Israel runs away from nuclear summit

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100409/pl_nm/us_nuclear_summit_israel

They are scared they might actually be held accountable for their nuclear weapons.

How dare they demand Israel declare its nuclear status!!

Anti-Semites!!

[DC]

they fear someone would ask them to sign the NPT

[Doctor Evil]

Reading comprehension fail. Again!

[DC]

Reading comprehension fail. Again!

do you think its a good way Israel takes in this issue?

and do you belive Israel has Nukes?

[Doctor Evil]

do you think its a good way Israel takes in this issue?

What do you mean exactly? My point was that Israel will attend. It is just Netaniahu which will not.

[DC]

What do you mean exactly? My point was that Israel will attend. It is just Netaniahu which will not.

oh, well i got missinformed by radio then, they just said, Israel will not attend...

but ur right

Netanyahu, who plans to send a deputy and two senior advisers to the April 12-13 conference instead, canceled "after learning that some countries including Egypt and Turkey plan to say Israel must sign the NPT," an Israeli official said

[Thunder]

Israel has nukes..and should sign the NPT.

why should Israel be treated special? are they special or something?

should they be allowed to proliferate nuclear weapons?

oh...that's right...Chosen People....Holocaust guilt....

I forgot.

[cwalner]

Israel has nukes..and should sign the NPT.

why should Israel be treated special? are they special or something?

should they be allowed to proliferate nuclear weapons?

oh...that's right...Chosen People....Holocaust guilt....

I forgot.

Um, why should Israel sign the NPT? Is it in thier national interest? I honestly don't know much about why they would or would not. What are the arguments for/against Israel signing the treaty.

If signing the treaty is not in their national interest, then you are the one thinking that they are somehow special, in that they should be forced to sign a treaty contrary to thier national interest.

[Thunder]

Um, why should Israel sign the NPT? Is it in thier national interest? I honestly don't know much about why they would or would not. What are the arguments for/against Israel signing the treaty.


the purpose of the NPT is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world.

if Israel feels that more countries with nukes is a good thing, and is in their national interest...then yes..they should not sign it.

but then they should not complain when Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, also want nuclear technology and weapons.

Israel is NOT special...even though they insist in believing they are.

[ohms]

Israel is not the only country which hasn't signed the NPT so why single them out?

[Cosmic Roy]

Israel is not the only country which hasn't signed the NPT so why single them out?
The thread is about Netanyahu specifically, so I think it's fair to single out Israel in this case.

[Thunder]

Israel is not the only country which hasn't signed the NPT so why single them out?

uh....cause Israel said they would go to the meeting..and then cancelled 48 hours later. and cause Israel may be the only nation on Earth that has failed to declare their nuclear capability.

well..maybe Israel and Iran. what a charming duo they make.

[bigjelmapro]

Another failed thread of moral equivalence. Declaring one's nuclear capabilities runs against Israel's position of nuclear ambiguity, which is a deterrance within itself. Its kept a low-profile and hasn't threatened the use of nuclear weapons against any of its neighbors and no proliferation.

I do think that the Obama administration will change its stance towards Israel regarding its nuclear stance, as it recently has towards Israeli nuclear scientists:

US Refuses Visas to all Israeli Nuclear Scientists (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/us_refuses_visas_to_all_israel.html)

Ma'ariv reported today that the Israeli government was stunned when every nuclear technician at Israel's Dimona reactor who had submitted visa requests to visit the United States for ongoing university education in Physics, Chemistry and Nuclear Engineering had their visa applications summarily rejected, specifically because of their association with the Dimona reactor.

This is a new policy decision of the Obama administration. Up until now, it was routine for Israeli nuclear scientists and technicians to receive such visas and to study at US universities.[snip]eportedly the US has an unofficial embargo on selling anything to be used at the site.

Professor Zeev Alfasi, the head of Nuclear Engineering at Ben-Gurion University in the Negev stated that "the United States doesn't sell anything nuclear-related to the Dimona reactor, and that means absolutely nothing. Radiation detectors, for example have to be purchased now in France because the USA refuses to sell these to Israel."


No such restrictions on other country's nuclear scientists, including other ME countries.

But hey, not surprised parky by yet another misleading thread since its a convenient tactic used over and over again in avoiding to answer the other failed threads you've started and commented on. Whinge whinge.

[bigjelmapro]

The thread is about Netanyahu specifically, so I think it's fair to single out Israel in this case.
No it isn't about Netanyahu specifically, but Israel long-held postion of nuclear ambiguity. Israel is 1 of the 4 that are part of the nuclear capable countries in the world that haven't signed NPT for their specific reasons.

[Cosmic Roy]

No it isn't about Netanyahu specifically, but Israel long-held postion of nuclear ambiguity. Israel is 1 of the 4 that are part of the nuclear capable countries in the world that haven't signed NPT for their specific reasons.

Yes, but this thread is not about India or Pakistan or North Korea. Israel has been singled out because of Netanyahu's behaviour concerning the meeting. That's what the thread is about.

[Trakar]

No it isn't about Netanyahu specifically, but Israel long-held postion of nuclear ambiguity. Israel is 1 of the 4 that are part of the nuclear capable countries in the world that haven't signed NPT for their specific reasons.

India
Pakistan
N. Korea
Israel

India and Pakistan are in a border dispute nuclear stand-off wit each other and N. Korea developed and is using nuclear weapons to bargain with the US.
This is not an illustrious nor respectable group to plead special exemptions on behalf of.

[geni]

Another failed thread of moral equivalence. Declaring one's nuclear capabilities runs against Israel's position of nuclear ambiguity, which is a deterrance within itself.

There is no meaningful ambiguity in Isreal's position. We know they have them. We have a fairly good idea how they got them and how many they have. Exactly what they have is more debateable but that doesn't really help matters.



Its kept a low-profile and hasn't threatened the use of nuclear weapons against any of its neighbors

Not dirrectly in a public manner. But then neither have most nuclear powers.


and no proliferation.


Actualy we have no idea if there has been or not. There may have been some links with south africa back in the day but we never did work out what went on there.

[bigjelmapro]

Yes, but this thread is not about India or Pakistan or North Korea. Israel has been singled out because of Netanyahu's behaviour concerning the meeting. That's what the thread is about.
Never said it was about non-NPT countries, but about Israel in general. Nothing has changed regarding the stance of Israel. Netanyahu didn't attend, ie to represent Israel, because of fear that Israel's presence would be used as an excuse to deflect away from Iran's nuclear program.

