If Libya can do it, why not Israel?

[Manix]

<snip>

What next? If weapons of mass destruction are a menace in unstable regions such as the Middle East, if their availability must be reduced, then logic begins to move us closer to the confrontation we never seek with the nuclear power we - let alone Messrs Bush and Blair - seldom mention: Israel.

Nobody, including the Knesset, quite knows what happens inside the Dimona complex, but if you put together a compote of usually reliable sources (the Federation of American Scientists, Jane's Intelligence Review, the Stockholm Institute), a tolerably clear picture emerges. Ariel Sharon probably has more than 200 nuclear warheads this morning - more if the 17 years since Mordechai Vanunu's kidnapping have been devoted to building stockpiles.

That makes Israel the world's fifth largest nuclear power, boasting more bangs from Washington's bucks than Blair's Britain. And over in the other WMD basket, nobody much dissents when a report by the office of technology assessment for the US Congress concludes that Israel has "undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities" and is "generally reported as having an undeclared offensive biological warfare programme". Bombs, missiles, delivery systems, gases, germs? Tel Aviv has the lot. We only forget to remember because it's not a suitable subject for polite diplomatic conversation.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1111554,00.html

[Jim Sagle]

1. Because Israel would then be destroyed?

[dfong63]

2. no, that does not compute

in any scenario where Israel's existence were threatened, the US's nukes protect Israel just as surely as Israel's own nukes do. and then there's the fact that Israel has the region's mightiest military machine even without nukes.

[0007]

5. I agree!

Check out this article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3340639.stm

[tbeatty]

17. absolutely wrong

The US will not protect Israel with nukes if Israel is only threatened from conventional weapons. It is doubtful that the US would respond with nukes if Israel was attacked with chemical or biological weapons.

This lesson was painfully learned in 1967. Ever wonder why Israel is not a part of NATO?

[kalian]

3. Bull....

but then again, what else would we expect from you? :eyes:

[Jim Sagle]

4. Nuthin' but the truth, and that's what you got.

:beer:

[Terwilliger]

10. well then the muslim nations should feel the same

why do we demand that they disarm??

[tbeatty]

16. last time I checked...

No muslim nation was considered a nuclear power under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As an American, I would prefer we disarm them in the order that they are a threat to the US.

North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan in that order. After them, I will worry about India and Israel.

[MysticMind]

6. because Israel isn't a rogue nation..

Who has promoted terrorism against the United States. I support nuclear disarmament of all nations ideally but the U.S., Israel, and Europe shouldn't disarm until Korea, Libya, Pakistan do first. This is a step towards disarmament though.

[JohnLocke]

7. Well put, MysticMind!

Welcome to DU!
:toast: :toast:
You'll like it here.
:toast: :toast:

[Cary]

8. Get over it.

Israel is never going to disarm, period, end of story. Don't take my word for it.

Israelis are ultimately most reasonable. But they're tough. They have to be tough. There are 6 million Israelis, and 60 million Arabs who want nothing more than to eliminate the State of Israel altogether. You would have to be tough, too, if you lived under those conditions.

How tough are they? I think Baghdad was in serious jeopardy of becoming a black glass parking lot for many years to come, if Saddam tried another stunt like he did in the first Gulf War.

If I'm right, then these are the facts of life, folks.

[Terwilliger]

11. what about the USS Liberty?

seems awfully roguish to me

[MysticMind]

18. and the conspiracy theorists amass...

The USS Liberty was determined to be accidental. Second of all my statement was against Libya having nukes, not Pakistan. You are the one who lumped all Islamic countries together, not me. However no I do not want any Islamic state to have nukes. Religious fanatics with nukes frighten me more than secular states with nukes. Pakistan is too close to slipping into an Islamic state.

[The Stranger]

13. Pakistan? Pakistan hasn't promoted terrorism against the United States.

Perhaps you meant to say no Muslim nation should have the bomb.

Please try to gain some perspective of the Crusade mentality your media is feeding you.

[tbeatty]

15. Pakistan is scary

and the terrorist element inside pakistan just tried to kill the president/dictator/general Musharaf for the second time in a week.

Pakistan is factionalized into marginal support for the US and hatred for the US. Pakistan is more of a threat for nuclear WMD use against the United States than almost any other country.

God forbid that a nuclear weapon is detonated on US soil or against US citizens by terrorists, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the weapon was created in Pakistan.

And yes, from a list of Muslim countries in the world, No Muslim Country should have nuclear weapons. Do you disagree with non-proliferation treaty?

[MysticMind]

20. Pakistan...

Al Qaeda gets much of its support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

[The Stranger]

14. "Rogue Nation?"

Holy shit, that was George W. Bush's tag line. Please learn about the state-sponsored terrorism that Israel has mastered, even teaching the current administration about it.

[MysticMind]

21. The State Dept has called..

Libya a rogue nation for decades. Not everything is a "Jewish" conspiracy to rule the world.

[hellhathnofury]

9. Because Iran and Syria still have them. n/t

[Terwilliger]

12. ...and should keep them until Israel is disarmed

[MysticMind]

19. why would any rational person

Feel safe with Iran having nukes. Iran is more likely to use them than Israel, don't you agree? Or do you even care?