We are not them

[JohnLocke]

We are not them
Matti Golan – Jerusalem Post
December 31, 2003

Does Israel have a problem with nuclear weapons? At first glance, it would appear that we do. Libya is willing to disarm itself of its weapons of mass destruction and to commit not to manufacture them in the future. Sooner or later, Iran will probably take the same path and Pakistan may not lag far behind. After all, the Iraqi example is still very fresh in the minds of these countries.
It is only natural for Arab countries – those that are required to disarm themselves of weapons of mass destruction – to try to direct attention toward Israel. Why just us, they say?
(…)
From the outset, Israel became involved in the entire matter of nuclear weapons for only one purpose: defense. This includes the balance of terror. If we did not have these weapons at our disposal, we might not exist anymore. The Arab countries might already have destroyed us. The thing that deters them more than anything else is the knowledge of a possible nuclear response.
(…)
Because if Israel did not have these arms, no Arab or Muslim country – Egypt and Jordan included – would have been willing to talk peace. Their willingness to make peace, to the extent that such willingness exists, stems from their acceptance of the existence of the State of Israel, and acceptance of the fact that we cannot be erased from the face of the earth. And this acceptance on the part of the Arabs and Muslim countries is the direct result of their knowledge that we have nuclear weapons.
The state, in essence, owes its very existence to a single individual who brought nuclear weapons to Israel, and who did so despite the opposition of almost all his fellow government members. If we manage to reach peace with the Arab countries, it will be thanks to the person who brought nuclear weapons to Israel out of a prophetic view to the future and out of a sober understanding of the reality in this region, a reality that has not and will not change. It is not superfluous to remind ourselves again and again that this man was none other than Shimon Peres.
Those who say that the same rule should apply to us and the Muslim countries regarding nuclear weapons are not looking out for our welfare. And if asked how we can be so confident that these weapons will never be used improperly, we must state frankly: Our confidence stems from the fact that we are not them; we are not like them and those that say otherwise are not interested in the truth.
For the Arab countries, nuclear weapons are weapons of destruction. For us, they are weapons of defense, which make our continued existence possible. To allow Muslim countries to continue to possess nuclear weapons is tantamount to agreeing to global suicide. To demand that Israel disarm itself of these weapons is like asking it to please consent to commit suicide.

Read the rest here.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Says it all.

:yourock:

[JohnLocke]

2. I agree.

To say that a republic living under constant threats should not be permitted to have nuclear weapons is absurd.

[sushi]

16. What is absurd

is that some can have nuclear weapons and others can't. It is discrimination. Everybody should be able to have them, if that's what they want and can afford, or those that have them should get rid of them. Until then it is a ridiculous situation, and takes away our right to criticize. It is equality which we are, or should be, striving for.

How would you like being born one of them and having to watch all this. Add to this the colonialism and oppression by the west in the past...No wonder they turned nasty and want to hit back. Now we are having to be forever watching, and spending millions, to prevent nuclear weapons falling into their hands. How crazy is this situation and how long can it go on. How many more countries have to be invaded, how many more people have to die, and how much more hatred can we take.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

17. OK, I'll play...

if the only two choices are everybody has them or nobody does, then I vote for nobody (the other alternative is a bit too frightening to contemplate)...

since somebody has to go first, how about France; they are Western, they have a colonial past, it wouldn't be like the West is picking on Pakistan or India, and the French probably won't mind at all, since they love to surrender (bada bing bada boom)...

[sushi]

18. Me too

I vote for nobody having them. How about everybody getting rid of them at the same time. You are funny!!! Don't you think it's only a matter of time the bad guys get their hands on nuclear weapons?

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Only a matter of time?

China has them and North Korea should be getting them soon. Iran is working on getting them.

That's enough bad guys for moi.

[Darranar]

22. Why hasn't China used them yet?

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Need

[Darranar]

24. Please clarify.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. It hasn't needed to do so

[Darranar]

34. So why would the Arab states need to do so?

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Because they WANT to

China is a world power, it is has no need to upset the apple cart. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and others are not world powers, but they do hate Israel.

