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.

 

Looks like the Nuclear Hats out of the Bag!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
It appears now that the USA has no support in the world to stop nuclear proliferation that things are proliferating quite nicely. It was only a matter of time with all of the world resistance to the US that we would be unable to stop the chaos. Its only a matter of time before this entire region is plunged into nuclear war, or worse the terrorists get one.


The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa.

The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest.

All want to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they are permitted to under international law. But the sudden rush to nuclear power has raised suspicions that the real intention is to acquire nuclear technology which could be used for the first Arab atomic bomb.

Article




posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Israel has not helped this issue one little bit. Israel has nukes, lots of them and nobody knows where they are or where they are pointed. Israel has refused inspection and is a real rebel in the world nuclear club. That is why it has not helped the US to demand obeyance of the rules by other rogue states who see the hypocrisy here. The best outcome is to limit the number and effectiveness of Iran's stockpiles or bring Israel into the fold and have it come out into the open re: its own programs.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
You can blame Israel all you want but the fact of the matter is Israel would never use those weapons if things has kept the status quo, but now that may change and she(Israel) might be compelled to use these horrible weapons in what it perceives has become a major threat, and if you thought the USA was bad about preemptive strike wait till this comes to a head.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Denythestatus
Agreed. It was a big concern of ours that once NK was known to have nukes that the same would happen throughout Asia. A Nuclear Buildup. What made the ME any different and why wasn't this thought about earlier?

The one thing I find funny is that while Israel is already known for its deciet in fooling the world it wanted to aquire Nuke Tech for peaceful purposes, when it was actually for purposes of war, the Israelis and USA automatically believe that declarations of ME or Arab nations seeking nuke tech would be for anything other then what is stated. In Israels case I believe its mostly projecting their guilt and thinking everyone is as devious as they are. In Americas case mostly they are projecting their guilt in regards to protecting israel and thinking everyone is as devious as Israel. I think this was one time Israel should have stood quiet and not been rocking the boat for the past 10 years. If they want to push the nuke issue they should reverse their nuke program and then have a say in what other countries do.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Israel's Nukes have been for defensive purposes. That's why you've never heard much about them, and they've never used one! I don't mind an ally and democracy having Nukes for just this reason. A known criminal on the other hand, will use these weapons fairly quickly.

It's like selling a gun. There is a waiting period and background check. Well, we got the background check on the Iranian Clerics, and it wasn't pretty. So we should still let them have the gun?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
It's "cat out of the bag" not "hat out of the bag"...

And "Israel's nukes are for defensive purposes"?!?!

Nukes are useless as a defensive weapon. Their only viable use is offensive.

If you don't think Iran's nuclear program is a direct response to Israel's nuclear arsenal, you're kidding yourself.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

posted by xmotex
It's "cat out of the bag" not "hat out of the bag"...


How do you know? Are you the phrase police today.





Nukes are useless as a defensive weapon. Their only viable use is offensive.



Somebody's been drinking too much Kool Aid. Any weapon can be used in a dual offensive/defensive role. The whole reason Israel hasn't been attacked in many years, is the Samson Option. Which entails the destruction of the Arab world should Israel be overrun!



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
LOL Nuclear Hat. Yeah is there is gonna be a phrase police, the correct one is "Cat" not Hat. Unless you're Dr. Seuss.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
one nuke, two nuke, red nuke, blue nuke.
Yes, some are red. snd some are blue.
some are old. and some are new.
some are sad.
and some are glad.
and some are very, very bad.

dr. seuss indeed...


i agree israel has to allow inspections to show that if you want to be in the club, then you abide by the rules, NO EXCEPTIONS. so when these arab countries come to join they understand they too must abide by the rules. as for north korea, i dont see that ending well.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
It's not that a nuclear arsenal can be used as a defensive weapon... it's the knowledge other countries have of that nuclear arsenal that is a defensive weapon. The nukes themselves wouldn't even get used in defense.

Face it, nobody is going to be crazy enough to declare all out war, and try to overrun a country who is willing to unleash its nuclear arsenal if they start to lose.

THAT is the defensive weapon.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
its called M.A.D...



Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by one of two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash Equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome — nuclear annihilation.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 11/4/2006 by bokinsmowl]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
The only problem with MAD is Israel's small size. Here's a statement from Rafsanjani, one of the ruling clerics.


One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".



www.iran-press-service.com...



Not to mention the fact that martyrdom (destruction) gets these guys into Heaven right? The Theology of Martyrdom and Mutually Assured Destruction are mutually exclusive.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

Somebody's been drinking too much Kool Aid. Any weapon can be used in a dual offensive/defensive role. The whole reason Israel hasn't been attacked in many years, is the Samson Option. Which entails the destruction of the Arab world should Israel be overrun!


I think you mean that we aren't drinking your Koolaid. Israel has more then demonstrated its inability and irresponsibility to be able to have WMD. The over-reaction in Lebanon was a perfect example of this and if their opressive treatment of Palestinians hasn' been enough to prove otherwise, then I don't know what to say.

The other day after Botha's death his compatriots lamented how he was so extremely hurt by Israel turning his back on them because of pressure placed on them to do so. The Israeli government was one of the biggest supporters of Apartheid Africa and even supplied them with Nuclear bombs. Imagine supplying a racist country with Nuclear weapons. The Israeli government has proven they are incapable time and again. Its only after blackmailing us to give them fighter jets and weapons did they not use Nukes the last time around. We do not need this hanging over our heads.

In regards to the Samson option, I noticed you said the enire Arab world. So you are saying if Iran , or Syria invades and overruns Israel that Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and whatever other country is on the Samson list will recieve Israeli nuclear retribution? Wow talk about collective punishment and retribution. That takes the cake. Thats more then enough evidence to prove to me they definitely shouldn't have WMD's.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
The only problem with MAD is Israel's small size. Here's a statement from Rafsanjani, one of the ruling clerics.


One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".



www.iran-press-service.com...



Not to mention the fact that martyrdom (destruction) gets these guys into Heaven right? The Theology of Martyrdom and Mutually Assured Destruction are mutually exclusive.


You left out the rest.


"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world",


Nice try though.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

posted by pieman
You left out the rest.


That's why I provided the link. And in my mind it don't change the first statement one whit. That is the mind set. Therefore, Israel must prepare for that eventuality.




Nice try though.


I don't know what it is you think I'm 'trying'. But I'd appreciate it if you could save your condescending remarks for kids. I don't need 'em.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
That's why I provided the link. And in my mind it don't change the first statement one whit. That is the mind set. Therefore, Israel must prepare for that eventuality.



I don't know what it is you think I'm 'trying'. But I'd appreciate it if you could save your condescending remarks for kids. I don't need 'em.


Its unfair when you attempt to label all Muslims as having this Martyrdom on the brain syndrome. As though there are no Israelis who will feel likewise about going to the Kingdom of Heaven in attempting to save the Israelites and Israel. There are nutballs on both sides of the fence just remember that. If a man like Lieberman who suggested attacking the Aswan damn in Egypt to kill hundreds of thousands of Egyptians would ever get his hands on those Nukes.....then what??

That statement made by the cleric is more fact then it is fiction or threat. There are lunatics on either side there and NEITHER Israel nor any Arab country should have any nuclear weapons.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


And "Israel's nukes are for defensive purposes"?!?!

Nukes are useless as a defensive weapon. Their only viable use is offensive.

If you don't think Iran's nuclear program is a direct response to Israel's nuclear arsenal, you're kidding yourself.



How many times did the arab nations try to overrun Israel since 48'?

Funny how they stopped trying once Israel was rumored to have nuclear weapons.

As far as Iran using Israel as an excuse to have nuclear weapons..........

Do these countries share a border where Israel can invade Iran, did or has Israel threatened Iran prior to Iran's own nuclear program and stated desire to destroy Israel?

If Israel was vengeful or seeked retribution for all the harm done over the last 60 years by its enemies it has had plenty of time and oppurtuinity to do so. Israel, not
having done so says a lot about their trustworthiness with their arsenal and backs their stated no first use policy. Their weapons are for defence of a last resort.

Iran on the otherhand being a proven state sponsor of terrorism cannot be trusted with WMD. Who's to say they won't give one or several to non-state terrorists with a way to deliver them to other countries percieved as enemies of Iran or Islam. The Fatwa has already been issued has it not?

