Israel in no hurry to clear the nuclear fog

[Resistance]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908911555.html

And the US is unlikely to apply much pressure, argues Craig Nelson in Jerusalem.

When the "brother leader and guide of the revolution" emerged from his burrow of international isolation last month and declared in essence, "My name is Muammar Gaddafi. I'm the president of Libya. I want to negotiate," Washington struck another name from the list of wannabe members of the doomsday weapons club.

But Gaddafi's announcement that Libya was ready to dismantle its nuclear weapons caused few, if any ripples in Israel, possessor of arguably the most secretive weapons of mass destruction program in the world.

Washington was silent, too, despite increasingly compelling reasons for raising the issue publicly. For the Bush Administration to pressure Israel to declare its weapons of mass destruction and explain the circumstances under which they might be used would, at least, remove a glaring double standard in its often sanctimonious proclamations. And it would reassure moderate Arab neighbours. But such pressure is unlikely.

The Federation of American Scientists and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute say Israel has at least 200 nuclear warheads. If true, that would make it the world's fifth-largest nuclear power.

[stopthegop]

1. yep...Isreal no doubt has nukes...

and the murderous enemies surrounding them to make the nukes a valid defensive option in Isreali eyes...

if they were planning to use them for offense, seems they would have by now...

[Jim Sagle]

2. Offhand, I'd agree.

[lefty_mcduff]

5. I guess Iran's feeling a little threatened as well...

So let's give 'em a few nukes. North Korea, Cuba - them too. Many baddies are feeling a little threatened so *that's* not really an adequate reason for proliferation. Besides, Israel has enough conventional weapons to take on anybody in the ME.

Just more double-standard nonsense that the rest of the world end up resenting.

[stopthegop]

6. double standard...yep...

why should a democracy in Isreal (or elsewhere) be thought of the same as a kingdom/dictatorship/cleptocracy in the same region...they have a different form of gov't and different methods...

[lefty_mcduff]

7. Ahm. I thought the thread was about nukes....

and the ownership of same, not an argument of *what* kind of government had them (pop quiz - what kind of government is the *only* government to drop one?) I also though that the goal of *most* progressive folks was non-proliferation, and then disarmament, not the selective doling out of WMD.

[stopthegop]

9. it matters who has them...

the US having nukes is in no way as dangerous as N Korea having them...and Isreal having them is not as dangerous as Syria would be...

it's like the difference between a responsible adult having a gun and a hormone addled teenager having a gun...and yes, I'm comparing Isreal to an adult and Syria and N Korea to hormone addled teenagers...

[Darranar]

11. Which one has used them?

[stopthegop]

12. we did...in a justified war

it may be possible to debate the use of the nukes on the specific targets...but not the overall war and it's aims..well, it's possible to debate the war..but not reasonably

[Darranar]

13. What do you consider a "justified war"?

[stopthegop]

15. self defense...

coming to the aid of an ally (US helping Britian in WWII)...sometimes helping a smaller nation ie: if China attacked Taiwan, it would be acceptable for the US to aid Taiwan...

[Darranar]

16. Okay...

So under what circumstances would it be okay for Syria to use a nuclear weapon against Israel?

[stopthegop]

17. I guess if Isreal started it...

but 'started it' can be tricky....and it made sense strategically for Syria...but it's not a matter (to me) of it being 'OK'...in war nations tend to use whatever they need and have to accomplish their goals...the US being a slight exception for not using nukes since '45, when strategic arguements could have been made for using them...

[Darranar]

18. So...

since Israel and Syria are technically at war, and Israel has shown its willingness to attack Syrian territory, as a legitimate act of self-defense would it be fine for Syria to use a nuclear weapon against Israel right now (assuming they could acquire one)?

[stopthegop]

19. good question...

IMO Syria is the initial aggressor in the conflict with Isreal, and that colors things some...but...as I said, it's not a matter (to me) of fine or OK...I would be opposed to any nation using nukes for any purpose other than national survival, and even then I'd like it less it the ones using nukes were the bad guys...we've been lucky in that no one has nuked anyone since '45...nukes stand as a very bright line the sand no one wants to cross...once that line is crossed everything changes...India v Pakistan, Koreas, etc...hopefully no one will use them...

But...they do seem to deter enemies...

[Darranar]

20. My own opinion...

is that nuclear weapons are a danger to world peace, and the only good reason to posess them is as security from other nuclear strikes.

That is why I support demands for Israel to disarm.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. That wasn't the reason the US entered the war...

They entered the war because Pearl Harbour was attacked. If US motives for entering the war had been to assist the British, they would have gone to war back in 1939...

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasake also had zero to do with assisting the British....

Violet...

[Darranar]

22. Wouldn't that fall under the 'self-defense' category?

[Violet_Crumble]

23. For the US entering the war?

Yes. Definately. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, so there's really no argument about whether the US entering the war was justified or not. But stopthegop seemed to be under the impression that the US joined the war to support Britain, or even that nukes were used to support Britain, neither of which are true....

Violet...

[lefty_mcduff]

14. See, I take it one step further.

Depends what side of the fence you're on. The average 'just like you and I' Syrian would disagree with the grooviness of Israel having a wad of nukes. Many on the DU were horrifed when it was announced that Bush had given the development of mini-nukes the green -light, so not everyone thinks that the US having a ton of nukes is complety cool. Or safe.

Idealogues always think *their* side is justified in arming to the teeth.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

8. Israel ain't proliferatin'...

but Pakistan is and this guy seems unconcerned with that so he may have his priorties somewhat askew...:bounce:



INQUIRY SUGGESTS PAKISTANIS SOLD NUCLEAR SECRETS
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50910FC3B5B0C718EDDAB0994DB404482

Pakistan suspects nuclear 'greed'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3343323.stm

Pakistan says nuclear scientists may have helped Iran

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3781902/

Suspected Iran-Pakistan nuclear link widens-diplomats

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23296741.htm

[Scurrilous]

3. Oh, I agree....

...any nation that feels threatened by a murderous enemy should rush out and acquire nuclear weapons. It'll surely make the world a safer place.

[stopthegop]

4. makes Isreal safer anyway...n/t

.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

10. this guy is confused...

"Never mind also that Gaddafi's about-face and Saddam Hussein's fall mean the almost total destruction of the Arab world's radical camp."

when trying to make the case for denuding Israel of it's successful nuclear deterrent, one sounds really silly utilizing a freeperish argument that supports the neocon strategy - what a dumb dork...