So cease with the superficiality. Nothing's changed.

[bigjelmapro]

There is no meaningful ambiguity in Isreal's position. We know they have them. We have a fairly good idea how they got them and how many they have. Exactly what they have is more debateable but that doesn't really help matters.

'Fairly good idea' doesn't equate to ambiguity to a degree? Also to the number?

That's the point of the ambiguity and the low-profile of the program itself, to conceal capabilities.


Not dirrectly in a public manner. But then neither have most nuclear powers.

No parades no. No nuclear missile bases either, which most of the nuclear power with active nuclear weapons are known to have.


Actualy we have no idea if there has been or not. There may have been some links with south africa back in the day but we never did work out what went on there.
So guilt before innocence, that's how it works in your corner of the world?

The alleged tests in SA have never been confirmed where the brunt of the 'evidence' comes from an x-Soviet spy and half-baked satellite detection results. And those Soviets love Israel, eh?

Regarding the nuclear ambiguity:
Israel's 'Nuclear Ambiguity' Policy (http://reut-institute.org/en/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=3655)

After ongoing discussions with the US, Prime Minister Golda Meir and U.S. President Richard Nixon agreed in 1969 that the U.S. would de-facto acknowledge Israel's nuclear capabilities and not ask it to join the NPT as long as Israel maintained a low profile and did not reveal its capabilities via public statements or nuclear testing. So far, all American presidents have kept these implicit understandings.4

Israel's nuclear ambiguity policy is known to have influenced the actions of other countries in the region and became a central component in the country's deterrence, as part of its security strategy.5

In order to maintain this ambiguity, no legislation concerning the program has been ever passed. Moreover, no public legal document designed to assign responsibilities or define areas of jurisdiction and authority to bodies related to the program has been written, even by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).6


And regarding to the revision of the nuclear stance of Israel:

Reconsidering Israel's nuclear ambiguity (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1069131.html)

Israel's nuclear ambiguity has done little to deter "ordinary" conventional enemy aggressions or acts of terror. It has succeeded in keeping the country's enemies from mounting existential attacks. But certain changes in strategic doctrine could be necessary.

Oblivious to the call for meaningful sanctions by a plainly impotent "international community," Tehran continues to "go nuclear." Unless there is a prompt, comprehensive and sustained preemptive strike against Iran's developing nuclear assets and infrastructures, an act of "anticipatory self-defense" under international law, Israel will face an openly genocidal nuclear Iran. Still, the prospect of such legally permissible defensive strikes is now very low, and Israel will likely have to prepare to secure itself against a nuclear Iran with both ballistic missile defense (Arrow/Hetz) and improved nuclear deterrence.

Prime Minister-designate Netanyahu will understand that adequate deterrence of Iran could soon require some release of pertinent Israeli nuclear details. Concerning these details, less rather than more Israeli nuclear secrecy could be required. What will now need to be determined is the precise extent and subtlety with which Israel should communicate its nuclear positions, intentions and capabilities to Iran, and certain others.


I personally agree with a revision to Israel's policy, but a complete declaration, utterly useless and devoid of any meaning. Iran won't stop unless its attacked, and Iran will cause a nuclear arms race in the region regardless of Israel's nuclear capabilities declaration.

[bigjelmapro]

India
Pakistan
N. Korea
Israel

India and Pakistan are in a border dispute nuclear stand-off wit each other and N. Korea developed and is using nuclear weapons to bargain with the US.
This is not an illustrious nor respectable group to plead special exemptions on behalf of.
And Israel? What do you personally think Israel's reasoning is to have a nuclear program? Bit more to India's and N. Korea's nuclear stance than what you stated, although it does cover the brunt of its motivations.

Interesting article regarding India: Behind India's Bomb: The Politics and Strategy of Nuclear Deterrence (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57247/sumit-ganguly/behind-india-s-bomb-the-politics-and-strategy-of-nuclear-deterren)

[geni]

'Fairly good idea' doesn't equate to ambiguity to a degree? Also to the number?

If thats the case both britian and france have a nucelar ambiguity policy.


That's the point of the ambiguity and the low-profile of the program itself, to conceal capabilities.

Britian has created a fraudulent H-Bomb detonation.


No parades no. No nuclear missile bases either, which most of the nuclear power with active nuclear weapons are known to have.


Britian has no nuclear missile bases


So guilt before innocence, that's how it works in your corner of the world?


Ambiguity before innocence.

[WildCat]

Israel is not the only country which hasn't signed the NPT so why single them out?
Haven't you heard? There's lots of Jeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwssssss in Israel...

[theprestige]

This is not an illustrious nor respectable group to plead special exemptions on behalf of.
Protip: All the signatories to the NPT are ignoble douchebags as well.

Although if your argument is that Israel should be more like the US and less like India, I'm open to the possibility that the US is better than other nations in some respects.

[bigjelmapro]

If thats the case both britian and france have a nucelar ambiguity policy.

Could very well be since there's different levels of ambiguity, ie public knowledge of their capabilities. Yet both the UK and France had conducted tests and have more than a general idea (compared to Israel) of the number and the capabilities of their nuclear arsenal.


Britian has created a fraudulent H-Bomb detonation.

Relevance? Especially since the UK has actually conducted tests.


Britian has no nuclear missile bases

Nope, just at least one Trident equipped sub roaming the sea with 48 nuclear warheads :)

[Thunder]

Haven't you heard? There's lots of Jeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwssssss in Israel...

Uh oh...Wildcat has played the Jew Card!!

Everyone take a step back now, we don't wanna be called anti-Semites. This topic might get reported to the ADL internet Blitz squad.

[Trakar]

And Israel? What do you personally think Israel's reasoning is to have a nuclear program?

A good question. I have no idea why Israel wants or needs nuclear weapons, if anything they are generally a liability, militarily and politically, for them.
I can see how they might have seemed a necessary deterrent balancing conventional military inequities perceived in the '60s and '70s, but this ain't then, and their current conventional military capabilities make them more than equal to any combination of potential enemies and coalitions.

The last decade or two, Israeli nuclear capability seems to have been used more to intimidate regional and global political issues than as a purely defensive deterrent to annhilation. I certainly don't believe that Israel is a rogue nation, but within the larger international community of nations they are much more shifted to that end of the spectrum than most major nuclear powers, and in my opinion the situation has worsened over the last couple of decades rather than improved.

>Bit more to India's and N. Korea's nuclear stance than what you stated, although it does cover the brunt of its motivations.

