Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So who in the Middle East and surrounding areas has the bomb?
1. Israel is believed to have between 60 to 400.
2. Pakistan is believed to have between 70 and 90.
3. India is believed to have between 45 and 90.
The reason the above nations are “believed to have” is that none have signed the Non Proliferation Treaty, so inspectors are not allowed to determine actual numbers.
Countries currently pursing nuclear power and denials of seeking nuclear weapons in the Middle East, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia.
Currently Iran is seeking to build a nuclear power plant at Bushehr and according to the latest IAEA report; Iran does not have nuclear weapons but may be capable of producing them in the future. Also the latest NIE report states that while no evidence exist that Iran is pursing nuclear weapons, it is believed they will be capable of producing one by late 2015. It should also be noted that Iran is the only nation in the Middle East to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty, which has granted access to inspectors, unlike Israel, Pakistan, and India.
The biggest reason Iran would want a nuclear weapon is simple, Israel. So it is assumed that if Iran has a nuclear weapon that they will use it, but history has shown that this is not the case and in fact the inverse is true.
Quote:
Weapons and strategies change the situation of states in ways that make them more or less secure, as Robert Jervis has brilliantly shown. If weapons are not well suited for conquest, neighbors have more peace of mind. According to the defensive-deterrent ideal, we should expect war to become less likely when weaponry is such as to make conquest more difficult, to discourage pre-emptive and preventive war, and to make coercive threats less credible. Do nuclear weapons have those effects? Some answers can be found by considering how nuclear deterrence and how nuclear defence may improve the prospects for peace.
Now I don’t expect 99% of folks to actually read link as it is rather lengthy, but it offers a compelling argument that the spread of nuclear weapons can promote better security and deter conflict. A controversial piece which is known as the Adelphi papers.
So what about Israel’s nuclear capabilities, why won’t they sign the NPT, and why do they not admit to having possession of nuclear weapons when the entire world knows they do?
The Israeli government maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity on whether it has nuclear weapons, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East". It is the best known secret in the world that Israel has nuclear weapons and Olmert even stated that they did, to which he later retracted his statement amid calls for his resignation.
When the Obama administration made a statement suggesting that, “India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel should join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the global pact meant to limit the spread of atomic weapons”, the response from Israel was harsh. "What the Americans are doing is rude," said Maj.-Gen. (res.) Ya'acov Amidror, who was a member of the Meridor panel that authored the defense doctrine.
Quote:
President Obama's efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel's nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.
One of the reasons for such a harsh reaction out of Israel is that the United States is forbidden to give foreign aid to nations with nuclear weapons that have not signed the NPT. So if Israel were to publicly admit to having nuclear weapons, then the flow of US tax dollars to Israel would be ended.
From the beginning, the Israeli nuclear program is one that was born in deception and subterfuge.
"United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility."
Walworth Barbour, US ambassador to Israel from 1961-73, the bomb program's crucial years, primarily saw his job as being to insulate the President from facts which might compel him to act on the nuclear issue, alledgedly saying at one point that "The President did not send me there to give him problems. He does not want to be told any bad news." After the 1967 war, Barbour even put a stop to military attachés' intelligence collection efforts around Dimona
So the hypocrisy of the US position on who should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons is based upon the simple premise that if Iran has a nuclear weapon that they will use it, which is a pretty gross assumption to begin with. It should also be pointed out to what extent the US will turn a blind eye to one nations nuclear ambitions and denounce another for the exact same behavior. Why is it such a strong concern that Iran would possess a nuclear weapon while at the same time there are thousands of radical Muslims within 80 miles of Pakistan’s capitol and potential to obtain control over their nuclear weapons? Is it no wonder that so many in the world see the United States with so much distrust?
So the hypocrisy of the US position on who should be allowed to possess...
There is no hypocrisy. We should not allow crazies access to dangerous weapons. Ahmadinejad is nuts. And there is no refuting that the regime supports terrorist groups.
There is no greater danger in the world than aggressive fanatical religious lunitics with nuclear weapons, who belong to an apocalyptic religious sect which believes in the return of the twelfth imam and the coming of an end-of-the-world event.
Last edited by mossomo; 09-24-2009 at 02:06 PM..
Reason: found a better link
So who in the Middle East and surrounding areas has the bomb?
