didn't work out so well. The flaw in Baldwin's and MacDonald's reasoning was that they were counting on Hitler's good faith.So you're suggesting that someone should pressure Israel to cut their weapons spending today, in the starry-eyed belief that the mullahs would see that Israel is not a military threat to Iran, and would stop their nuclear weapons program.
I guess you're counting on the mullahs' good faith.

I wasn't aware that the position of 1930's France and modern Israel was that similar. I'm still very unconvinced.

Jim Bowen

 

[BPSCG]

I wasn't aware that the position of 1930's France and modern Israel was that similar. I'm still very unconvinced.

You're right - they aren't similar - because Israel learned something from France's costly lesson.

France reduced its armaments in the 1930's in the mistaken hope that Hitler would do the same. The result was occupied France.

The lesson Israel learned from France's experience: "If you have dangerous, hostile neighbors who have pledged your overthrow, it's probably a good idea to take them at their word and keep your defenses strong."

The lesson you seem to think Israel should have learned from France's experience: "Well, it didn't work so well for France with the Nazis, but maybe it'll work better for us with the mullahs."

 

[Jim Bowen]

The cases are not comparable. Israel is not in the same position as France. The idea of the Germans defeating the French was credible, but the idea of the Arab nations driving the Israelis into the sea is not.

Jim Bowen

 

[BPSCG]

The cases are not comparable. Israel is not in the same position as France. The idea of the Germans defeating the French was credible, but the idea of the Arab nations driving the Israelis into the sea is not.

I started to write that you get it half right, but after about three seconds' reflection, I realized you didn't even do that.

In fact the cases are exactly comparable - or would be, if Israel followed your advice.

The idea of the Germans defeating the French was credible

It was not credible in 1932. Germany's armed forces were tiny, while France's were much larger. But after seven years of French disarming and German rearming, the idea of Germany defeating the French became all too credible.

the idea of the Arab nations driving the Israelis into the sea is not.

That's the only part you got right. But you propose that Israel reduce its military strength, just the way France did in the 1930's, in the naive expectation that its neighbors will see the light and behave likewise. Other than Egypt, has a single one of Israel's Muslim neighbors acknowledged its right to exist in peace? If not, then why should Israel expect that a reduction in their own military strength will result in similar behavior by its neighbors?

 

[a_unique_person]

I started to write that you get it half right, but after about three seconds' reflection, I realized you didn't even do that.

In fact the cases are exactly comparable - or would be, if Israel followed your advice.

It was not credible in 1932. Germany's armed forces were tiny, while France's were much larger. But after seven years of French disarming and German rearming, the idea of Germany defeating the French became all too credible.

That's the only part you got right. But you propose that Israel reduce its military strength, just the way France did in the 1930's, in the naive expectation that its neighbors will see the light and behave likewise. Other than Egypt, has a single one of Israel's Muslim neighbors acknowledged its right to exist in peace? If not, then why should Israel expect that a reduction in their own military strength will result in similar behavior by its neighbors?

France did not disarm, France had weapons that were equal or even superior to German ones. What Germany had was superior tactics for their use.

 

[epepke]

I am all in favour of halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. My only problem now is, can I trust this information? The recent record is not too good.

It's a difficult problem, and it goes way beyond the question of whether invading Iraq was a good idea or not. I think a lot of credibility was burned in that action. Of course, though, the fundamental accuracy is unknown. But then again, consider the outcome. I don't think that an invasion is in the offing, and if it come to pass, we can talk about that then. At the present time, a false negative is more threatening than a false positive.

 

[Jim Bowen]

My advice was that Iran did not develop nuclear weapons and Israel renounced their. For your comparison to work France would have to have been in a similar position. They were not. The Germans secured a technical advantage over them in someways, although this was temporary (see the Hossbach memorandum for details, etc). Do you claim the same for the Arabs?

The Germans had defeated the French before on a number of occasions and had shown themselves to be dangerous foes. As A_U_P says, it was in the use of the weapons that the difference lay. In 1940 both sides were very similar in numbers.

Even if Israel reduced its expenditure on arms by a considerable amount it is highly unlikely that they would be destroyed.

Jim Bowen

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
My advice was that Iran did not develop nuclear weapons and Israel renounced their.

Why would you link Iran's nuclear program to Israels when Israel has never threatened Iran?

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
Jim Bowen

Denny Crane

 

[a_unique_person]

Why would you link Iran's nuclear program to Israels when Israel has never threatened Iran?



