It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What would happen if Israel gave up her nukes

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
The Pentagon commissioned a study on this in November.

A fascinating read.

I think that if they did this, Iran would JUMP at the chance to make sure they followed suit. The rest of the Middle East would then fall in line.

Comments?

www.chron.com...




posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Yet this rationale neglects a fundamental law of arms proliferation. Nations seek WMD when their rivals possess them. Israel's nuclear capability has clearly fueled WMD ambitions within the Middle East. Saddam Hussein, for example, in an April 1990 speech to his military, threatened to retaliate against any Israeli nuclear attack with chemical weapons — the "poor man's atomic bomb."


Shouldn't Saddams weapons meant for Israel instead of against his own people? Ironic. Doubt that Iran would give up its nuclear ambitions even if Israel was to give up its nuke because it would bolden the Iranians that they can destroy Israel with nukes without any fear of retaliation and also they can finally destroy Israel after many consecutive failures to destroy Israel through conventional means that has been costly in the past.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
good topic Jakomo
i agree like Iran and other countries in the middle east Israel shouldnt be allowed to possess such weapons.
and like other middle eastern countries aka Iran and so on
its hands are as dirty



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I can guarentee one thing....Israel WILL bomb Iran's nuclear facilities if discovered. The one guy running for Prime Minister said, as part of one of his campaign promises that, if we discover Iran has a nuke facility, Israel will bomb it.

Now all you young'ins will think this is a crazy thought but, Israel has proven herself to be true one time already. Back in the '80's, Iraq was in the process of building the bomb and when the faciltiy was discoverd, Israel went into Iraq and destroyed it.

This all goes along the lines of, no way is Israel thinking about giving up her nukes.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I dont think this would work, ever since Israel was established in 1948 wars have been coming to them. Things havent changed all that much really, other than the understanding of her neighbors that facing Israel in conventoinal war is probably unwinnable, both because Israel has proven this before, and the support she recieves from both Europe and the US. Its a good question though, very thought provoking, but based on history I have to agree that if Israel gives up the nukes, another war will be coming, it wont dissolve a situation that has been going on for almost a century. Just my opinion.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I don't think, personally, that if Israel got rid of its nukes that it would immediately herald an invasion from its neighbours. Sure, there are paranoid alarmists who would say “Well yeah of course! The Arabs want to KEEEEL us all and push us into the sea!”

There are also those who believe that if Israel had no nukes and no chemical and biological WMDs to protect it, it might actually start increasing the value of using NEGOTIATION as a tool.


I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of ANY nukes in the Middle East, certainly not hundreds.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
I think that if they did this, Iran would JUMP at the chance to make sure they followed suit. The rest of the Middle East would then fall in line.

Comments?


Sure do have a comment:
Your quoted mention is an assumption based solely on conjecture.
How about this for counter-assumption and conjecture:
Israel's having nukes insures that no Middle Eastern nation or group of nations decides to jump Israel and "wipe it off the map"?
Having those nukes insures that those nations, who have for decades sought the eradication of Israel, will show and have restraint.
How long will that restraint be when Israel is forced, made, or has to give up her nukes?

In the same self-assuredness you portrayed in saying what you have quoted above, Jakomo, can you assure Israel that they will not be "wiped off the face of the map" when the day comes that they have no nukes? What self-assureness and certainty do you offer other than your "I don't think..."? Your word? Good faith? The Pentagon's word and good faith?
What self-assureness can you offer that Iran will halt their nuclear weapons aspirations? Again, your word and good faith? Iran's word and good faith? The Pentagon's word and good faith?

Furthermore, lets take this and elevate it one step in regards to Iran: this article's proposal or utopian good faith idea is like suggesting that the US or Russia or China, etc. reduce and eventually giving up their nuclear arsenals to appease Iran and to prevent them from continuing on with their alleged peaceful nuclear aspirations that will undoubtedly also insure that they will acquire nuclear weapons. Maybe the Pentagon should consider setting the example? Maybe they can convince the Russians and Chinese to do likewise? I hardly doubt it, but yet, they may propose this to Israel? If they cannot convince their ownselves, the Russians, the Chinese, etc., what makes anyone think Israel is going to be convinced?