[Darranar]

39. And they would be annihalated just as quickly if they tried...

the Arab leaders are not complete fools.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Not necessarily

Two points:

* One, it is hard to assess the actions of fanatics and many of the Arab nations we have been discussing fall into that category.
* Two, it would be easy for those nations that support terror -- Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia -- to hand off such a weapon to a terror group and make it difficult for Israel (or the U.S.) to prove where it had come from. Then any retaliation would look like an aggressive act.

[Darranar]

44. Uh...

1. Which particular ones? Ideology and fanaticism have a way of falling to pieces when it comes to international politics.

2. I doubt they would risk it. A nuclear strike on the US or Israel would certainly result in massive retaliation, and it would have almost total support of the populations of both states, even if it involved nuclear weaponry.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. Uh huh

1) Again, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia since we are focusing on the Mideast.

2) You DOUBT they would risk it. That's a huge risk to be unsure of. A hand-off of such a weapon to a terror group would provide what the Nixon assholes used to call "plausible deniability" and crate world pressure on Israel to NOT retaliate.

[Darranar]

46. What?

1. If Saudi Arabia is so fanatically Islamist, why does it have so many ties to the West and why is it hated by Al Qaeda? To the contrary, Saudi Arabia is pro-American. Support for terrorism is generally in the form of bribes to avoid attacks.

If Iran is so fanatically Islamist, why does it have so many ties to the Europeans? Iran is certainly Islamist domestically, and it is not as close to the US as some other Muslim countries are, but it still is more concerned with self-interest then any ideology - as is to be expected.

Syria I know less about, but I know that they certainly respect US demands to some extent, rather un-Islamist of them. Once again, the regime is more concerned with self-interest then ideology. This is a general pattern to most governments, whether democracies or Islamic dictatorships.

2. Sometimes I understate things. No country in the Middle East has any interest whatsoever in allowing a provocation of such greatness to occur. In fact, they have an interest in preventing it. Most regimes do not like being annihalated, whatever rhetoric they say to the contrary.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Ongoing

1. Saudi Arabia, as is quite obvious, is a very divided nation and has a very divided leadership. While some pieces of that leadership maintain ties with the west, others strongly support radical Islamic elements. Perhaps they are merely playing both sides against the middle. They are hated by al Qaeda because they let U.S. troops in their nation, which al Qaeda opposes.

Similarly, Iran has a divided leadership. Some maintain ties to the west or are trying to reactivate them. Meanwhile, the mullahs still run the nation and moderate elements are squashed. Included in THEIR actions is an active support of terror.

Syria is more of a classic dictatorship and supports both terror and anti-Western sentiments as a way of keeping its populace misdirected.

2. You again must too much stock in nations acting rationally. In fact, in the Mideast conflict, such actions are quite rare.

[Darranar]

49. I do not think nations act rationally...

most of the time. I simply think that most leaders aren't insane or completely irrational. Though stupidity and incompetence is rather common in the world, national suicide is not.

The leadership of Saudi Arabia is oppressive and pro-US. There are, of course, a few sincere pro-Islamists, but the ones with power would be stupid to strongly support terrorists that were trying to destroy them.

The government of Iran, whether extremist or moderate, still tends to be focused more on self-interest then anything else, like any other government.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. You don't have to be insane to attack your enemies

And since those nations consider Israel an enemy, if they think they can get away with an attack, they will do so.

And contrary to your statement, not all the leaders of Saudi Arabia are pro-U.S. It is, as I have said, a divided leadership that appears to be playing both sides.

[Darranar]

51. The ones with power are...

and attacking your enemies conventionally is different from nuking them.

They will not get away with such an attack.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. It would be easy

Easy for a new nuclear power like Iran to hand off a nuclear weapon to one of its terror surrogates. The line of attack would be vague. There are, after all, numerous reported former Soviet nukes floating around. They could claim that they had nothing to do with it.

Israel would be seen as an aggressor if it responded.

[Darranar]

53. It doesn't matter who they blame it on...

it doesn't even matter if it really was a former Soviet bomb, it would still result in massive retaliation by both Israel and the US.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. I'm sure that would be a hell of a consolation

To the dead Israelis who would be in the tens or hundreds of thousands.