Denny Crane

You don't have to threaten with Nukes to intimidate.

 

[Mycroft]

You don't have to threaten with Nukes to intimidate.

If threatening isn't required, then why single out Israel over any of the other nuclear powers in the world? You might just as well say China or France instead.

 

[BPSCG]

The Germans had defeated the French before on a number of occasions and had shown themselves to be dangerous foes.

Germany was not a "dangerous foe" in 1932. Their "army", such as it was at the time, was little more than a poorly-equipped militia. Even Hitler admitted that reoccupying the Rhineland in 1936 was a major gamble, that if the French had opposed him militarily, it would have been a disaster for Germany and he would have been out on his ear.

By 1939, however, Germany had completely rebuilt.

As A_U_P says, it was in the use of the weapons that the difference lay. In 1940 both sides were very similar in numbers.

Oh my, you're trying to make a historical case and you're citing a_u_p as your expert witness?



Here, let me help you out. From a graph called "Comparative Output of First Line Aircraft":

• 1933
  France 1,500
  Germany (not available)
• 1934
  France 1,400
  Germany 950
• 1935
  France 1,300
  Germany 1,800
• 1936
  France 800
  Germany 2,500
• 1937
  France 1,000
  Germany 2,600
• 1938
  France 1,250
  Germany 3,400
• 1939
  France 1,500
  Germany 4,600

From Churchill's The Gathering Storm, Appendix E, book I.

Even if Israel reduced its expenditure on arms by a considerable amount it is highly unlikely that they would be destroyed.

It's good to hear you're so confident. And France was in no danger of being overrun by Germany in 1932.

But if Israel cut back their military in the naive expectation that its enemies will do likewise, they will certainly be destroyed if the same pattern that occurred in the 1930's repeats itself.

Somehow, the idea of Israel having nuclear weapons and missiles and Iran having neither worries me a lot less than the reverse situation.

 

[Jim Bowen]

The thought of any country having nukes worries me, but I can see why Iran would want them if Israel has them.

The Versailles settlement had not destroyed Germany's ability to rebuild her forces. Germany was in a position to rearm and with the latest weapons. The Arabs are not. The French also put their faith in the Maginot line and international diplomacy. They were aware that if it came to a fight they would not be fighting alone. Hence they did not need to spend a disproportionate amount of their money on arms. Do you think that America would sit back and let the Arab nations destroy Israel if it actually came to that?

Jim Bowen

 

[a_unique_person]

Germany was not a "dangerous foe" in 1932. Their "army", such as it was at the time, was little more than a poorly-equipped militia. Even Hitler admitted that reoccupying the Rhineland in 1936 was a major gamble, that if the French had opposed him militarily, it would have been a disaster for Germany and he would have been out on his ear.

By 1939, however, Germany had completely rebuilt.
Oh my, you're trying to make a historical case and you're citing a_u_p as your expert witness?

Hitler never completely rebuilt, nor could he, which was a large part of the reason he lost the war. No matter how many weapons he produced, it was never as much as he needed. At the end of the war, Germany still used horse drawn transport.

Here, let me help you out. From a graph called "Comparative Output of First Line Aircraft":

• 1933
  France 1,500
  Germany (not available)
• 1934
  France 1,400
  Germany 950
• 1935
  France 1,300
  Germany 1,800
• 1936
  France 800
  Germany 2,500
• 1937
  France 1,000
  Germany 2,600
• 1938
  France 1,250
  Germany 3,400
• 1939
  France 1,500
  Germany 4,600

From Churchill's The Gathering Storm, Appendix E, book I.
It's good to hear you're so confident. And France was in no danger of being overrun by Germany in 1932.

But if Israel cut back their military in the naive expectation that its enemies will do likewise, they will certainly be destroyed if the same pattern that occurred in the 1930's repeats itself.

Somehow, the idea of Israel having nuclear weapons and missiles and Iran having neither worries me a lot less than the reverse situation.

France still had a considerable number of aircraft, it was allied with great britain, which gave it access to many more if needed, it had tanks which were comparable to or better than the German tanks, as did Great Britain. To just quote the figures for France, and only for aircraft, is to ignore the alliance which was part of the strategy to beat germany. Maybe you should be a little more honest in your debating. You have used such tactics before.

The thinking of the French and British was their major problem. The modern tactics of the Germans completely undid the other areas of the military which were more comparable.

What undid the combined armed forces was the speed with which Germany broke through, it surprised the Germans most of all.

