Why should Israel be allowed to have nuclear weapons?
- Thread starter MaGZ
- Start date
-
- Tags
- israel nuclear weapons
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Because they have them (presumably).
Cleon
King of the Pod People
To appease our Jewish overlords.
They shouldn't but then no-one should, indeed no one should be able to have any explosive device or weapon at all. Plus we all should be wrapped in bubble-wrap whenever we leave our homes....
Nah Rob's right - they've already got them so too late to do anything about it, like India and Pakistan.
Mind you - as an attempt at a serious discussion - the "world" did seem to convince SA to drop their weapons but that was a very complex issue which involved a lot more than just an objection to nuclear weapons.
Nah Rob's right - they've already got them so too late to do anything about it, like India and Pakistan.
Mind you - as an attempt at a serious discussion - the "world" did seem to convince SA to drop their weapons but that was a very complex issue which involved a lot more than just an objection to nuclear weapons.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Because Israel has already had nuclear weapons for several years and it would be quite difficult for to get rid of them now.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Good luck with that!
Lothian
should be banned
Why shoudn't they ?
bobdroege7
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,408
because they make good H2O-18
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
Why should the international community propose this solution for Isreal and not, for example, for Pakistan?
Lothian
should be banned
or America ?
Because most people don't hate jews enough to be willing to accept the inconvenience a lack of Israeli products would be.
Do you have any specific concerns regarding Israel's nuclear program, MaGZ?
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Well, as some people have suggested, if you are going to criticize non-super power nations for having Nuclear weapons, then you should also be prepared to give equal criticism to countries like Pakistan.
Now, while I do think the world would probably be better off without nuclear weapons, if any country WERE to posses them I'd prefer them to be owned by countries that are the least likely to use them. In order of preference, that means:
- Stable, functional secular democracies (of which Israel is one)
- Dictatorships which are stable and unlikely to get directly involved militarily with larger nations (China and the old U.S.S.R. fell in this category)
The least desirable situation would be for nuclear weapons to be owned by countries which are theocratic dictatorships, or countries with unstable governments.
And before people derail the thread and start talking about how "The only country to use Nukes was the democratic U.S.", the situation during WW2 was very different than it is now, with the U.S. involved in a war that was started by another country, of which continued military action could have even been more costly in terms of lives lost.
ETA: There is one other reason.... unlike countries like Iran, Israel did not sign the nuclear non-poliferation treaty.
Now, while I do think the world would probably be better off without nuclear weapons, if any country WERE to posses them I'd prefer them to be owned by countries that are the least likely to use them. In order of preference, that means:
- Stable, functional secular democracies (of which Israel is one)
- Dictatorships which are stable and unlikely to get directly involved militarily with larger nations (China and the old U.S.S.R. fell in this category)
The least desirable situation would be for nuclear weapons to be owned by countries which are theocratic dictatorships, or countries with unstable governments.
And before people derail the thread and start talking about how "The only country to use Nukes was the democratic U.S.", the situation during WW2 was very different than it is now, with the U.S. involved in a war that was started by another country, of which continued military action could have even been more costly in terms of lives lost.
ETA: There is one other reason.... unlike countries like Iran, Israel did not sign the nuclear non-poliferation treaty.
Last edited:
Lothian
should be banned
Ok, I will derail with America is not a democracy; it is a constitutional republic
.
Last edited:
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
I somewhat do not feel confortable at all at the thought that Iran could get nuclear weapons soon, but, you may agree, that the criteria that you have set are extremely debatable.
Why, for example, China should have nuclear weapons while Iran should not?
How do you define if a dictatorship is likely or not " to get directly involved militarily with larger nations "?
How can you dismiss, Mr. A. claim that big nations want to be alone to have nuclear weap, just in order to be able to bully smaller ones?
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
You're right, they are debatable. For better or worse, there is no black-and-white rules here.
China has been functioning as a dictatorship for a lot longer and appears to be stable. Iran's government is not totally stable (there are student dissidents who could overthrow the government in the same way that the Shaw was overthrown in '79), and much of the government revolves around a president who has talked about 'wiping Israel off the map'. I haven't heard of China making any such threats.
A couple ways to measure that...
