Real Threats to Middle East

Sometime, one statistic worth thousands of speculations.
List of countries by size of armed forces:
en.wikipedia.org...

Nuclear Weapons:
USA: 9200
Israel: 70-400

oh and..
Iran: 0

But as we know...Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction too, and should be destroyed.

Sometimes a statistic worth nothing.
Only destroying and killing counts.

I knew a girl who worked for Israeli intelligence. If someone asked her about how many nuclear weapons they had, she wouldn't answer or say "we don't". This is because Israel has never disclosed how many nuclear weapons they have, if they even do. I'm not aware of any official documentation saying that Israel does have nuclear weapons, perhaps there's something new that's arisen in the last two years since she worked for the Israeli intelligence services?

It's just popular conjecture that Israel does have nuclear weapons. The notion is used by Israel to keep themselves safe. Imagine if it came out that they didn't! Her Arab neighbors would be all over that like, 'stink on poop' as my father would've said.

As for Iraq and WMDs, I remember very destinctly being in my American history class after we'd started the fight in Iraq. We were watching Hans Blicks, the UN weapons guy, talking about his findings. My teacher, who was ultra liberal, becoming dead silent when Mr. Blicks said, "no, we didn't find any weapons but, it is obvious that stuff was moved out of here really fast."

Sorry, those are all things I just had to get off my chest.

The US defense budget is ten times as much as Russia, and I think they have twice as many Nuclear Weapons, and alot of other stuff?

Russians, Tricky guys.

I heard once that Russia has a couple branches to their military that we don't have. Namely Laser Tactics and a space force of sorts.

reply to post by octotom

It's just popular conjecture that Israel does have nuclear weapons. The notion is used by Israel to keep themselves safe. Imagine if it came out that they didn't! Her Arab neighbors would be all over that like, 'stink on poop' as my father would've said.

Based on your comment I can only surmise your opinions are dependant wholly on 'feel'. Israel is a nuclear armed country. It developed its nuclear capability on information given to her by the UK in the 1960s and a technology transfer in the 1950s by France. Plutonium production is at the Dimona nuclear reactor which was built by France just like most Israeli war technologies are imports. So much for Israeli genius.

Last Updated: Friday, 10 March 2006, 11:07 GMT

Secret sale of UK plutonium to Israel
By Meirion Jones
BBC Newsnight

The UK supplied Israel with quantities of plutonium while Harold Wilson was prime minister, BBC Newsnight can reveal.

The sale was made despite a warning from British intelligence that it might "make a material contribution to an Israeli weapons programme". Under Wilson, Britain also sold Israel tons of chemicals used to make boosted atom bombs 20 times more powerful than Hiroshima or even Hydrogen Bombs.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Britain's dirty secret

Meirion Jones

Published 13 March 2006

Exculsive - Secret papers show how Britain helped Israel make the A-bomb in the 1960s, supplying tons of vital chemicals including plutonium and uranium. And it looks as though Harold Wilson and his ministers knew nothing about it...

www.newstatesman.com...

Israel's Nuclear Weapon Capability:
An Overview The Risk Report Volume 2 Number 4 (July-August 1996).

Today, Israel is the world's sixth most powerful nuclear state, with a stockpile of more than 100 nuclear weapons and with the components and ability to build atomic, neutron and hydrogen bombs. Israel's nuclear program began and still operates under tight secrecy, but in the 1980s a series of revelations showed the crucial role played by foreign suppliers.

France launched Israel on the nuclear path in the late 1950s by building the Dimona reactor, which is still the source of Israel's plutonium--its main nuclear weapon fuel. The reactor's heavy water, essential to achieve a chain reaction, was supplied by Norway in 1959. In 1963, when the reactor started operation, the United States supplied four more tons of heavy water.

www.wisconsinproject.org...

Furthermore, Mordechai Vanunu, a technician at Dimona disclosed precise details of Israel's nuclear program to the UK Sunday Times a few years ago for which he spent 18 years in solitary confinement in Israel.

So when most people don't make assumptions when they say Israel has WMD nor are they making a 'popular conjecture'.

Acting coy or being ambivalent when asked a direct question of whether Israel has WMDs is a lie by omission when there is evidence it does.

[edit on 022828p://pm2838 by masonwatcher]

Originally posted by octotom
I heard once that Russia has a couple branches to their military that we don't have. Namely Laser Tactics and a space force of sorts.

You mean the US? According to Gary McKinnon the Pentagon hacker, it is the US that has these bizarre units including extraterrestrial military branches.

www.guardian.co.uk...

No, I really meant Russia. Although, it doesn't surprise me that us in America do too.

No, my opinion wasn't based on feel. I've talked to someone who worked for Israeli intelligence. She'd know whether or not they had nukes or not. If they do, its above top secret so to speak. Simply having material to make weapons doesn't mean a who lot. I'll have to examine the Wisconsin Project link when I get the chance.