The fall back positions which should have saved France could never be implemented because there was never time to. One of the main reasons the British were able to escape at Dunkirk was that Hitler was terrified to press the attack when his army was overstretched to such a large degree. His tanks, (the majority of which were the very primitive Panzer I and II's), which led the attack, were now all but useless, as most had broken down, been destroyed or were out of fuel by then.

However, the Germans had split the British from the French, their main objective. The whole basis of the French and English defence, their alliance, had been broken.

Here, let me (be a patronising little prat and) help you out.

Although the Low Countries realized that Nazi Germany would include them in any pattern of conquest against the West, they continued to hope that a policy of abject neutrality would forestall the inevitable. Although some effort was made to extend the Maginot Line fortifications to the coast, it produced little more than a shallow antitank ditch and a few widely spaced blockhouses. The Allies actually were superior numerically to the Germans. The French, Dutch, Belgians, and British together had approximately 4,000,000 men available, in contrast to about 2,000,000 Germans who might be used against them. As of May 1940, 136 German divisions were in the west, as opposed to 94 French divisions in northeastern and northern France, plus 10 British, 22 Belgian, and 9 Dutch divisions. In tanks, too, the opposing forces were relatively equal. The Germans had 2,439 tanks in the west; the Allies, 2,689. Nor were German tanks vastly superior except in speed. Created as infantry support weapons, French tanks were heavily armed and armored but lacked appreciable speed and cruising range. In aircraft the Germans enjoyed some advantage in over-all numbers, with about 3,200 planes to 1,200 French and 600 British planes, but in fighter aircraft alone the two forces were approximately equal. Only in antiaircraft and antitank weapons were the French markedly inferior. The difference in opposing forces thus was less a question of numbers and quality than of a variance in approach to modern warfare.

http://mil.citrus.cc.ca.us/cat2courses/HIST222/Briefings/fracturingworldorder.htm

 

[Jim Bowen]

One of the problems that the Germans faced was that their forces were well armed in breadth but not in depth. They had some weapons of extremely high quality, but not enough to equip their entire army. This contributed to their tactics, in that they relied on thrusts by the best equipped part of their army, which was then (eventually) supported by the divisions that were not that well equipped.

Jim Bowen

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
The thought of any country having nukes worries me, but I can see why Iran would want them if Israel has them.

Exactly why is that?

Other than the existance of Israel, what issues are there between Israel and Iran?

 

[zenith-nadir]

Other than the existance of Israel, what issues are there between Israel and Iran?

None whatsoever. The "Zionist regime" as Iran calls it, is no threat geographically, politically or militarily to Iran. But Iran's leaders are definitely a threat to Israel. (See: Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas)

Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism - Department of State

Despite the victory for moderates in Iran's Majles elections in February, aggressive countermeasures by hardline conservatives have blocked most reform efforts. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. Its Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) continued to be involved in the planning and the execution of terrorist acts and continued to support a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals.

Iran's involvement in terrorist-related activities remained focused on support for groups opposed to Israel and peace between Israel and its neighbors. Statements by Iran's leaders demonstrated Iran's unrelenting hostility to Israel. Supreme Leader Khamenei continued to refer to Israel as a "cancerous tumor" that must be removed; President Khatami, labeling Israel an "illegal entity," called for sanctions against Israel during the intifadah; and Expediency Council Secretary Rezai said, "Iran will continue its campaign against Zionism until Israel is completely eradicated." Iran has long provided Lebanese Hizballah and the Palestinian rejectionist groups--notably HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jibril's PFLP-GC--with varying amounts of funding, safehaven, training, and weapons. This activity continued at its already high levels following the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May and during the intifadah in the fall. Iran continued to encourage Hizballah and the Palestinian groups to coordinate their planning and to escalate their activities against Israel. Iran also provided a lower level of support--including funding, training, and logistics assistance--to extremist groups in the Gulf, Africa, Turkey, and Central Asia.

 

[Mycroft]

None whatsoever...

I know, but I'd like to see Jim Bowen's answer. He seems to think it’s "natural" for Iran to want the bomb because Israel has it, even though they don’t share any borders, have never been in any direct conflict, and the only animosity between the two countries comes from Iran. Heck, Israel even volunteered aid to Iran during their recent earthquake crisis.

In short, there is no rational reason to think Iran wanting nukes has anything to do with defense from Israel.

 

[BPSCG]

The thought of any country having nukes worries me, but I can see why Iran would want them if Israel has them.