1. Israel is believed to have between 60 to 400.
2. Pakistan is believed to have between 70 and 90.
3. India is believed to have between 45 and 90.
The reason the above nations are “believed to have” is that none have signed the Non Proliferation Treaty, so inspectors are not allowed to determine actual numbers.
Countries currently pursing nuclear power and denials of seeking nuclear weapons in the Middle East, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia.
Currently Iran is seeking to build a nuclear power plant at Bushehr and according to the latest IAEA report; Iran does not have nuclear weapons but may be capable of producing them in the future. Also the latest NIE report states that while no evidence exist that Iran is pursing nuclear weapons, it is believed they will be capable of producing one by late 2015. It should also be noted that Iran is the only nation in the Middle East to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty, which has granted access to inspectors, unlike Israel, Pakistan, and India.
The biggest reason Iran would want a nuclear weapon is simple, Israel. So it is assumed that if Iran has a nuclear weapon that they will use it, but history has shown that this is not the case and in fact the inverse is true.
Now I don’t expect 99% of folks to actually read link as it is rather lengthy, but it offers a compelling argument that the spread of nuclear weapons can promote better security and deter conflict. A controversial piece which is known as the Adelphi papers.
So what about Israel’s nuclear capabilities, why won’t they sign the NPT, and why do they not admit to having possession of nuclear weapons when the entire world knows they do?
The Israeli government maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity on whether it has nuclear weapons, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East". It is the best known secret in the world that Israel has nuclear weapons and Olmert even stated that they did, to which he later retracted his statement amid calls for his resignation.
When the Obama administration made a statement suggesting that, “India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel should join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the global pact meant to limit the spread of atomic weapons”, the response from Israel was harsh. "What the Americans are doing is rude," said Maj.-Gen. (res.) Ya'acov Amidror, who was a member of the Meridor panel that authored the defense doctrine.
One of the reasons for such a harsh reaction out of Israel is that the United States is forbidden to give foreign aid to nations with nuclear weapons that have not signed the NPT. So if Israel were to publicly admit to having nuclear weapons, then the flow of US tax dollars to Israel would be ended.
From the beginning, the Israeli nuclear program is one that was born in deception and subterfuge.
"United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility."
So the hypocrisy of the US position on who should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons is based upon the simple premise that if Iran has a nuclear weapon that they will use it, which is a pretty gross assumption to begin with. It should also be pointed out to what extent the US will turn a blind eye to one nations nuclear ambitions and denounce another for the exact same behavior. Why is it such a strong concern that Iran would possess a nuclear weapon while at the same time there are thousands of radical Muslims within 80 miles of Pakistan’s capitol and potential to obtain control over their nuclear weapons? Is it no wonder that so many in the world see the United States with so much distrust?
Well haven't you heard? Israel IS the 51st state in the United States.
I had this conversation with my dad the other day, and he looked at me like I was crazy.
While I don't agree that Iran, etc. should have the bomb, I do agree with the basic premise that its probably too late to be putting time and resources into preventing countries like Iran from buidling nuclear warheads. The only viable option to prevent such is to bomb nuclear facilities. We should have done this many moons ago. Instead, we've flapped our lips like Jimmy Carter and crossed our fingers hoping that diplomacy and sanctions will do the trick. To me, this is the most gullible America has ever been in its history. Either we bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Turkey, or we let them build the bombs and hope that Mutually Assured Destruction will be enough deterrent to keep our enemies at bay.
1) The biggest reason Iran would want a nuclear weapon is simple, Israel. So it is assumed that if Iran has a nuclear weapon that they will use it, but history has shown that this is not the case and in fact the inverse is true.
2) The Israeli government maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity on whether it has nuclear weapons, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East".
3) So the hypocrisy of the US position on who should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons is based upon the simple premise that if Iran has a nuclear weapon that they will use it, which is a pretty gross assumption to begin with. It should also be pointed out to what extent the US will turn a blind eye to one nations nuclear ambitions and denounce another for the exact same behavior. Why is it such a strong concern that Iran would possess a nuclear weapon while at the same time there are thousands of radical Muslims within 80 miles of Pakistan’s capitol and potential to obtain control over their nuclear weapons?
Regarding #1 above, it's one reason, but not that simple. Having a bomb in theory gives it leverage over everyone that it does not have now.