Well, compare how much airplanes/tanks/soldiers Nazi Germany had in 1936 with UK or France arsenal. And still, it was the aggressor in 1939, not UK/France.
If Iran has no nukes now, it does not mean anything about future. Oh, and why don't you compare simply by the size of armed forces?
Iranians are not aggressive nation, true. But its leaders are religious fanatics. And given current threats exchange with Israel and war by proxies , who knows how far things will slide if Iran also had nuke?
Can you predict what Iranian leadership would do, with Mahdi prophecies and such?

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Iranians are not aggressive nation, true. But its leaders are religious fanatics. And given current threats exchange with Israel and war by proxies , who knows how far things will slide if Iran also had nuke?
Can you predict what Iranian leadership would do, with Mahdi prophecies and such?

Have you ever considered that these "fanatics" are playing a game according to the rules? Like a game of power, like U.S and Israel trying to do and dominate.
If Iran didn't attack,and on the contrary U.S and Israel constantly attacking and destroying in the Middle East, why still creating an evil Image from Iran?
The so colled "fanatics" are only in words..The real prophecies of destruction are already in charge in US and Israel.

reply to post by deccal


Well , our views are total negatives. So arguing is probably pointless. I just can tell you how i see it , from Israel.
Israel never attacked Iran. Actually Israel had very good relationship with Persia until revolution changed regime in Iran. Some current Iranian nuclear sites still have Israeli-made defenses.
Right now however Iran surrounded Israel with proxy organization - Hizbollah in Lebanon and more or less Hamas in Gaza and they directly attack Israel. Iran invests in ballistic missiles technology and nuclear technology. Iranian leaders constantly make threats at Israel. Now i do not know if Israeli strike at Iranian nuclear sites would bring any good but i definitely want my government to watch things very closely.
On the other hand if Iran was not behaving as it did - what you call "playing game" - then there is no chance Israel would even consider strikes on Iran. Egypt has nuclear program, Saudi Arabia also start to develop one. And Israel surely is not going to bomb any of them, no chance at all.
So this Iranian "game" to me personally reminds other leader games in the last century. Then a lot of people also thought that it was a political game only. And he did not have any religious theme, "only" racial one.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by deccal

 

Well , our views are total negatives. So arguing is probably pointless. I just can tell you how i see it , from Israel.
....
So this Iranian "game" to me personally reminds other leader games in the last century. Then a lot of people also thought that it was a political game only. And he did not have any religious theme, "only" racial one.

No, our views are not total negatives, and it is not pointless to argue. Actually we are living very close to each other than other members here
I understand the psychology you are describing. It is not true that Israel is completely wrong. But Israel is acting as the ultimate judge in the region, which is a very dangerous politic.

About the "game": It is easy to see that Iranian leadership is completly evil, mad and can do anything. This is wrong. Iran knows very very well that any attack on Israel is its end. U.S destroys Iran immediatly. But...
someone should see that the "game" is changing. The countries you count, Egypt, Saudia Arabia are simply allies of U.S.
But Iran does not need U.S economically. It is more independent than other countries, those allies..
Turkey is also going closer to Iran, not because of Islam, but becuase of economics. It is about energy line, gas etc...
This is the game.
Not Hitler's game you are talking about. Big Picture is not about destroying Israel etc...Nobody has this in mind. But Israel can not act in the region as "all-mighty", he should understand it.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


And don't get me wrong. Although the title may mislead, my intention to say was that having nuclear weapons and acting as ultimate judge in the region really disturbs me. And makes me fear. One nuke, and we, our sons-daughters, grandsons all will be affected. And unfortunatly this threat I see may come from U.S and Israel. First country did it before, second country acts as if they can do it..
Makes me really thrill..

reply to post by deccal


I think that if Israel would use nuke - against Iran or someone else - it would mean end of Israel due to shear world-wide opposition to such moves. So even if people who would die or simply suffer due to its use are to be disregarded by Israeli leaders, the fact above cannot be disregarded.
So nukes that Israel (allegedly) has can be used for deterrence purpose only. Or grim (and also deterrence-targeted) "Samson option".
Now as for Israel being judge or even bully - in my opinion it is simply since Israeli leadership (and public) is yet to realize that they are part of Middle East. Not that Middle East is really happy to make Israel part of it too, but it is geographical fact (to mutual dismay?). Ideology of "city in a siege" is very much alive and majority of Israelis (including me) live with that constantly somewhere in subconscious. Iranian issue does little to repair it. However i am (almost) sure that Israel would not use nuclear weapon first. Using a nuke on Iran to prevent possible nuke on Israel would result anyway in the same effect as if Iran really did nuked Israel - aka end of Israel.
But even a "conventional" strike on Iran would bring a war, and it - in my opinion - is more real problem then hypothetical nukes.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


I would agree. "Nuke" thing is a weapon as a Concept. Nuke, or weapon of mass destruction. But this concept are misused always by U.S and now by Israel as a fear generator. Fear makes people enemy, who should not. Of course there are radicals on every side, but with fear their number only increase. It is not true to see Arabs or Muslims as irrational creatures who could use Nukes anytime..It is wrong. (I am not saying that you are doing so).
By the way, it is nice to meet a rational, objective person like you. Actually I could ask hunderds question to you, but would be off topic. Like, about the situation of anti-war movement there etc..




[edit on 19-2-2009 by deccal]