[Darranar]

66. The point is...

that it would be national suicide for any nation to do it.

No nation will commit national suicide, no matter how extremist their rhetoric may be.

[GabysPoppy]

68. Did you just slough off Muddle's comment

about thousands of dead Israelis?

[Gimel]

85. Another example

Just two years ago there was a world scare that Pakistan and India were headed for nuclear war. What does it take to touch off an all out war? While rationally everyone said that it wouldn't happen, everyone has irrational fears as well. It isn't pleasant to consider the consequences. But would al Quaeda send a few guys with an a-bomb or other WMD into a country such as the USA? It's got the top priority in Washington to make sure that doesn't happen.

[sushi]

56. Why are you concentrating

on fanatics from Arab nations only? Such a weapon could easily come from a western person or persons, for the right kind of money. Maybe I've seen too many movies.

[Gimel]

83. should they have that chance?

I mean really, would you be willing to risk your country (say you were the PM) by giving your enemy the opportunity to prove itself up to the challenge? If they have citizens willing to commit suicide for the national cause, why not commit a few thousand at once to get a good shot at wiping out your enemy first? But then, they haven't really developed them yet have they, so that isn't the situation. Let's make sure it stays that way, is the better option.

Of course to claim that Israel should disarm first would be the absolute best ploy. Make Israel look bad. Make the world hate Israel. Most of the world's people are so gullible.

[bluesoul]

84. Oh please

how many Israelis were killed by Palestinians and how many vice versa. Then tell me about "wiping out" entire nations...

[Gimel]

86. I prefer not to /nt

[sushi]

25. I'm talking about groups

of people who don't have a country, so it's hard to find them. If tiny Israel has WMD, why shouldn't China, a huge country with the largest population (or 2nd largest, after India?) have them. How can we criticize countries that want to be able to defend themselves against bullies. Japan is thinking about it too. It's getting out of control.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. And how do you propose to control it?

Technology cannot be kept in a safe and unlearned. Nations, especially those under great threat, are likely to want the security nukes might provide. Frankly, I am shocked that Taiwan has not pursued this tactic.

[sushi]

55. You said it!

"Nations, especially those under great threat, are likely to want the security nukes might provide."

Exactly! In other words, if Iran feels under great threat (from Israel) it should be able to have nukes for security! If you don't agree with this you are discriminating. Iran can't have them, but Taiwan can? What makes you trust the Chinese from Taiwan? Because they're far from you and far from Israel, so you don't care? What about the people who live in that area? You don't (seem to) care.
Oh, I know. Only the good guys can have nukes. What makes you think the leader of the "good guys" can't turn ugly? In fact, he already has.

[Gimel]

82. So there are "bad guys"

that shouldn't have the nuclear toys? You said in your earlier post that everyone should have an equal opportunity to acquire them, as long as they could afford it, at least that's what I remember that you said.

[sushi]

91. Don't get me wrong, Gimel

For starters I think nuclear toys should be abandoned altogether, but since quite a few countries have them now, and are not about to give them up, we should work together with all countries that want them, to prevent any nuclear toys getting into the hands of the extremists, like Osama and his friends. In order for these countries to want to work together with us, we can't deny them nuclear toys, if that's what they want.

I understand posters who don't trust other governments, but we forget that they don't trust us either. We are only thinking of our own interests, what about theirs? Don't they count?

Who are we to deny others things they can afford to buy? How long can this go on? Why should a country want to destroy itself by attacking another country? I have asked these questions several times here. Nobody answers.

The west is differentiating between democracies we can trust and democracies we can't trust, and if it's the latter it must be overthrown. Think Venezuela.

Now think Iraq. We've brought democracy to Iraq. What happens if it looks like the majority could be voting for a western hating Shiite cleric? Let's think. How shall we manipulate the election to result in an Iraqi Hamid Karzai!

I'm amazed that there are so many people who can't understand why they hate us. Unless we change, this war on terrorism will go on forever.