Though the idea of Israel giving up nukes to appease Iran may sound rational, it is not, for the reasons I have asked and stated above. The bottom line here is that there is no certainty that Iran will stop its nuclear ambitions, there is no certainty that if Israel did reduce and/or eventually get rid of its nuclear arsenal, that they will not be jumped by a host of Middle Eastern nations seeking to remove Israel "from the map," and there is no certainty that if the US or Russia or China dumped their entire nucelar arsenals, that Israel will be any safer and/or Iran will halt its nuclear ambitions so that peace can prevail. Nothing.





seekerof

[edit on 13-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Even without nukes, Israel is more than capable of defending itself from any likely agressor or combination therof. The Arab states have already had their butts kicked by the Israelis a few times, they're not going to try open warfare again anytime soon.

What would happen? Iran & Saudi Arabia would probably drop their nuke weapons programs too, there being no strategic nuclear threat that requires such an expensive and politically problematic deterrent. Tensions in the area would drop dramatically.

All academic, because Israel is probably never going to give up nuclear weapons. And thanks to this fact, Iran and the Saudi's are likely to keep trying to build them too.

Interesting fact: only one nuclear power has ever given up nukes: South Africa. Not surprising, since South Africa faced no strategic nuclear threat, and didn't have the money to keep them viable anyway.

[edit on 12/13/05 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
The article makes sense in its simplicity but I do not think that it will work in todays MiddleEastern atmosphere. If the problem was only Israel's Nukes, but time and again the problem seems to be Israel's right to exist. The current Iranian President seems to sum up the mindset of Iran with his recent rhetoric. He is not speaking of unilateral disarmament, he is speaking of annihilation of Israel. Under these conditions I cannot see Israel even considering such a possiblity.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Lets just say, for the sake of an arguement, the Israel decides to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. And over a period of some years, the IDF gradually dismantles its stockpile of nukes, until none remain.

And then, to satisfy the international community, it invites representatives of the IAEA, UN, NATO, etc., into Israel to monitor and inspect this process, providing full cooperation and access. All these organizations happily report that Israel is now totally free of nuclear weapons.

Now, that being said, do you really think that the fanatics in Tehran, the hard liners in Damascus, and the anti-semites all over the world are going to truly believe that the Israelis are totally disarmed, and have not a single warhead remaining in their inventory somewhere? The sad truth is that trust is usually blinded by hatred, and until the enemies of Israel get over their hatred, they will never trust the Israelis to any degree, regardless how noble and honest the Israeli intentions may or may not be.

And for those of you who would suggest that Israel must take the first step by disarming, I submit to you that if anyone has reason to distrust their neighbors, it is the Israelis, who have been invaded multiple times, and who, to this day, are threatened with annihilation by their neighbors on a regular basis. The Israeli nuclear arsenal provides them with tangible and measurable national security. They are not going to throw that out the window based on some pie-in-the-sky concept of a nuclear-free Middle East. Some of their neighbors wait in the shadows with long knives, longing to implement their twisted view of how the world should be, and the Israelis have every reason to be afraid.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Seeker:

Though the idea of Israel giving up nukes to appease Iran may sound rational, it is not, for the reasons I have asked and stated above.


What I love is that you slam me for what you say is "conjecture" and then you proceed to fill a few paragraphs with your own wild conjecture and then attempt to tie it all up with a grandiose statement like that poo. How do you ask a reason?

Pure comedy gold, man, thanks!

I also like the way you include statements like:

"who have for decades sought the eradication of Israel"
"wipe it off the map"
"there is no certainty that if Israel did reduce and/or eventually get rid of its nuclear arsenal, that they will not be jumped by a host of Middle Eastern nations seeking to remove Israel "from the map,""

Propaganda HO! (I am not calling you a ho, I am making a seaman's joke. You know, the crow's nest dude?)

Because it's all about poor Israel and all her mean bloodthirsty enemies who want to destroy her for no good reason. Without nukes she would be overcome by a dark turbanned horde.... Gold, man, pure gold.

Poor Israel, always the victim. They have hundreds of nuclear weapons in their arsenal because they NEED them. Because everyone wants to KILL them. For no reason other than that they are Jewish. Aw. (sniff) So tragic.



Jakomo



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
A very large and important point is being missed here:

Israel is a tiny nation surrounded my much larger nations rich in cash and oil that hate them. Israel’s enemies wouldn’t need nuclear weapons to invade and defeat Israel if they coordinated an attack. Of course Iran, Syria, and every other Middle Eastern nation wants Israel to disarm itself of its nukes, then nothing would stop them from invading. And I am certain they report that they would disarm if Israel did, they win that way after all.

