First off, Isreal DOES have nuclear weapons and getting rid of them would be one hell of a start to peace in the middle east.

yeah, smart move. you have one gun, and are surrounded on all sides by big men with thousands of guns each.

to start peace you should give up the only thing that prevents everyone around you from attacking.

yeah, you must be a liberal.

IamPatSajak: First off, Isreal DOES have nuclear weapons and getting rid of them would be one hell of a start to peace in the middle east.

I'm sure submitter was being sarcastic about Israel not having nuclear weapons.

I'm not sure if getting rid of them would actually be a start to peace in the middle east, though. I'd be a hell of a lot more comfortable asking Israel to disarm if Syria didn't have a significant stockpile of nerve gas, for example. If Israel didn't have nukes... a valid case could be made that Syria might have good reason to deploy those weapons offensively. A mature nuclear program capable of totally destroying an enemy is a deterrent-- and I'm not particularly concerned at present about Israel using such weapons offensively.

Gahbrone: yeah, you must be a liberal.

Come on, man... you were doing so well until you threw that line in there. Argue the point, don't just label someone a "liberal" (or even a "conservative") and dismiss them.

RaveX said what i would have said if i wasn't so tired from last night, and also if i wasn't so hungry.

/think i'm gonna eat and take a nap before posting more

Great idea though. Israel disarms, world (including China, which at this time holds the casting vote) and we require Iran to not develop nukes.

It's about the only situation I can get behind.

I would love a deal that see every country in the region without nuclear weapons (or chemical, biological, etc), they could even sign mutual deffense treaties with other nuclear powers like China and the US to make sure there was still deterence.

But Israel will never give their nuclear weapons up. It's just not going to happen.

Haha, never going to happen. Of course, since they don't have any, there will be nothing to give up.
*wink* *wink*

Sure is cold down here in hell.

I am sure Isreal is willing to give up their weapons.

end sarcasm.

Yeah. Pesky Israelis and their constant threats to blow other countries off the map. Stupid Judaism with its call to destroy all non-believers.

IamPatSajak
First off, Isreal DOES have nuclear weapons and getting rid of them would be one hell of a start to peace in the middle east.

I think it depends on how they get rid of them.

submitter: Israel is going to be forced to give up the nuclear weapons that they don't have

You're either woefully ignorant or you've drank the bad Kool-Aid. And while we're here, what set of standards allows some countries to possess the bomb while others can't have it? I mean, personally, I prefer none of us have it. The less, the better, at any rate.

But the Israelis are much more responsible and level-headed than the dirt people around them. Right???

Galwran, from what I understand, the attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities in the early 80's was an incredibly tough task that stretched Israeli military to its limits.

Now, for a similar excursion into Iran and their many (some secret) nuclear facilities, you might as well mutliply the difficulty of the 80s excursion by...I dunno, 100? 1000?

Is this a gun fights?

All I have is my knife.

Israel would be insane to give up its nukes unless the US signs a deal promising to defend Israel if it is ever attacked. And since that's precisely the kind of thing that caused World War I, it ought to be enough to give everyone second thoughts.

Let's just give all those countries (short range) nukes, and then stand back and see what happens.

submitter Israel is going to be forced to give up the nuclear weapons

And for my next trick, I'm going to pull this juicy steak out from the jaws of a pit bull.

With Nukes in the middle east everyone loses. Countries are too small, too close together, the fallout goes everywhere, cancer, radiation sickness, death, for friend foe or neutral alike.

Gahbrone
If you haven't been paying attention for the last 60 years, Israel never exactly needed nukes to maintain it's sovergnty. Heck if it weren't for the international community bringing an end to the occasional wars, the entire middle east would be occupied by Israeli forces today.

We (and by we I mean earth) have been trying our best to move conflicts out of the scope of Muslim vs. Jew vs. Christian, and you're not helping. Governments and their policies are the enemies, not the people or their beliefs, especially when dictatorships are concerned. Nukes are counterproductive for that.

Israel is highly civilized and can keep their nukes. They are after all smart enough to make them themselves. Surrounding area...not so much.

Where is the biatchslap button so I can use it on IamPatSajak?

Well, the thing is, Israel has been attacked 3 times by its neighbors, and I think we all know what would happen if Israel lost any of those wars, so even though the possibility of being attacked again is remote, and even if they think their conventional forces can handle the combined might of the Middle East, they're not going to roll the dice on that issue, especially not with the rising tide of Islamic radicalism and the possibility of the secular regimes of Egypt and Jordan being overthrown or supplanted by extremists.

Also, Syria is well-known to have a rather large stockpile of nerve gas, which is its poor-man's MAD weapon.

Good. Freaking. Luck. 'Okay, we'll bring Iran up for the nuclear program, but meanwhile, Israel's proving way too hard to wipe off the map. Can we force them to adopt something more of a pacifist policy?'

Again, should Israel be bombed by EVERY GOVERNMENT around them, why should the US give a shiat?

"Hmm let's just go ahead and defend a Jewish Theocracy that went right ahead and grabbed land smack-dab in the middle of Islamic populations."

Who's bright idea was it to set up Israel in the first place?

And who's bright idea was it for the United States to sponsor this rogue state?

If Israel never existed, there wouldn't have been a 9-11.

NONE of the middle eastern countries would be chanting "Death to America" had we not allied with Israel.