We can "talk" for hours, but this is already too long.

[JohnLocke]

79. Not so.

I think we have a fundamental problem here regarding our definitions of “discrimination” vs. “prejudice.” Discrimination is not necessarily bad. We discriminate every day; when we go to the supermarket and choose a bright apple over the bruised apple, we are discriminating. Likewise, when we make the decision to let a democracy, with obligations to its people and responsibilities to the world community, have a nuclear weapon but do not allow unstable dictatorships or autocracies to have nuclear weapons, we are in fact, discriminating. I feel you use the word “discrimination” to mean “prejudice,” or discrimination with no cause or bad cause. There is a reason to allow Israel to have nuclear weapons while still not allowing Libya, Iran, or Pakistan to have them; this is discrimination, but justifiably so; therefore, it is not prejudice.

The author did not argue that nuclear proliferation is good; indeed, nobody here would argue that. However, the point that is being made is a valid one: that Israel needs nuclear weapons for defense.

[hametzpay]

80. joining the 3rd millenium, and the 21st century

Unlike many on this forum, I believe Israel needs to totally
give up her stockpile of nuclear weapons...HA!!

When all of Islam, most especially Moslem Arabia, leaves
behind the mindset of 14+ centuries ago, and decides to
finally join the human race, then, but only then, should
Israel "turn her swords into plowshares and her spears
into pruning hooks."

Here we are in a brand new millenium, at the beginning of the
21st century.  Is there anyone ready, besides our country - at
war with the same enemies that have tried unsucessfully to
destroy Israel,

TO DRAG THE WORLD OF ISLAM, KICKING AND SCREAMING INTO THE
CIVILIZED WORLD?

Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no, there is no
one else.  We still have a long way to go.

So, until "THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GLORY OF THE LORD COVERS
THE EARTH LIKE THE WATERS COVER THE SEA"

I say let Israel keep her weapons of self defense and let us
remind her:

"NO WEAPON THAT IS FORMED AGAINST YOU SHALL PROSPER, AND
EVERY TONGUE THAT RISES UP AGAINST YOU IN JUDGEMENT, YOU SHALL
CONDEMN.  FOR THIS IS THE HERITAGE OF THE SERVANTS OF THE
LORD, AND THEIR RIGHTEOUSNESS IS OF ME, SAYS THE LORD"

[Darranar]

87. Oh, yes...

those inferior savages in the Arab world need to recieve the glorious enlightenment of Western civilization. :eyes:

Which is responsible for more innocent deaths: Al Qaeda, or the Bush Administration?

Which is responsible for more innocent deaths during this intifada: The IDF, or Hamas?

[bluesoul]

88. Darranar, those are all

unimportant pesky details that have nothing to do with the whole issue. Who cares if 3 times more Palestinians are killed...

[JohnLocke]

89. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Darranar]

90. Yes it does...

The poster I replied to was clearly indictating that the Muslim world was 'uncivilized' while the western world was 'civilized'. I responded to that claim.

[JohnLocke]

92. No, it doesn't

[Darranar]

3. And how does he know all this?

[JohnLocke]

4. Well, he was former editor of Haaretz and Globes...

Matti Golan was the Editor-in-Chief of Globes, Israel’s leading business newspaper, as well as the political columnist editor of the daily Ha'aretz. He was also an officer at the Israeli Embassy in Canada. In addition, he's the author of five books, two on Shimon Peres and three about Israeli-U.S. relations. If you ask me, this makes him pretty damn qualified to speak on this subject.

[Darranar]

5. What's his evidence for any of this?

[JohnLocke]

6. Evidence for what? (n/t)

[Darranar]

7. That the reason the Arabs want nukes is to destroy Israel...

I happen to disagree with him on that point.

[GabysPoppy]

8. You may disagree

But are you willing to risk your life on that?

[Forkboy]

28. I would

Didn't the US/Soviet Union risk our lives? Doesn't any nation with nukes threaten our lives?

What is Iran's (or any countries) payoff for nuking Israel? Do you think any country nuking Israel would survive an hour later?