Actually, there's a lot more to it, but without going back to look at the results of all the UK colonial empire mistakes and problems of the last century that have little to do with nuclear weapons, I'm not sure detailing them will help to clarify the issue with regards to India and Pakistan, and in the case of NK, it really doesn't get a whole lot more complicated than what I stated. If it helps, I don't consider any of these nations to have valid and reasonable reasons to be non-signatories to the NPT, or to be excluded from international law, treaties and standards, nor with regards to US policy toward nations in violation of these laws treaties and standards. Of course, we've got a lot of hypocrisy to get rid of if we are going to achieve any consistency with regards to this type of stance.


Interesting article regarding India: Behind India's Bomb: The Politics and Strategy of Nuclear Deterrence (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57247/sumit-ganguly/behind-india-s-bomb-the-politics-and-strategy-of-nuclear-deterren)

I'm not sure that this article adds much to the discussion, especially with regards to the Israeli weapons program, but would be interested in how you link the two.

[Thunder]

And Israel? What do you personally think Israel's reasoning is to have a nuclear program?

well, early on, Israel could legitimately argue that they needed nukes to protect their very survival.

but now, I have no doubt that Israel would use them in any war where they felt they might lose the Golan or even 50% of the West Bank.

nukes have gone from a weapon of survival..to a weapon of intimidation..for Israel.

for the most part, Israel can do whatever it wants, without fear is any serious consequences from its Muslim neighbors. they could deport 20,000 Palestinians to the Sinai Desert, and fear no strong military response from the Arabs.

nukes are a great weapon of intimidation for Israel. I hope Pakistan helps Egypt or Jordan get the bomb.

[Polaris]

nukes are a great weapon of intimidation for Israel. I hope Pakistan helps Egypt or Jordan get the bomb.


Your solution to prevent proliferation is....proliferation?

[Thunder]

Your solution to prevent proliferation is....proliferation?

i think the Middle East could profit from "mutually assured destruction".

[Giz]

The last decade or two, Israeli nuclear capability seems to have been used more to intimidate regional and global political issues than as a purely defensive deterrent to annhilation.

I'm curious, can you think of examples of Israel using its nuclear capability to "intimidate regional and global political issues" in the last decade or two? I can't remember anything...

[Giz]

i think the Middle East could profit from "mutually assured destruction".

And MAD works when people aren't religous fanatics.

An atheistic USSR could be disuaded from launching attacks that would be suicidal as they had no delusions of floating up to join Marx in the afterlife. Are we so sure that will hold true for the Middle East?

[theprestige]

If thats the case both britian and france have a nucelar ambiguity policy.
Well, yes. Only Britain and France don't seem to have their nuclear research scientists losing their US visas recently.

Britian has created a fraudulent H-Bomb detonation.
And yet Britain doesn't seem to be on Obama's nuclear diss-list at the moment.


Britian has no nuclear missile bases
Neither does Israel.

Ambiguity before innocence.
So after going to all this trouble to establish a moral equivalence between Israel, Britain, and France, do you care to explain why Israel is singled out for special abuse, when it is--according to you--no less innocent than these other two nations?

[Skeptic]

Your solution to prevent proliferation is....proliferation?

That's good proliferation. It puts the uppity Jews, who were intimidating their neighbors, back in their place.

Of course the theory is nonsense because if Israel has a bomb the theory was not intimidation -- Israel never "intimidated" anybody with its nukes, indeed it never recognized it has nukes -- but as a last-ditch insurance policy against the Arab plan to destroy it.

[Pardalis]

i think the Middle East could profit from "mutually assured destruction".

Are you sure you don't want to go back to Parky76?

It really doesn't make any difference, it's the same pile of crap.

[Skeptic]

i think the Middle East could profit from "mutually assured destruction".

I'm sure that if the situation were reversed -- if the Arab world had the bomb first, and Israel were trying to catch up and develop one too -- you'd be all enthusiastic about it and supportive of the Israeli nuclear project, to make sure "MAD" is possible.

[bigjelmapro]

A good question. I have no idea why Israel wants or needs nuclear weapons, if anything they are generally a liability, militarily and politically, for them.
I can see how they might have seemed a necessary deterrent balancing conventional military inequities perceived in the '60s and '70s, but this ain't then, and their current conventional military capabilities make them more than equal to any combination of potential enemies and coalitions.

So you're stating that all the regional countries don't have conventional military advantages over Israel? Its readily apparent that the combined forces of the regional powers will always have a conventional advantage over Israel and since there continue to exist hostile elements within these countries that hold sway over the populace, ie voting power, there will always be this threat. If the regional powers and their constituents do a complete 180, then I would see where this need for nuclear ambiguity and power overall would be declared pointless and an unneccesary liability.

Nuclear power always carries liabilities, whether in the UK, US, India, Pakistan or Israel (albeit more with Pakistan than any other country). As things stand currently, removing the nuclear power capabilities of Israel would prove to be less beneficial and more of a liability to Israel than actually having them.

Personally, I believe the UK has a significantly less justification for its nuclear program and to have a nuclear sub running around the sea with 48 nuclear warheads, than Israel to have an ambiguous stance when it comes to its nuclear weapons capability. And contrary to NPT standards, the UK is improving its nuclear weapons capabilties.


The last decade or two, Israeli nuclear capability seems to have been used more to intimidate regional and global political issues than as a purely defensive deterrent to annhilation. I certainly don't believe that Israel is a rogue nation, but within the larger international community of nations they are much more shifted to that end of the spectrum than most major nuclear powers, and in my opinion the situation has worsened over the last couple of decades rather than improved.

As Giz already asked, where does this intimidation lie? And what political issues are you referring to? Iran? I'm sure Iran is not complaining after the Osirak reactor was destroyed in 1980 (after Iran tried and failed months before) of their loving neighbor Iraq. But then again, this was more of an actual and immediate threat since it dealt with Saddam who has quite the extensive history of threatening its neighbors, actually using non-conventional weaponry against his neighbors and his own people, and financing and proliferation to terrorist groups.

This ties in with the above as well, since the need for a deterrance still exists even if proxy warfare is the centerpiece of countries like Iran and Syria more so than the threat of a (yet another) massive invasion by Israel's neighbors. Removing Israel's nuclear capabilities would do next to nothing in deterring Iran's and Syria's pursuit of nuclear power. Israel's position of nuclear ambiguity has not forced countries like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia to pursue a nuclear program either, since, and correct me if I'm wrong, these countries don't see Israel's nuclear power as a threat to their country's security for the last 40+ years. Iran and Syria, on the other hand, do, hence the aforementioned countries desire to develop their own nuclear programs. No coincidence there.