We might as well ally with any of the other Islamic theocracies out there, so why are we allied with a useless tiny Jewish one? It's not like they're a democracy, after kicking out millions of indegenous people of the land and refusing to grant them civil rights...

Israel = the most useless nation created over the last century.

swahnhennessy: You're either woefully ignorant or you've drank the bad Kool-Aid. And while we're here, what set of standards allows some countries to possess the bomb while others can't have it? I mean, personally, I prefer none of us have it. The less, the better, at any rate.

So...you're in favor of constant war? You do realize that, in function, the nuclear weapon is essentially a defensive weapon which serves to deter attack but confers little or no advantage to an aggressor, right?

Boinkers: "They are after all smart enough to make them themselves."

Bah. They initially developed them the same way the Russians did: with secrets from the US.

bbcrackmonkey: Well, the thing is, Israel has been attacked 3 times by its neighbors, and I think we all know what would happen if Israel lost any of those wars.

I'm not gonna Godwin the thread, but I think that is where the answer lies.

Kurt Angle Rookie Year

Yeah. Pesky Israelis and their constant threats to blow other countries off the map. Stupid Judaism with its call to destroy all non-believers.

Kurt Angle Rookie Year has just won the thread. There is nothing more to see or read here.

Submitter was obviously being sarcastic. The joke refers to the fact that Israel has nukes, everyone in the world knows Israel has nukes, Israel still won't admit to having nukes. See? Ha ha, it's funny.

p00pd00d: But the Israelis are much more responsible and level-headed than the dirt people around them. Right???


Right. Iraq (v.1) and Egypt have used WMD. Syria and Iran have expressed intent.

Also, any country that currently has nuclear weapons would probably be foolish to give them up. Israel doubly so.

vfunct: Who's bright idea was it to set up Israel in the first place?

May I refer you to: Kingdom, United.

If Israel never existed, there wouldn't have been a 9-11.

NONE of the middle eastern countries would be chanting "Death to America" had we not allied with Israel.

So we should join them in calling for the extinction of the Jews. Glad to know where you stand.

Boinkers
Russia wasn't smart enough to make it's own, their first nuke was a carbon copy of little boy. India and Pakistan weren't smart enough to make their own, they owe their nukes to the proliferation of information following the fall of the soviet union. Kazakhstan wasn't smart enough to make their own, they got them when they separated from the USSR.

Every nuclear program since the first one has owed itself in no small part to techonological advances acquired through espionage, and Israel is no exception. After all the Mossad is by far the most effective intelligence agency in the world, can you honestly say with a straight face they played no part in developing Israel's nuclea program?

yah, i'm guessing the whole plausible deniability joke is lost on some folks.

I don't understand why people knock on Israel so much. I mean yes, things have happened in the past 50 years that probably shouln't have but Israel is the holy land. You can't take away something that will always remain to be true.

Let me ask you...if Israel shouldn't be where it is, then where is the real holy land and the place of the Jews?

Just curious

ArbitraryConstant: Bah. They initially developed them the same way the Russians did: with secrets from the US.


You are wrong. It was with French assitance.

Israel's Nuclear Weapons by Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army

vfunct Who's bright idea was it to set up Israel in the first place?

The British, moran. Go pick up a history book. When Transjordan (AKA, Israel, Palestine, and Jordan) were all part of the British Empire after WWII, Britain parcelled it up into 3 states. The Palestinian state was quickly annexed by Israel, Egypt, and Jordan and ceased to exist in 1948 and now they're taking the portions of it that Egypt and Jordan annexed and then Israel took in 1967 and making them independent.

vfunct: Again, should Israel be bombed by EVERY GOVERNMENT around them, why should the US give a shiat?


Why shouldn't the US care?

Should the US have cared when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Should the US have cared when Hitler was storming through Europe?

Israel is one of America's loyal allies. In addition to the fact that many Americans are Jewish or otherwise pro-Israel, the US has always supported its allies.

Also, lots of American technology and business is tied up in Israel. Ask Intel, cell phone companies, or lots of other American business concerns if the research done in Israel is important.

The Israelis are extremely smart when it comes to survival. That's what their military, their intelligence agencies and their special forces have been focussing on for the last, oh say, five decades or so. Those guys know what they're doing and if they're giving up the nuclear card, it's for a good reason.

And I am not so sure this changes anything. Having nukes was basically a bargaining chip. I am sure they got something in return for disarming. And there's always a chance you could forget to dismantle nuclear missle or twelve.

And even if they do disarm, they're basically in the same position as Germany and Japan: those countries don't have nuclear weapons because they chose not to. They do, however, have all the materials, the expertise, the manpower, the budget, the technology, the infrastructure and whatnot. Given all that, it shouldn't be too hard to build a nuclear device within months.

I don't want any nooks to mess up that sweet, sweet oil Haliburton will be contracted to remove.

Sloth_DC: So...you're in favor of constant war? You do realize that, in function, the nuclear weapon is essentially a defensive weapon which serves to deter attack but confers little or no advantage to an aggressor, right?

In this day and age I'm not sure the M.A.D. philosophy still holds up. Hell, with the USA pondering (developing?) field nukes, there isn't so much of a "WWIII" stigma on them now. And if they're such the peace-makers. why not let every country possess them? It's a slippery slope we started sliding down 60 years ago, and within our lifetime we'll see a whole new reality concerning the things.