You can? Okay, explain to me why, since I can't.

The Versailles settlement had not destroyed Germany's ability to rebuild her forces.

Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles:

• Germany's army was to be reduced to 100,000 men and no tanks were allowed;
• Germany's navy was only allowed 6 ships and no submarines;
• Germany was not allowed an air force;
• The Rhineland was to be kept free of German military personnel and weapons.

So what happened? How was Germany able to rebuild?

Germany was in a position to rearm and with the latest weapons. The Arabs are not.

Irrelevant. What you proposed is that Israel renounce its nuclear weapons in the hope that the middle east Arab/Muslim countries will do the same. If Israel does that, and the Muslims then develops nuclear weapons anyway, they don't need "the latest weapons."

The French also put their faith in the Maginot line and international diplomacy. They were aware that if it came to a fight they would not be fighting alone. Hence they did not need to spend a disproportionate amount of their money on arms.

And you see how well that worked out for them, don't you?

Do you think that America would sit back and let the Arab nations destroy Israel if it actually came to that?

First off, I don't want the U.S. to have to get in the middle of a shooting war to save Israel. I much prefer they be able to protect themselves. Secondly, if there's one thing the Jews have learned over the last four thousand years, it's that they can depend on nobody to look out for their best interests; in fact, it's far smarter to bet that almost everyone will want to see them destroyed or will simply turn a blind eye while it happens.

And on that day some years hence, after Israel has adopted the Jim Bowen policy of ridding itself of its nuclear weapons, and Iran says "Surprise! Look at our brand-new nuclear-tipped missiles!" the world will issue stern warnings while Iran puts Tel Aviv in the crosshairs.

 

[Atlas]

I like reading debka.com. Sure it's a bit alarmist but it speculates on the intrigue and psychology of the players in the Middle East in a way that is fascinating to me.

Here is an essay referring slightly to Powell's recent statement and concluding with

A sample out of Iran’s bag of hide-and-seek tricks with the international nuclear watchdog was exposed in DEBKA-Net-Weekly 160 on June 4, 2004:

The most secret section of the latest report the International Atomic Energy Agency’s director Mohammed ElBaradai has drafted on Iran’s nuclear program is also the most embarrassing for the international nuclear watchdog. We reveal exclusively that when inspectors arrived in Iran in mid-May and asked to revisit installations they saw in February or April, they were astonished to find empty spaces. When they questioned their Iranian escorts, they were greeted with blank stares. “What installations?” the officials asked.

The inspectors pulled out photos from previous visits and showed the Iranian officials what had been there before. The Iranians dismissed them as having been shot in other places that looked the same - or grafted there by “hostile intelligence bodies.”

When the inspectors persevered and reported the existence of aerial photos showing the exact location of the missing facilities, the Iranians shrugged.

The amazing fact is that the Iranians had dismantled and swept away all the structures containing incriminating evidence of continuing uranium enrichment for weapons production so completely that there was no sign a building had ever stood there. The fresh flowerbeds were still in the same places as before but lawns had been extended to cover the sites, most probably with thick layers of earth. All the inspectors could do was to remove soil samples and take them away.

According to our sources, US officials involved in the Iranian nuclear issue have no doubt that the installations were not destroyed but removed to secret subterranean sites probably built under military bases scattered around the country and that the Iranians are industriously advancing their forbidden programs.

Five months later, we have discovered one of those clandestine destinations to be the Nour “nuclear suburb” of Tehran.

 

[Atlas]

Just a few thoughts on my previous post.

The story relates to a secret part of El Baradei's IAEA report. I don't know why it should be secret unless the IAEA is not allowed to reveal a country's nuclear installation locations. It must be embarrassing to El Baradei if he has been played by the Iranians.

There are probably several reasons the US doesn't want El Baradei reappointed as head of IAEA, but if El Baradei is not being forceful in his condemnation of Iran's activities he represents a danger to the global community.

When the El Baradei special "unrequired" report to the UN on al Qaaqaa was leaked to 60 Minutes and the NY Times I felt it was done so to influence the US electorate. A foreign "power", an arm of the UN, the IAEA in the person of El Baradei, wanted to embarrass the US for losing tons of explosives.

If the story in my previous post is true, and I don't disbelieve it (though I would like to see some corroborration), El Baradei and his team lost a whole nuclear installation. Only then did it seem to El Baradei that he needed to make a special report to the UN and the NY Times on how feckless, stupid, and incompetent the US had been at al Qaaqaa.