If it helps, I don't consider any of these nations to have valid and reasonable reasons to be non-signatories to the NPT, or to be excluded from international law, treaties and standards, nor with regards to US policy toward nations in violation of these laws treaties and standards. Of course, we've got a lot of hypocrisy to get rid of if we are going to achieve any consistency with regards to this type of stance.

Signatories of NPT hold little sway over non-NPT countries like India and Israel in terms of their arguments against non-NPT countries (except Pakistan to a degree) for not joining the NPT community. NPT countries have not abided or solved the same issues that were brought up when NPT was first put together in the 1970s, apart from decreasing the nuclear warheads stored from several thousand to a few thousand, and yes, ceasing with physical testing (which Israel doesn't do either), rather opting for virtual, supercomputer testing of its nuclear weapons and tweaking their physical weapons from these results. An additional issue with NPT signatories are presented with recently is the issue of security over their existing nuclear materials, which Israel doesn't have an issue with. US has several hundred nuclear weapons and storage facilities in EU countries as well.

US's arguments against non-NPT countries like Israel would thus seem to be a futile practice in hypocrisy which I would guess is one of the reasons why the US refuses to do so.


I'm not sure that this article adds much to the discussion, especially with regards to the Israeli weapons program, but would be interested in how you link the two.
Pretty straightforward. The threats presented in that article as perceived by India are the same threats that Israel sees as a justification for its nuclear program. Short of a public display of power by detonating nukes by Israel, the threat of Iran and Syria (to which Pakistan, China, and North Korea have been willing benefactors to, from providing nuclear warhead capable ballistic missiles, crude nuclear weapon designs, nuclear material refining/weaponizing technology, etc.) can be roughly equated to the threats China and Pakistan posed to India in the non-conventional sense.

Judging by the fact that India is almost 160 times larger than Israel, non-conventional threats, predominantly with irradiated (dirty) and biological bombs, would do significantly more damage to Israel compared to India. The nuclear deterrance of Israel against Iranian/Syrian funded/trained/financed proxy terrorist groups crossing the threshold from conventional to non-conventional is enough just cause in Israel keeping this deterrance and thus its position of nuclear ambiguity.

[Skeptic]

TShaitanaku and Bigjelmapro:

You obviously disagree, but the disagreement is about facts. So the discussion is for a change actually polite and to the point which each person presenting arguments.

Stop this at once or both of you will be banned! This is the Politics section!

[bigjelmapro]

Then reread Skeptic. I make the effort of reading through your diatribes that often don't fit in to many of the threads you post in. These are facts, respond to those, or just play the role of observer, as in don't post this pointless BS of yours.

[The Fool]

Its readily apparent that the combined forces of the regional powers will always have a conventional advantage over Israel

readily apparent to who? Every time fighting has broken out in the past Israel has kicked their arses. Why do you imagine it would change?

It often amazes me how the far right in Israel are such defeatists, always spreading the opinion that Israel would be wiped out.

[Trakar]

I'm curious, can you think of examples of Israel using its nuclear capability to "intimidate regional and global political issues" in the last decade or two? I can't remember anything...

Well, history and geopolitical influence aren't restricted to the last decade or two (which takes us all the way back to 1990!), nor to the limits of your personal memory or knowledge.

"Samson Option," by Seymor Hersh is one good reference on the issue.
U.S. Army Lt. Col. Warner D. Farr's "The Third Temple Holy of Holies; Israel's Nuclear Weapons" is a handy supplemental.

But we don't have to go to investigative journalists or military analysts and their compilations for evidences and supports of their interpretations, when many israeli leaders and diplomats have actually stated all on their own. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres has admitted that nuclear weapons are used by Israel for non-conventional compellance.

"acquiring a superior weapons system would mean the possibility of using it for compellent purposes - that is, forcing the other side to accept Israeli political demands" (http://books.google.com/books?id=3ManhNWW7AIC&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=%22acquiring+a+superior+weapons+system+would+me an+the+possibility+of+using+it+for+compellent+purp oses+%22&source=bl&ots=LGszHrw2ik&sig=IJrkhIL99g7UE93JFGYlY6ueDPk&hl=en&ei=pdfXS9TZOJSGswOev8SnBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22acquiring%20a%20superior%20weapons%20system%2 0would%20mean%20the%20possibility%20of%20using%20i t%20for%20compellent%20purposes%20%22&f=false)

[Trakar]

So you're stating that all the regional countries don't have conventional military advantages over Israel?

Yeah, and technically, Iraq had the US out-gunned and out-manned in both the gulf war and the Iraq invasion. Numerical superiority does not equate to military superiority. Israel is not just conventional forces militarily superior to the combined forces of its neighboring opponents it is regionally dominant.


Nuclear power always carries liabilities, whether in the UK, US, India, Pakistan or Israel (albeit more with Pakistan than any other country). As things stand currently, removing the nuclear power capabilities of Israel would prove to be less beneficial and more of a liability to Israel than actually having them.

How so?


Personally, I believe the UK has a significantly less justification for its nuclear program and to have a nuclear sub running around the sea with 48 nuclear warheads,

generally agreed

...than Israel to have an ambiguous stance when it comes to its nuclear weapons capability. And contrary to NPT standards, the UK is improving its nuclear weapons capabilties.

Perhaps, there is some confusion going on here about what the NPT is about with regards to declared nuclear weapons states. With a declared Nuclear Weapon's State, we are primarily dealing with Article1: "Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices."

Signing the NPT wouldn't necessarily mean that Israel couldn't possess any nuclear weapons (depending upon the terms under which it is welcomed into the treaty), merely that they would have to establish some transparency and broad/general international oversight into their nuclear weapons program, something that both the US and the USSR managed to do despite multiple decades of (not-always-so) Cold War.

[bigjelmapro]

Sorry about the delayed response, forgot about this thread :o
Yeah, and technically, Iraq had the US out-gunned and out-manned in both the gulf war and the Iraq invasion. Numerical superiority does not equate to military superiority. Israel is not just conventional forces militarily superior to the combined forces of its neighboring opponents it is regionally dominant.