[sushi]

29. Exactly

Why destroy yourself. At the same time you know others won't attack you because you can retaliate. Since the countries that have them won't give them up, it's only fair when every country that wants them should be able to have them, if they can afford them. It also means that everybody will then work together to keep WMD from getting into the hands of the bad guys without a country, because they have nothing to lose.

[JohnLocke]

9. Explain your reasoning.

What other reason do Iran, Libya, Iraq, etc. have for obtaining nuclear weapons?

[Darranar]

10. Deterrence.

[JohnLocke]

11. From who?

And if deterrence is your reason,m does that go for Israel too?

[Darranar]

13. The US and Israel...

Of course that's why Israel is doing it as well.

I'm not saying it's right - in fact, I think the opposite, for both the Arabs and Israel. I simply do not think that it has much to do with destroying Israel. And, of course, morality and the policies of nations rarely go together.

[sushi]

15. From bullies

Everybody, or nobody, should be allowed to have it. That is only fair. That's equality.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Life is not fair and not all nations are equal

I don't want the terror supporting regimes of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to have nukes. I support Israel doing what it needs to do to prevent that.

[Darranar]

21. What is "terrorism"?

Generally, it is violence committed by an enemy.

I'm wondering if you're using that definition or a different one.

[JohnLocke]

32. Semantics, semantics.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. No it is not

It is violence used deliberately against the civilian population to "terrorize" and achieve your aims.

[Darranar]

38. So...

Israel supports terrorism.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Nope

Not even likely. Israel takes action AGAINST terrorists who deliberately hide within a civilian population -- to maximize collateral damage and civilian death. If the PA dealt with the problem, Israel wouldn't have to do so.

[sushi]

26. You can want

and not want things. So can other people! You're not saying only we should get what we want, are you?

[sushi]

27. "Not all nations are equal"

I agree. There are small sized and big sized nations, and rich and poor ones. What else, Muddle? You're implying that there are countries/people who are "less" than us, who can't be trusted, and whose interests don't matter. Want to give examples? And reasons? Who judges? I asked MikeGalos this, but he hasn't answered. Maybe you want to!

[JohnLocke]

33. OK...

How about this....

Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and Israel should.

There. I said it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. I agree

Israel, by all reports, has had nukes for a long time. It has neither tried to use them nor threatened their use.

Now picture Iran and its terrorist buddies doing the same thing.

Not likely.

So yes, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others should not be allowed to have nukes.

[sushi]

54. That makes you a bully

Who gives you the right to decide for others? You also seem to know what other people will do in the future. Do you have a crystal ball?

We are on the same side, Muddle. What I want is for people like you to imagine being one of them. By "them" I don't mean the bad guys. You obviously haven't imagined being a proud Iranian, for example, and having to read in the paper/see on TV news that a foreign country, an infidel foreign country, decides what you can and cannot have. This is not right. I firmly believe that we are going about things in the wrong way, but this is for another discussion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Again, not all nations are equivalent

Some really ARE bad. Iran is one of those. Syria another.

How do I know? I gauge what they did in the past and what they do in the present to judge their future. Does that make my decision perfect? No. But if you are betting on nukes or not, you err on the side of caution.

[sushi]

67. Why don't you also

gauge what the US has done in the past, and what it is doing now!

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. I do, but the U.S. ALREADY HAS nukes

It is impossible to take away nuclear weapons from a nation once it has them. If you try, it will use them. So, for the purposes of the discussion about NEW nations getting nukes, that doesn't apply.

[lefty_mcduff]

58. So you're against non-proliferation?

And you obviously think nukes *are* a good idea.

BTW - US policy regarding nukes throughout the 'cold-war' was that of MAD (mutually assured destruction). Both sides had nukes, so neither side could use them without massive retaliation. The other option of course was disarmament.

Was US policy wrong for all those years (not to mention a couple of trillion dollars), or are you on to something new?

See, I always though stability is brought about via the 'balance' of power, not by one side having nukes while the other is bereft (thus causing the very conditions that breed asymmetrical warfare - also know in the Bush WH as terrorism).