Israel wouldn’t exist today if it weren’t for its western allies and those nukes…



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
As I see it, it looks good on paper but not in reality. The author make think that it could work but guess he didnt listen to some of the recent Iranian president's comments on Israel.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Don't you think that Iran knows that if it did anything to Israel it would get rolled over by the UN? That so many countries around the world would sign up to invade Iran, or Syria, or Egypt, or whoever actually attacks Israel?

That's what's on their mind far more than getting nuked, I am sure.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

Don't you think that Iran knows that if it did anything to Israel it would get rolled over by the UN? That so many countries around the world would sign up to invade Iran, or Syria, or Egypt, or whoever actually attacks Israel?

That's what's on their mind far more than getting nuked, I am sure.





The UN won't do anything but pass a resolution if that. I don't see the UN being a deterent to anyone, certainly didn't affect Saddams decision to attack Kuwait. Anyone that jumps on Israel will have to fight the US and a coalition of the willing, which trumps anymove the Iranians plan with or without Nukes. This makes the whole point of disarmament mute. Israel with or without nukes will always be protected by the USA. This brings forth the bigger question of why does Iran want nukes so bad that it will risk a confrontation with Israel and the USA?



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
What I love is that you slam me for what you say is "conjecture" and then you proceed to fill a few paragraphs with your own wild conjecture and then attempt to tie it all up with a grandiose statement like that poo. How do you ask a reason?

Did I not say that I would give my own counter-assumptions and conjecture?

Read and comprehend, Jakomo.

Furthermore, your rhetorical dismissal of what all I have asked you goes unaddressed and unanswered? You in avoidance mode today, as par?





"who have for decades sought the eradication of Israel"
"wipe it off the map"
"there is no certainty that if Israel did reduce and/or eventually get rid of its nuclear arsenal, that they will not be jumped by a host of Middle Eastern nations seeking to remove Israel "from the map,""

Propaganda HO! (I am not calling you a ho, I am making a seaman's joke. You know, the crow's nest dude?)

Actually, the propaganda, as you call it, can be factually backed, whereas, yours cannot. See the difference here? Apparently, not.
The real propaganda HO is more and more exposing themselves in the past few topics created by said addressed individual. Btw, I am not calling you a ho, I am making a seaman's joke. You know, the crow's nest dude?





Because it's all about poor Israel and all her mean bloodthirsty enemies who want to destroy her for no good reason. Without nukes she would be overcome by a dark turbanned horde.... Gold, man, pure gold.

Poor Israel, always the victim. They have hundreds of nuclear weapons in their arsenal because they NEED them. Because everyone wants to KILL them. For no reason other than that they are Jewish. Aw. (sniff) So tragic.

This is your legit responses to what all I have asked you?
The best answers you can give?
The best retorts you have at your disposal?
I am not sure whether to ask you if you want a tissue or laugh...


My commentary was for discussion, not your continued rhetorical sarcasms. If you wish to engage in real discussion, as those questions I asked you would have insured, let me know. Till then, back to your world of programmed rhetoric and the gnashing of teeth.







seekerof

[edit on 13-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

I think that if they did this, Iran would JUMP at the chance to make sure they followed suit. The rest of the Middle East would then fall in line.

Comments?



I think that the need to have the ultimate weapon is far more deep rooted than everyone thinks. To give up the ultimate power, as so many people see it, would be like asking those who have extremely large privy members to give them up and take small ones instead. It is what sets them apart from everyone else. This is a deep need (no pun intended) in humans. We must have validation from our peers.

Some think that having a nuke will give them exactly that. When you go to the root of it all, it is really a privy member measuring contest. Those in Iran and other countries fear that they are minimized. They feel that they no longer had the world status they once had. They want to feel superior again.

What can give them this? nukes? In their minds, yes.

Once you have a nuke, you ALWAYS have a nuke. The technology is always there. It is one of the things NO ONE can take away. Like Bilbo, Frodo, and Smeagol, once they have it, crave it until their last days.

Give them up? It will never happen.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Seeker:

Actually, the propaganda, as you call it, can be factually backed, whereas, yours cannot. See the difference here? Apparently, not.


Okay, let's see if you can "back up" these facts of yours.