Who said numerical superiority? That's a given. I was combining this with the technologically advanced weaponry that the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Qataris, Jordanians and Egyptians have bought over the past decade for both their naval forces and land forces from EU nations, Russia, US, and China, from the S-300's to the Saudis and the UAE, M1-A2's to Egypt, littoral and corvette ships to all of those mentioned, MANPADs galore, etc. that rival and at times surpass the current technology used by the Israelis.


How so?

How so what? Its pretty straightforward. Disarming won't do squat if Iran doesn't disarm, which is not hinged on Israel having a nuclear program but more Iran wanting to have leverage and significance in the ME.


Perhaps, there is some confusion going on here about what the NPT is about with regards to declared nuclear weapons states. With a declared Nuclear Weapon's State, we are primarily dealing with Article1: "Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices."

Primarily dealing with, but not only, which is why Israel is not part of it, not because of some paranoia that Israel might be proliferating nuclear weapons technology. Israel has only two major ports, in Haifa and Eilat, the prior of which is used more for military/naval purposes. Checking for any proliferation is quite easy, especially when the US, one of the nuclear watchdogs, using these ports quite frequently for a layover between EU and ME ports with its advanced loitering ships, notwithstanding that as of recently, the US has been operating a Doppler/x-type radar site in Israel proper. Article 1 would not be the issue why Israel is not joining NPT, apart from the fact that it wants to keep its nuclear ambiguity stance.


Signing the NPT wouldn't necessarily mean that Israel couldn't possess any nuclear weapons (depending upon the terms under which it is welcomed into the treaty), merely that they would have to establish some transparency and broad/general international oversight into their nuclear weapons program, something that both the US and the USSR managed to do despite multiple decades of (not-always-so) Cold War.
In relation to the previous, I doubt Israel is really concerned with whether NPT would require Israel to possess x-amount of nukes. I think the core issue would be, and this is nothing new:

IAEA presses nuke-free Mideast (http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=175323)

...
Even as diplomats huddle at the United Nations during the second week of a month-long conference, IAEA officials are focusing on Israel amid growing calls for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East.
...

But the same article does voice concerns of Israel, in what can be interpreted as forcing Israel to make unilateral concessions in regards to its nuclear program in hopes that Iran would do the same whilst the latter is already part of NPT.


"The IAEA cannot allow itself to be hijacked by those who seek Israel’s destruction,” US Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen wrote in a letter to the IAEA’s Amano.

“Rather than fixating on Israel, the IAEA should take immediate action to suspend all membership privileges for Iran. It must cease all technical assistance programs to Iran until the regime comes into full compliance with UNSC resolutions and its nonproliferation obligations.”

So overall, I doubt article 1 is really the most concerning article when talking about Israel, especially if the other NPT signatories cannot abide by the same articles and disarmament clauses...

[Thunder]

Israel's nuclear weapons are the only variable that has prevented the Arab states from trying to liberate the West Bank.

[MarkCorrigan]

Israel's nuclear weapons are the only variable that has prevented the Arab states from trying to liberate the West Bank.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Hahaha, hahahaha.

It's almost as if you're serious. Well done.

[bigjelmapro]

That is pretty sad Parky. You still don't understand the concepts behind conventional and non-conventional warfare....

[Thunder]

That is pretty sad Parky. You still don't understand the concepts behind conventional and non-conventional warfare....

um............sure I do.

[WildCat]

Yeah, and technically, Iraq had the US out-gunned and out-manned in both the gulf war and the Iraq invasion.
Outmanned, yes. Outgunned? No, not even close.

[bigjelmapro]

um............sure I do.
From the above statement (which I assume is thick sarcasm) and previous statements (ie Golan Heights thread), you don't.

[Thunder]

From the above statement (which I assume is thick sarcasm) and previous statements (ie Golan Heights thread), you don't.

No, I actually do know a great deal about the Middle East conflict.

thanks.

[bigjelmapro]

No, I actually do know a great deal about the Middle East conflict.

thanks.
Nope, you've failed in pretty much every attempt to understand basic concepts and historical events.

Respond to this, stick to the op of the thread, or move on:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5923670&postcount=42

[lionking]

Israel's nuclear weapons are the only variable that has prevented the Arab states from trying to liberate the West Bank.
"Liberate". Hilarious.

So this explains why Arab states have been so spectacularly successful in defeating Israel in situations when they haven't used nukes.




Oh, wait....


Sorry Thunder, another major fail. Israel doesn't need nukes to defeat Arab states. It's not a bad insurance policy though.

[MarkCorrigan]

No, I actually do know a great deal about the Middle East conflict.

thanks.

No, you don't.

You really really don't.

I'm not saying that Israel is such a wonderful state of flowers and bunnies and happiness that it can never do wrong. I criticise the place regularly, actually, but you seriously don't know what you're on about. Even TFT had a better grasp on the situation than you.

[Thunder]

"Liberate". Hilarious.


what is even more hilarrious is when Uber-Zionists claim that the West Bank was "liberated" from centuries of "Arab occupation", in 1967.

now that...is true comedy. real Borscht-Belt stuff.

[bigjelmapro]

Skim skim. Cue right-wing drivel. I'm curious as to who you really are talking to? I do see these imaginary people.

Respond to: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5923670&postcount=42

[Thunder]

Skim skim. Cue right-wing drivel. I'm curious as to who you really are talking to? I do see these imaginary people.

project much?

[bigjelmapro]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5923670&postcount=42

I'll just keep posting this since I'm waiting for the response on TShaitanaku, an actual debater rather than Parky the troll.

[Thunder]

(http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5923670&postcount=42) an actual debater rather than Parky the troll.

so mean to me.

[Zach Aviv]

Eventually we shall be the only nation with nuclear weapons.

[MarkCorrigan]

Eventually we shall be the only nation with nuclear weapons.

How come?

[lionking]

I assume because Israel will not be party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, as the nation still refuses to confirm it has nukes. As anyone here knows, I'm generally a supporter of Israel, but this sort of attitude hardly helps.

[Thunder]

as a not signatory of the NNPT, does Israel proliferate nuclear weapons technology?

[Zach Aviv]

How come?

We are engineering a situation for Goy country to dismantle their nuclear systems eventually. Obama is helping do this for us. He will be well fed in retirement.
In meantime we continue to use media to make Zion nuclear a non issue while all focus is put on Iran nuke.

[MarkCorrigan]

We are engineering a situation for Goy country to dismantle their nuclear systems eventually. Obama is helping do this for us. He will be well fed in retirement.
In meantime we continue to use media to make Zion nuclear a non issue while all focus is put on Iran nuke.