Regarding #2 above, this is true. Has Israel "introduced" such weapons and used them? Unfortunately, they need to be 'coy' on this for their own deterrence. The idea that they MAY have WMD's is a very powerful deterrent to extremist enemies bent on their destruction. And to openly admit they have it gives "license" to those extremist enemies, who I do think would not think of the consequences of using them and may do so on far more than just Israel. 9/11 would be a "mugging" by comparison.
Regarding #3, think about what Amedinijad (forgive the spelling) says in the media, etc. Even a good deal of his own people think he is a nutcase not to be trusted with anything and wish him out of office or dead. I'm not thrilled with Pakistan having it either, but only because I fear the Taliban will get their hands on it. At least Russia and China (and IMHO the non-Taliban Pakistan leadership and Israel as well) are sane enough to know that using it is suicide and in that sense for those nations, maybe it is good that each has a deterrant so there's no temptation to use them. But I equate Iran to someone like Hitler or Bin Laden having nuclear weapons. Big difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
I had this conversation with my dad the other day, and he looked at me like I was crazy.
While I don't agree that Iran, etc. should have the bomb, I do agree with the basic premise that its probably too late to be putting time and resources into preventing countries like Iran from buidling nuclear warheads. The only viable option to prevent such is to bomb nuclear facilities. We should have done this many moons ago. Instead, we've flapped our lips like Jimmy Carter and crossed our fingers hoping that diplomacy and sanctions will do the trick. To me, this is the most gullible America has ever been in its history. Either we bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Turkey, or we let them build the bombs and hope that Mutually Assured Destruction will be enough deterrent to keep our enemies at bay.
Good post.
Israel will do it for you if you let them and take the "bad PR" for the US Seriously, they did it with Iraq way back when........(long before we got involved and created a mess), and probably with Syria recently......
Regarding #1 above, it's one reason, but not that simple. Having a bomb in theory gives it leverage over everyone that it does not have now.
I agree, which is why Israel doesn't wish to have its leverage compromised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7 Wishes
Regarding #2 above, this is true. Has Israel "introduced" such weapons and used them? Unfortunately, they need to be 'coy' on this for their own deterrence. The idea that they MAY have WMD's is a very powerful deterrent to extremist enemies bent on their destruction. And to openly admit they have it gives "license" to those extremist enemies, who I do think would not think of the consequences of using them and may do so on far more than just Israel. 9/11 would be a "mugging" by comparison.
If I pick up a rock off the ground and hide it in my hand, my adversary knows I have the rock even if they can't see it. So what purpose does denying it have? What would stop my enemy from acting whether I admitted to having the rock in my hand or denying it?
Everyone knows they have them, they simply cannot admit to having them, not because it would give license to those who already know but because it would removing US foreign aid as the law requires any nuclear armed nation to sign the NPT or be excluded from receiving foreign aid money.
Symington Amendment Symington Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7 Wishes
Regarding #3, think about what Amedinijad (forgive the spelling) says in the media, etc. Even a good deal of his own people think he is a nutcase not to be trusted with anything and wish him out of office or dead. I'm not thrilled with Pakistan having it either, but only because I fear the Taliban will get their hands on it. At least Russia and China (and IMHO the non-Taliban Pakistan leadership and Israel as well) are sane enough to know that using it is suicide and in that sense for those nations, maybe it is good that each has a deterrant so there's no temptation to use them. But I equate Iran to someone like Hitler or Bin Laden having nuclear weapons. Big difference.
So lets say for one moment that Iran does get a nuclear weapon and the means to effectively deliver it. If Iran were to attack Israel with it, what do we think the response would be? I doubt Israel would stand by and take it on the chin. We all know what the response would be, they would launch many nuclear weapons and Iran would be turned into green glass. So we have to ask, would anyone risk the total and utter annihilation of their whole country and all its inhabitants? If so, then why would they bother waiting on the development of a nuclear weapon instead of committing every member of their society to all out war today? The worse case scenario would be their total destruction, something that is guaranteed through the use of nuclear weapons.
So then we have to ask, if Israel having nuclear weapons is not really a deterrent and we assume Iran will use them, then we can only conclude that nuclear weapons are not actually a deterrent in the first place.
If this is the case then the tax payers of the United States have been bilked out of over 5 trillion dollars through the development, creation, and maintenance of our own nuclear arsenal. The whole purpose of which is to serve as a deterrent.
So which is it?
Last edited by TnHilltopper; 09-24-2009 at 03:00 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seriously, they did it with Iraq way back when........(long before we got involved and created a mess), and probably with Syria recently......