[sushi]

61. I decided to ignore that kind of post

but I'm glad you took the time to comment. I completely agree with you.:thumbsup:

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. Nonproliferation is a good thing

Keeping nukes from MORE nations is a good thing.

[lefty_mcduff]

70. Yer almost there.

Since this is all hypothetical, waddya say we take it all the way (ie: taking nukes away from ALL nations is a good thing).

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. Because that is ridiculous

Not to mention dangerous.

First off, no nation that has them will give them up. Why should it?

Secondly, there are cases -- Israel is a good example -- where a nation needs nukes for self defense because it can't count on the world community coming to its aid.

[sushi]

30. Do you think

the way Israel defends itself doesn't terrorize the civilian Palestinians? Or is it only terror if the Palestinians do it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. No, I do not

The PA -- the leadership of the Palestinian people -- tolerates, endorses and supports the terror attacks. If the Palestinian people wish Israel's actions against terrorists to stop, then they need to force the PA to take action against such terrorists.

Sooner or later, Arafat or his successors will realize that the Palestinian people can afford only one group that has the power to take military action. When that happens, they will wise up and go after the terror groups.

[MikeGalos]

48. A little optimistic

Sooner or later, Arafat or his successors will realize that the Palestinian people can afford only one group that has the power to take military action.

Unlikely. This very intentional policy of Arafat's government is very effective. It gives him, to use the Nixonism you recalled, "Plausable Deniability" with the West. As do his public speeches condemning the attacks. At the same time, Arafat's state-run radio, TV and press praise the attackers as do government speeches not designed for Western consumption and get wonderful support that they're dedicated to eliminating Israel. As do the government's funding of the terrorists. As does the government's lack of arrest or prosecution of terrorists.

It's the same game the Saudi leadership and some of the Saudi royals use in their quiet support of terrorism while being close friends of Bush in public. Of course, it helps that Bush is as insincere as they are.

[sushi]

57. To that I can say

that if the Israeli people wish the Palestinian extremists' actions against Israel to stop, then they need to force their government to dismantle the settlements.

Sooner or later, Israel's PM or his successors will realize that getting out of the occupied territories will help solve this conflict. When that happens, there will, hopefully, be a peace agreement.

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Talk about too optimistic

What indicates to you that the Palestinians would change their actions one iota?

[sushi]

63. Talk about too pessimistic

and bossy, and patronizing. Sorry, Muddle, but you have a bully attitude. What makes you think the Palestinians won't change their actions once they have their state?

It is time to stop this hoity toity we know better, you can't be trusted, you do as we say, attitude. Imagine yourself on the receiving end of this!

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Bully for me then

I follow trendlines. Most play out the way they are trending. So sue me. Yes, sometimes they change, but a smart bettor sticks with major trends.

One such trend is that Iran is currently led by whacko mullahs who back terror and can't be trusted with nukes.

Another such trend is that Palestinians do nothing to stop terror and have continued that trend for decades. If suddenly somewhat successful, why would they alter course.

I don't care if this is hoity toity or bullying. Some nations CAN'T be trusted and that is just the way it is. Let them change their behavior, then we can address other realities.

[lefty_mcduff]

71. Still defending the ownership of nukes?

I would hope (though doubt) that you would admit that Israel has also made some bad calls, politically and militarily (especially as it relates to the I/P conflict) But yet your 'trust' remains unaffected. Why this 'see-no-evil' approach?

It is also this BW cartoon idea that one side is 'without blame' and the other side is 'without merit' that leads to a great deal of the resentment, hatred and fury throughout the ME.

Regarding trust, I would suppose that one measure of trust would be adherence to international law. Not sure how Iran, Syria and/or Israel stack up there either. But I'm sure none have flawless records. Now, can we 'trust' any with nukes?

In terms of deterrence, Israel has more than enough conventional weapons, both defensive and offensive to take on all comers. As long as non-proliferation in the ME holds, Israel does not need nukes. If Israel wants to keep her nukes, then it is arrogant and quite racist to state that others cannot be 'trusted' to join the nuclear club. I find it highly-unlikely that the average Iranian or Syrian would view Israel's possession of nukes with the same amount of warm and fuzzies that you do. Syria and Iran would NEED nukes as deterrents against Israel (especially with the current saber-rattling that is going on). As insane as THAT sounds, is the MAD version of the 'balance of power' - a trusted US policy that many credit for the fall of the Soviet Union.