Hahaha. So YOU'RE one of those Jews who runs the world?

EDIT: Oh, and I love the idea that you can convince Pakistan and India to give up their nukes. I'd love to see that.

[Zach Aviv]

Hahaha. So YOU'RE one of those Jews who runs the world?


You must not fall for such nonsense anti-Semite story. No one run the world. That is myth we created to promote anti-Semites. Herzl said in diary that anti-Semites be our friends. He was right as they help us achieve our aim. This has now been proven.


EDIT: Oh, and I love the idea that you can convince Pakistan and India to give up their nukes. I'd love to see that.

We don't have to. Western Goy eventually will do that. We just pay them to do it. It will take time.

[INRM]

Zach Aviv,

You either are very comical or very disturbing. I'm not really sure which

[MarkCorrigan]

Zach Aviv,

You either are very comical or very disturbing. I'm not really sure which

Why can't Yor have both?





anyone who gets this will be awarded a cookie

[Zach Aviv]

No, I actually do know a great deal about the Middle East conflict.

thanks.

Do you think Israel will admit to owning nuclear weapon? Weapon it got from it's lapdog USA.

[Thunder]

are we gonna have to put together a collection to make this guy go away?

[Zach Aviv]

are we gonna have to put together a collection to make this guy go away?

Why do you limit your boundary of talk? Do you feel safer that way? I ask you question regarding Israel and its honesty in terms of nuclear weapon. Can you answer post?

[MarkCorrigan]

are we gonna have to put together a collection to make this guy go away?

First time in this thread I can get behind what you're saying. :)

[Trakar]

Outmanned, yes. Outgunned? No, not even close.

Actually, even the "outmanned" part is overblown, a few tens of thousands at the most and deployed along multiple borders, whereas the the coalition forces were concentrated so that they presented overwhelming superiority at the points of attack.

Outgunned referred only to specific weapons (ie., tanks, artillery, etc.,.), the fact that our individual weapons and the troops trained and skilled in their use were probably worth 10+ of their Iraqi equivilant isn't at issue, merely the physical hardware count. About the only battlefield weapon which we held clear advantage (physical as well as technological) in, was aircraft.

Of course, my point was that numerical superiority isn't the only, or even most important, consideration of importance in comparing the military strength and capacity of different nations.

[Zach Aviv]

Actually, even the "outmanned" part is overblown, a few tens of thousands at the most and deployed along multiple borders, whereas the the coalition forces were concentrated so that they presented overwhelming superiority at the points of attack.

Outgunned referred only to specific weapons (ie., tanks, artillery, etc.,.), the fact that our individual weapons and the troops trained and skilled in their use were probably worth 10+ of their Iraqi equivilant isn't at issue, merely the physical hardware count. About the only battlefield weapon which we held clear advantage (physical as well as technological) in, was aircraft.

Of course, my point was that numerical superiority isn't the only, or even most important, consideration of importance in comparing the military strength and capacity of different nations.

This is true. We Jews are spreading depleted uranium over the Muslims through our Christian Crusader 'useful idiots' ( American Military). Even more birth defects. Even more inferior. Iran's days are number.

[Trakar]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5923670&postcount=42

I'll just keep posting this since I'm waiting for the response on TShaitanaku, an actual debater rather than Parky the troll.

LOL, please don't get stuck waiting on me, I rarely get time to do the things I need to do yet alone the things I like to do (like discuss issues on internet boards). Now I've got to go back and see which response I left hanging!

Ahhh got it thanks to the big linking clue!

Let me see what I agree and disagree with now.

[Thunder]

cry me a river.

[theprestige]

I assume because Israel will not be party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, as the nation still refuses to confirm it has nukes. As anyone here knows, I'm generally a supporter of Israel, but this sort of attitude hardly helps.
Hardly helps Israeli national interest, or hardly helps what you wish were Israeli national interest?

[Zach Aviv]

Israel's nuclear weapons are the only variable that has prevented the Arab states from trying to liberate the West Bank.

That is wrong and naive statement. You do not understand method of Jews. We prevent Arab from attacking Israel by controlling Western Country like US and UK.

[Thunder]

I wonder if Zachary will respond to any thread that has nothing to do with Israel.

[E.J.Armstrong]

No it isn't about Netanyahu specifically, but Israel long-held postion of nuclear ambiguity. Israel is 1 of the 4 that are part of the nuclear capable countries in the world that haven't signed NPT for their specific reasons.

Hypocrisy being the main one apparently.

In so many areas the apartheid state of Israel declares itself not to be a part of the international community.

There is absolutely no ambiguity about Israel's nuclear status. It is the local nuclear superpower and has a nasty habit of killing or allowing the killing of huge numbers of civilians in massacres, such as Operation Cast White Phosphorus in Gaza and Sabra and Shatila and Deir Yassin.

Israel has a track record of assassinating untried people in circumstances that guarantee innocent women and children are killed and of abusing the passports of other states in the process.

Israel has a track record of contempt for international law in general.

Israel has a track record of ongoing collective and illegal punishment against complete groups of innocent men, women and children.

Israel has a track record of murdering people trying to protect Palestinians children.

Israel has issued threats against other states for not having nuclear weapons.

States such as the apartheid state of Israel clearly cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

[Pardalis]

States such as the apartheid state of Israel clearly cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

But surely you think North Korea can... :rolleyes:

[E.J.Armstrong]

Um, why should Israel sign the NPT? Is it in thier national interest? I honestly don't know much about why they would or would not. What are the arguments for/against Israel signing the treaty.

If signing the treaty is not in their national interest, then you are the one thinking that they are somehow special, in that they should be forced to sign a treaty contrary to thier national interest.

How is it contrary to their national interests?

[Darth Rotor]

States such as the apartheid state of Israel clearly cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Oddly enough, that appears to be something they can be trusted with, given they seem to have had them for over thirty years and haven't used them.

Yet.

DR

[bigjelmapro]

How is it contrary to their national interests?
He speakth!

As to the how, start here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5923670&postcount=42

[E.J.Armstrong]

But surely you think North Korea can... :rolleyes:

Evidence?

I notice that once again you post with no evidence. Tut Tut. At least you are consistent in your behaviour.


Where have I ever said that North Korea can be trusted with anything, never mind nuclear weapons.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Oddly enough, that appears to be something they can be trusted with, given they seem to have had them for over thirty years and haven't used them.

Yet.