Iran if allowed to possess these weapons can be counted on to bully its neighbors, forment more discord in the region and either attack Israel outright or through pretext based on fanatical belief of its leaders.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Sounds insane; but something I’ve always wondered is whether more countries having more nukes in this world will actually be good for global peace?
Now obviously you don’t want to try it (it suits us to have all the nukes thank you very much) but given that this era is now over and looks to be getting even more so, one has to ask what will the effect actually be?

Phoenix
People often say Iran is a religious state with leaders willing to commit suicide in the name of a twisted interpretation of religion. However surely no true god fearing man would want to explain to their God why they just caused the extinction of 98% of their own race (especially when God has allowed other means to meet their objectives) (in this case a better life for the Palestinians).
Furthermore many of Iran’s so called religious leaders would go to hell even by the standards of their own religion. This is because they no doubt have lots of sins up their sleazes (even when its only to journalists). Hence though they may use religion they have every reason to be Mutually Assured Destruction fearing.

Of course the more countries that have nukes the higher the chance someone like Kim Jim might say “I'm looking grey, and heading for the grave. Why don’t I do something exciting like blow up the world?”
And this may happen. However is it really going to be a nuclear cold war style of war where everything in almost every continent you can think of gets burnt?
I for one don’t really think so. Instead I think it will be more of your local style nuclear war (providing that is the nations of the world remember the lessons of the First World War).

Even so I’d still would prefer if we (the West) had all the nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by xmotex

Nukes are useless as a defensive weapon. Their only viable use is offensive.

Come on you know that’s not true. Cold War anyone?
And if Iran announces it has a nuclear bomb tomorrow the only thing that will stop them using by next week is the fact Israel also has them (they might not think it very fair if they have just one!!!).
That said you also have a point because the United States has always been Israel’s bum chum. The only purpose for Israeli nukes I can see is in case the United States got pissed of with it (somehow I think that’s almost impossible) or maybe to negotiate them away? (Not that, that’s likely given how hard Iran or whoever will have to try just to get them).
HimWhoHaveAnEar Iran’s clerics are always saying something crazy “god is a vacuum cleaner” “the moon is made of Jews” “and Israel wiped out the dinosaurs”. Trouble is the cleric is clearly wrong. Israel is already thought to have about 200 nukes and if I were them I would be building a whole lot more. One hydrogen bomb can destroy 300 Hiroshima’s for about the same amount of nuclear fuel. So you see there isn’t much to worry about; especially when in the right circumstances the whole of the western world will help; and at the very least America and Britain.





bokinsmowl
Morally Israel should admit to having nukes and inspections. Trouble is right now the timing wouldn’t be very good. Iran might just say “told the world U.S had a one sided biased foreign policy” and also “right that’s it, we’re going to develop nuclear weapons unless Israel gives them up”. That might seem good; until we discover Iran’s kicked out the international inspectors (again).
I think the reason why Israel has never admitted having nukes is because the timing is almost never right, and even when it has been Israel’s possession would have to be legalised through the U.N (something that looks questionable). Otherwise everyone would be shouting “shame on you, sanction times”.
So I reckon the best thing for Israel to say is: “we’re the country that crosses our fingers, and blinks an eye when we say: “We don’t have nukes.”

That said letting Israel having nukes could undermine trust between Israel and the U.S. You see what I'm terrified about is Israel (one day) dumping the U.S for a relationship with China. But only after we’ve removed all the opposition; and dumped all our potential friends (like Saddam’s Iraq) on the Middle Eastern continent. I don’t think that between 10 and 20 years from now this is that unrealistic.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
If the Arabs manage to get a nuclear weapon, it might serve to keep Israel in check.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   
After decades of corporate intervention oversea's.
The raping of a countries natural resources, the slave labour of childeren...
We tried as longas possible to ensure these people didnt have the means to challenge us..

now they do, and look whats happening.

the US has no friends, and the world are slowly but surely becoming strong enough to say STOP!

American has done alot of good things for this planet..
but that doesnt mean they can do as much bad things in return.




top topics



 
0

log in

join