In the same self-assuredness you portrayed in saying what you have quoted above, Jakomo, can you assure Israel that they will not be "wiped off the face of the map" when the day comes that they have no nukes? What self-assureness and certainty do you offer other than your "I don't think..."? Your word? Good faith? The Pentagon's word and good faith?
What self-assureness can you offer that Iran will halt their nuclear weapons aspirations? Again, your word and good faith? Iran's word and good faith? The Pentagon's word and good faith?


Try as I may, all I see from that whole paragraph is a whole lot of question marks. No facts. You are somehow asking me for assurances that Israel would be safe. Because your view (unsubstantiated, I may add) is that it would bring about the destruction of Israel. All very exciting, but not one single factual sentence.


Furthermore, lets take this and elevate it one step in regards to Iran: this article's proposal or utopian good faith idea is like suggesting that the US or Russia or China, etc. reduce and eventually giving up their nuclear arsenals to appease Iran and to prevent them from continuing on with their alleged peaceful nuclear aspirations that will undoubtedly also insure that they will acquire nuclear weapons. Maybe the Pentagon should consider setting the example? Maybe they can convince the Russians and Chinese to do likewise? I hardly doubt it, but yet, they may propose this to Israel? If they cannot convince their ownselves, the Russians, the Chinese, etc., what makes anyone think Israel is going to be convinced?


Well, lookee there. All questions, no facts. Now you're trying to make a connection between the US, Russia and China disarming to appease Iran. How that is relevant in any way to this particular discussion of Israel disarming is beyond me. Apples and oranges. I am not saying Israel should disarm to appease anyone. I'm saying it's a first step in a Middle East peace initiative. A gesture of good faith.


Though the idea of Israel giving up nukes to appease Iran may sound rational, it is not, for the reasons I have asked and stated above. The bottom line here is that there is no certainty that Iran will stop its nuclear ambitions, there is no certainty that if Israel did reduce and/or eventually get rid of its nuclear arsenal, that they will not be jumped by a host of Middle Eastern nations seeking to remove Israel "from the map," and there is no certainty that if the US or Russia or China dumped their entire nucelar arsenals, that Israel will be any safer and/or Iran will halt its nuclear ambitions so that peace can prevail. Nothing.


Yes, "based on the reasons you have ASKED and STATED". You sure did ask a lot of questions, but you gave no reasons. And you can't ASK A REASON. And again, I never said Israel should disarm as appeasement. You somehow read that elsewhere or it's in your mind.

So, Seeker, what it all comes down to is that I am not going to bother arguing with you because you somehow believe that you can ASK REASONS and then in your own mind you see them as facts.

My assertion is that Israel disarming would make the Middle East a safer place for everyone. Not just Jews.

But, of course, I do not expect you for one millisecond to have any kind of empathy or identify at all with anyone in the Middle East who is not Jewish and Zionist, so I'm not terribly surprised by your "responses".


If you wish to engage in real discussion, as those questions I asked you would have insured, let me know.


Like I said, pure comedy that you somehow believe that you are engaging me in real discussion when in actuality you are asking a whole bunch of wild questions that you hold up as facts.


Maybe the Pentagon should consider setting the example? Maybe they can convince the Russians and Chinese to do likewise? I hardly doubt it, but yet, they may propose this to Israel?


How does one answer that? Um, yes. Then "maybe" for the second question. The third one escapes me. You hardly doubt it? Wha? Are you saying that the Pentagon should try to get EVERYONE to disarm? Well, yeah that would be good, but if you read the thread title, you will see we are in fact talking specifically about Israel and the impact it would have on the Middle East if it disarmed.


xman_in_blackx: Now that's a post.


Those in Iran and other countries fear that they are minimized. They feel that they no longer had the world status they once had. They want to feel superior again.


And it does make them feel superior. A country with a nuclear weapon has it as a measure of status and also a very important defensive weapon.

Iran wants them to ensure that they are not attacked by Israel (and probably the US). If Israel got rid of its nukes, Iran would probably not need to develop a nuke at a huge expense, and they would abandon it. Of course, I don't believe Israel would be the first to extend the olive branch, but I can hope.

(none of these are facts and I don't pretend that they are)



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo


The Pentagon commissioned a study on this in November.

A fascinating read.

I think that if they did this, Iran would JUMP at the chance to make sure they followed suit. The rest of the Middle East would then fall in line.

Comments?

www.chron.com...



For sure, if Israel gave up there Nukes it would be game over.

Hell if Iran gets nukes it will propably be game over.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join