DR

On the basis of your own logic I guess the only state which cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons are those who have used them. Now, who are they again?

Hmmmm.

That apartheid state of Israel cannot be trusted to obey the law, so how does that make them trustworthy in any other sphere of human activity particularly in the nuclear sphere when they have lied about their weapons for thirty years?

I have a bridge for sale if you are interested.

[E.J.Armstrong]

He speakth!

As to the how, start here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5923670&postcount=42

I think what you mean is that the apartheid state of Israel thinks it can demand the protection of the international community while behaving against the rules of the international community.

Hypocrisy in other words

[bigjelmapro]

I think what you mean is that the apartheid state of Israel thinks it can demand the protection of the international community while behaving against the rules of the international community.

Hypocrisy in other words
Gee, I wish I could attach soundbites here of a baby crying because he went do-do in his diapers since that's all I see from the above reply. Completely gloosed over the post linked.

Is this you in the background @ 0:27?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnHoXsgaUIA :p

[Zach Aviv]

Gee, I wish I could attach soundbites here of a baby crying because he went do-do in his diapers since that's all I see from the above reply. Completely gloosed over the post linked.

Is this you in the background @ 0:27?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnHoXsgaUIA :p

You are good person. You personal attack people for telling truth about Jews. Seems forum allows posts against its rules. What is 'gloosed' ?

Poster E.J.Armstrong tell truth with his post. We must suppress this.

[Zach Aviv]

Um, why should Israel sign the NPT? Is it in thier national interest? I honestly don't know much about why they would or would not. What are the arguments for/against Israel signing the treaty.

If signing the treaty is not in their national interest, then you are the one thinking that they are somehow special, in that they should be forced to sign a treaty contrary to thier national interest.

We Jews will not sign NPT or admit to owning nuclear weapon America and France kindly gave us. We don't sign because we superior. We diminish issue and media we control make much of Iran non-nuke while not talking of Israel real-nuke. Take blinkers off to this. This is why Jews prevail.

[bigjelmapro]

You are good person. You personal attack people for telling truth about Jews. Seems forum allows posts against its rules. What is 'gloosed' ?

Poster E.J.Armstrong tell truth with his post. We must suppress this.
Glossed, but doubt its not really that difficult to see that...

Love the last part, thanks for the confirmation that you're simply a poser.

[Darth Rotor]

On the basis of your own logic I guess the only state which cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons are those who have used them.
Actually, we've had them for twice that time, and used them to end a war, not start one.

Definitely someone you can trust with nukes.

DR

[Trakar]

Actually, we've had them for twice that time, and used them to end a war, not start one.

Definitely someone you can trust with nukes.

DR

Too bad most of those people are gone and the current idiots have inherited the weapons.

[Darth Rotor]

Too bad most of those people are gone and the current idiots have inherited the weapons.
That risk is ever with us, and not just with nukes. Can't wish away the problem of brain malfunctions.

DR

[Thunder]

if none of Israel's enemies have nuclear weapons....why does Israel need nukes?

let alone 200 of them. seems like over-kill if you ask me.

[Darth Rotor]

if none of Israel's enemies have nuclear weapons....why does Israel need nukes?

let alone 200 of them. seems like over-kill if you ask me.
Look up the word deterrence.

One of the points of deterrence is to make the risk costs (or the perceived risk costs) of some courses of action not worth taking.

DR

[Zach Aviv]

Glossed, but doubt its not really that difficult to see that...

Love the last part, thanks for the confirmation that you're simply a poser.

Yes I am simply a poster. But an honest poster. We Jews can be trusted not to use our nuke on surrounding country. No point in conquer radioactive land.

[Thunder]

Look up the word deterrence.


what kind of country posesses 200 nuclear weapons to deter a conventional military assault?

are there any other nations on Earth that feel the need to engage in such disproportianate deterrance?

and considering Israel has maybe 6 Arab neighbors that may someday decide to attack them, why 200 nukes? why not just 20?

seems like with 200 nukes, the threat would not just to simply nuke any army that tries to invade, or even just the capitals of any country that invades, but to indeed enact a full-scale act of genocide against the entire Arab population.

indeed...with 200 nuclear weapons...you could very well kill the entire population of every Arab country on Earth, and all of Iran.

so basically, the threat is this:

"if the Muslims DARE to ever attack us again..and if it appears Israel may actually lose...we will kill every single Arab within 2,000 miles and all of Iran".

wow. nice.

[bigjelmapro]

:D 'Disproportionate deterrance'. That's a new one.

[INRM]

Zach,

We are engineering a situation for Goy country to dismantle their nuclear systems eventually. Obama is helping do this for us. He will be well fed in retirement.
In meantime we continue to use media to make Zion nuclear a non issue while all focus is put on Iran nuke.

That is already being done, for the past couple of years actually.

This is true. We Jews are spreading depleted uranium over the Muslims through our Christian Crusader 'useful idiots' ( American Military). Even more birth defects. Even more inferior. Iran's days are number.

Assuming you're actually being serious here: You don't see a problem with this?


E.J. Armstrong,

In so many areas the apartheid state of Israel declares itself not to be a part of the international community.

Not exactly, they are part of the international community in the few times it suits their purpose. Otherwise they react with complete lack of concern to international law. They do this because they know they can get away with it by claiming "We're fighting for our survival" or by bringing up the Holocaust and all the grief they suffered through and sort of implying that this gives them the right to do whatever they please.

There is absolutely no ambiguity about Israel's nuclear status. It is the local nuclear superpower and has a nasty habit of killing or allowing the killing of huge numbers of civilians in massacres, such as Operation Cast White Phosphorus in Gaza and Sabra and Shatila and Deir Yassin.

They do it because they can. They do not have any concern for the people they kill, they view most arabs as automatically being terrorists by default and one arab being interchangeable with every other; they operate without concern for international law because they can get away with it; if any nation attempted to put sanctions on them, they'd cry about the Holocaust, sort of use it to suggest that because of the Holocaust, the can do anything they want with impunity; label anybody who opposes them as being anti-semitic, racist, and a nazi, and claim they're fighting for their survival.

Israel has a track record of assassinating untried people in circumstances that guarantee innocent women and children are killed

Because they don't care about the value of the arabs they attack. They view them all as having the value of being less than human, sort of animal like, as being a bunch of terrorists and interchangeable with one another.