Regarding not using nukes as a sign of stability or 'trustworthiness' - India and Pakistan are bristling with nukes in a HOT zone, but each are afraid of the MAD outcome of a launch. Neither has used them., Are these governments stable? Well, the unelected military dictator has survived two assassination attempts in as many weeks, so you can judge for yourself.

However, to believe that *any* government can be trusted with nuclear weapons is ludicrous and quite frankly I am stunned that *anyone* would launch that argument. It is only a matter of time before some zealot (please read about Bush's mini-nukes - do you trust the current pResident Evil NOT to use nukes in an upcoming conflict?) decides that it is acceptable to use them. Not just the wackos. But governments who *you* claim are perfectly reasonable. Such as the US at the end of WWII (I am not going to debate the justification - suffice to say the US government thought *they* had justification).

That was 60 years ago. I find it amazing that in the year 2004, people are still attempting to justify the stockpiling of nuclear weapons.

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. Yes, I am defending Israel's nukes

Yes, Israel is imperfect. In a perfect world, that would be bad. In a wildly imperfect world, they are still VASTLY better than those who seek to destroy them.

Another point is that nations who have nukes are NOT going to give them up. So what we are really arguing here is whether or not to let the lunatic regimes in Iran and Syria have nukes.

I say no to that.

How do you know that, "Israel has more than enough conventional weapons, both defensive and offensive to take on all comers?" Those weapons are very reliant on spare parts and constant updating. What happens when either of those needs goes away? It is a common expression that amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics. Israel has bad logistics for a modern military machine.

It might be arrogant to say that some nations can't be trusted with nukes, but it is also realistic. Iran and Syria back terror. I don't want terrorists getting nukes. We need to do EVERYTHING we need to keep them from getting nuclear weapons -- up to and including striking at their nuclear facilities.

As for MAD, it only worked with superpowers who would destroy the whole world. We have seen in India and Pakistan that debate does not hold and those two nations are barely able to not nuke one another.

Rather than get too far off topic, suffice it to say that the U.S. DID have justification in WWII. Massive numbers of lives are a good justification.

Again, we can't take away nuclear weapons or the technology to make them. We can limit their spread and must do so.

[sushi]

75. Unless we change

this bully attitude this "war on terror" will never end. Instead of alienating any government, we should try to work together with all governments, as equals, to prevent nuclear weapons getting in the hands of the wrong people, like you-know-who. Don't think your "war on terror" will be over once you-know-who is behind bars.

Do you think nuclear weapons can't be supplied by crazy westerners, if the price is right? The bad people have a lot of money.

[MikeGalos]

69. You mistake realism

To expect someone to respond identically as they have in the past to a similar situation is not pessimism. It is realism.

To expect a change in behavior pattern with no reason to justify that change is not optimism, it is just irrational.

[sushi]

76. "...no reason to justify that change...?"

I said "...once they have their state..."

[MikeGalos]

78. I'd buy that except...

that was the same promise made at Oslo when they were going to get their limited government. THAT was going to turn terrorists into politicians and bureaucrats. Instead, it turned out that all that happened was that Arafat used the new powers of his government for exactly the same old behavior and got himself a larger treasury to plunder.

Now, if you can show how getting a state would actually cause a change, and make it more than just wishful thinking, let us know. We all need reasonable hope. (But we don't need more religion-like faith in Arafat)

[JohnLocke]

12. Dupe.

[sushi]

14. Defense

To avoid being invaded unilateraly
:evilgrin:

[methinks2]

77. Now that we all know

about the weapons.(BBC Documentary recently seen on LINK tv) do you think they'll release Vanunu? At the least they should allow US inspections of the 40 year old reactors. After all it was probably US money that paid for all these sites.

[JohnLocke]

81. Kick