- Has the country made verbal or other threats against other countries? (Iran calling the U.S. 'satan', or threatening to 'wipe Israel off the map'); Iran's support of various terrorist groups
- Does the country have a vested interest in avoiding military conflict? (For example, it would be against China's interest to attack the U.S. because its economy is tied to the U.S. so tightly. Iran, on the other hand, might actually benefit from attacking the U.S. or Israel since its economy would likely be unaffected significantly, and such actions would be politically popular in the middle east.)
Because big nations don't need nuclear weapons to bully smaller ones; they typically have more than enough conventional arms to do so. Also, a large nation would be unlikely to use nuclear weapons since it may be subject to retaliation by other nations.
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
Mmmm..
Chinese general sees U.S. as nuclear target
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/15/news/china.php
Oh, wait, I forgot!!
George W. did make some statement like this!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6836247/
Bush on Iran:
No option
‘off the table’
Philippines - 1948-54 - The CIA directed a civil war
against the Filipino Huk revolt.
Puerto Rico - 1950 - Military helped crush an
independence rebellion in Ponce.
Iran - 1953 - The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of
democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah
to power.
Vietnam - 1954 - The United States offered weapons to
the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the
Viet Minh.
Guatemala - 1954 - The CIA overthrew the
democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas
in power.
Lebanon - 1958 - Navy supported an Army occupation of
Lebanon during its civil war.
Panama - 1958 - Troops landed after Panamanians
demonstrations threatened the Canal Zone.
Vietnam - 1950s-75 - Vietnam War.
Laos - 1962 - Military occupied Laos during its civil
war against the Pathet Lao guerrillas.
Panama - 1964 - Troops sent in and Panamanians shot
while protesting the United States presence in the
Canal Zone.
Indonesia - 1965 - The CIA orchestrated a military
coup.
Dominican Rep- 1965-66 - Troops deployed during a
national election.
Guatemala - 1966-67 - Green Berets sent in.
Oman - 1970 - Marines landed to direct a possible
invasion into Iran.
Laos - 1971-75 - Americans carpet-bomb the countryside
during Laos' civil war.
Chile - 1973 - The CIA orchestrated a coup, killing
President Allende who had been popularly elected. The
CIA helped to establish a military regime under
General Pinochet.
Angola - 1976-92 - The CIA backed South African rebels
fighting against Marxist Angola.
Libya - 1981 - American fighters shoot down two Libyan
fighters.
El Salvador - 1981-92 - The CIA, troops, and advisers
aid in El Salvador's war against the FMLN.
Nicaragua - 1981-90 - The CIA and NSC directed the
Contra War against the Sandinistas.
Lebanon - 1982-84 - Marines occupied Beirut during
Lebanon's civil war; 241 were killed in the American
barracks and Reagan "redeployed" the troops to the
Mediterranean.
Honduras - 1983-89 - Troops sent in to build bases
near the Honduran border.
Iran - 1987-88 - The United States intervened on the
side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.
Philippines - 1989 - Air Force provided air cover for
government during coup.
Panama - 1989-90 - 27,000 Americans landed in
overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama
civilians were killed.
What??
What reason should have iran to attack the U.S.??
To gain popularity?
Is that the American Idol?
I do not find the above arguments very compelling..
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
so.... swords and bows?
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Ok... first of all, the article itself states that 'targeting' the U.S. was the opinion of ONE general, not general government policy.
Secondly, the article ALSO makes it clear that this one general's opinions involve the use of nuclear weapons in a fight over Taiwan (i.e. once conflicts are already in progress). This is a different situation than someone saying "we will unilaterally wipe country X off the map for no reason".
That the U.S. engages in activities promoting its 'hegemony' is not in dispute. Of course, many other countries do it... Russia (in Afghanistan), China (in Tibet), etc. also do it. Yet in each of those conflicts, nuclear weapons were not used, nor were they likely to...
- The larger country in question was able to accomplish its goals via conventional arms
- Using nukes would have brought condemnation from the world community and possible retaliation
Yes, in a way it is.
I really don't pretend to know what goes through the heads of the leaders of Iran, whether they are actually religious fanatics or whether they just play up that aspect to gain and/or remain in power.
If the leaders really are religious fanatics, they may view an attack on the U.S. (the 'great satan') as justified by their god. If they are just making statements like that to get power, then keep in mind that anti-American sentiment in the middle east is running high; if they strike at the 'great satan' then all those people with anti-American sentiment will cheer on Iran, giving them more influence.
Then tell me why none of the situations where a large nation has attacked (or somehow interfered) with a smaller nation resulted in nuclear conflict?