This is the product of endemic dehumanization. Since all Israeli's have to serve in the armed-forces, they all are exposed to kind of this racist attitude and predictably, the attitude is surprisingly common (though certainly not all Israeli's view Arabs as being this way)

They know they can do as they please because nothing serious has ever happened to them for disregarding international law. Whenever anybody accused them of such they claimed that they're fighting for their survival; invoked the fact that the Jewish people had to suffer through the Holocaust, which apparently gives them the right to do anything they want; accused the opposition of anti-semitism/racism/being a nazi.

Israel has a track record of contempt for international law in general.

Except in the few circumstances it benefits themselves. Truthfully the U.S. often acts with a disregard for International Law, in a similar manner, but I'd have to say the actions of the Israelis are more egregious. They know they can get away with it for reasons I've listed several times over

- When criticized they claim they're fighting for their survival
- They invoke the fact that the Jewish people had to suffer through the holocaust, which apparently also means that they can do anything they want without punity
- They refer to opposition as being anti-semitic, or even being nazi's

Israel has a track record of ongoing collective and illegal punishment against complete groups of innocent men, women and children.

Because it's easier to attack huge numbers of people rather than isolated attacks against a single person (which, I can assure you, they are quite capable of). As I said before the Israeli's have an endemic attitude of racism and view their opponents as being less than human, view them as all being terrorists and monsters. This endemic attitude is a result of the fact that all citizens have to serve in the armed forces where dehumanization is common, and thus are routinely bombarded with the attitude that all arabs are terrorists, less than human, and that the only good arab is a dead one.

Israel has a track record of murdering people trying to protect Palestinians children.

Because they can. To some degree the Israeli's actually view the children as being more dangerous than the adults. As Ariel Sharon once said, a child represents the dangers of the generations to come, where as the adult poses a limited danger.

Israel has issued threats against other states for not having nuclear weapons.

Correct. When you have that kind of destructive power you want to be the only one to wield it. In the United States, General Curtis E. LeMay who was the head of the USAF's Strategic Air Command, and later Air Force Chief of Staff, often lamented that one of the biggest mistakes the US made was not to have eradicated the Russians before they ever got a nuke of their own.


Zach,

We don't sign because we superior.

You don't see a problem with the attitude that your nation is superior to every other to the extent that it is completely above the law?

We diminish issue and media we control make much of Iran non-nuke while not talking of Israel real-nuke. Take blinkers off to this. This is why Jews prevail.

You do realize that these attitudes are racist?


Thunder,

"if the Muslims DARE to ever attack us again..and if it appears Israel may actually lose...we will kill every single Arab within 2,000 miles and all of Iran".

That's exactly the whole point; invoke the fear of a complete and utter annihilation/genocide to deter any attacks.

[bigjelmapro]

To some degree the Israeli's actually view the children as being more dangerous than the adults. As Ariel Sharon once said, a child represents the dangers of the generations to come, where as the adult poses a limited danger.

Libel, pure and simple. As for Sharon actually saying this, have a link/reference? I've seen many fabricated quotes attributed to Sharon and other Israeli leaders, past and present.

Responding to ZA is responding to a poser. He's not Jewish and all he is doing is mirroring the worst propagandic views of the Jew as seen and read about on Arab street.

I've read about all these infractions by Israel of international law, as there have been a number of threads pertaining to this subject matter, and the rehashing of these same allegations in the recent Amnesty International report. I've yet to see a clear example of this actually being the case.

[MarkCorrigan]

what kind of country posesses 200 nuclear weapons to deter a conventional military assault?

are there any other nations on Earth that feel the need to engage in such disproportianate deterrance?

and considering Israel has maybe 6 Arab neighbors that may someday decide to attack them, why 200 nukes? why not just 20?

seems like with 200 nukes, the threat would not just to simply nuke any army that tries to invade, or even just the capitals of any country that invades, but to indeed enact a full-scale act of genocide against the entire Arab population.

indeed...with 200 nuclear weapons...you could very well kill the entire population of every Arab country on Earth, and all of Iran.

so basically, the threat is this:

"if the Muslims DARE to ever attack us again..and if it appears Israel may actually lose...we will kill every single Arab within 2,000 miles and all of Iran".

wow. nice.

You know that a number of other countries have more, right?

In terms of active warheads France has 300, the USA 2,468 and Russia 4,650

Where did you get the 200 number from though? Everything I've ever read puts the estimate at less than 100.

ETA: Correction, the actual number is estimated at anything between 75 and 400. That is a ridiculously large gap and means we have no sodding clue how many they do have.

[NoZed Avenger]

let alone 200 of them. seems like over-kill if you ask me.

And have they?

[Skeptic]

:D 'Disproportionate deterrance'. That's a new one.

Besides, needless to say, Parky has no problem at all with any other nuclear country in the world -- most of all his own, the USA -- having hundreds or thousands of nukes.

Does the USA need 5000 nukes? I think 17 is enough, if you ask me.

Why is the USA sending such a message of aggression, disproportion, and hatred? Just shows how evil Obama is, I guess.

[Skeptic]

To nobody's particular surprise, the conference singled out Israel while ignoring Iran.

[Thunder]

Besides, needless to say, Parky has no problem at all with any other nuclear country in the world -- most of all his own, the USA -- having hundreds or thousands of nukes.

LIE

[Oliver]

To nobody's particular surprise, the conference singled out Israel while ignoring Iran.


Huh? That same Iran that has no nukes, did sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty) and actually is a supportive IAEA member in terms inspections? :confused:


Double moral standards, anyone?

[Skeptic]

Well, there's the little "let's genocide Israel (http://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=8&ved=0CDUQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jcpa.org%2Ftext%2Fahmadinejad 2-words.pdf&ei=tZMCTI-9IJKTOIXp5NYE&usg=AFQjCNFUZA8XEGilm3Js7wS2CGhF8fxdaw&sig2=0C4ulEYukpp3l7Na5-3ifw)" thingy, to imminently be done with nukes they are about to get, since Israel is a "one-bomb country (http://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=8&ved=0CDUQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jcpa.org%2Ftext%2Fahmadinejad 2-words.pdf&ei=tZMCTI-9IJKTOIXp5NYE&usg=AFQjCNFUZA8XEGilm3Js7wS2CGhF8fxdaw&sig2=0C4ulEYukpp3l7Na5-3ifw)" (that is, to be destroyed with one nuke; p. 13 of same link).

But apart from that, Iran with nukes is no problem at all.

[mortimer]

To nobody's particular surprise, the conference singled out Israel while ignoring Iran Pakistan and India.
ftfy.