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.

 

Israel should talk about nuclear arms: I.A.E.A.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Israel should start talking seriously about ridding the Middle East of nuclear weapons, whether it admits to having them or not, the head of the UN nuclear watchdog said.
Speaking to reporters on an official visit to the Russian capital, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said this would be a main topic of his visit to Israel in early July.
"We need...to rid the Middle East of all weapons of mass destruction," he said.
www.abc.net.au...

They way I read this is, the IAEA wants to rid the Middle East of WMD but one does NOT
have to admit to having WMD.


Remind you of anything?
Sanc'.




posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 07:03 AM
link   
i think the IAEA is simply being realistic. they want to do something about nuclear weapons in the region and to do so they need the cooperation of the regions only nuclear power. however, they know that there is no way israel is going to admit to having nukes any time soon (exactly why, i've never been sure.. seems to negate the point of having a deterrent imo).. so they are circumventing this in the only way possible.

-koji K.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
i think the IAEA is simply being realistic.



Hi Koji_K. That's a fair point. But, we all know Israel has nukes. How, because Israel
is totally backed by the U.S., and the U.S. has nukes.
Sanc'.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sanctum

Originally posted by koji_K
i think the IAEA is simply being realistic.



Hi Koji_K. That's a fair point. But, we all know Israel has nukes. How, because Israel
is totally backed by the U.S., and the U.S. has nukes.
Sanc'.


yes... and also because one of their nuclear technicians, mordecai vanunu (sp?) broke the story.

-koji K.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I believe that Syrias leader brought up the point that the entire Middle East Should be made a nuclear free zone. But Israel was strangly silent on the issue



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
yes... and also because one of their nuclear technicians, mordecai vanunu (sp?) broke the story.


Vanunu thread
for your interest
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sanc'.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Think of it this way:
You're a person, named Israel, who is standing in a circle of 11 people. They all have guns pointed at you, so you pull out your guns in defense. Then a voice from above says "Hey! You there, surrounding Israel. You will put down your guns, but Israel will keep theirs." When all 11 people around you put down their guns, while you still have yours, what happens next? Perhaps the disadvantage is understandable?


Although a great deal of ME strife is due to the Israel/Palestine split, something that her Arab neighbors do not appreciate is how Israel does have a nuclear stockpile. What goes on further to alienate non-Israeli middle eastern relations with the west is how they are encouraged and/or forced to disarm their weapons of mass destruction where Israel gets a free pass to have as many as they can afford to maintain. It's not the fairest double-standard in the world, if such fairness exists.

Not only is the IAEA behind this push, but also the UN. But that may not mean much as that is just another resoulation the US will veto in defense of Israeli interests.

In all fairness, Israel's position is relatively understandable that such armaments serve as deterrents against incursions, but it is completely unfair for all of the surrounding nations of that region to disarm without asking Israel to do the same.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
Think of it this way:
You're a person, named Israel, who is standing in a circle of 11 people. They all have guns pointed at you, so you pull out your guns in defense.


No dis' AlnilamOmega, but i don't like those odds.
Sanc'.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Think of it this way:
You're a person, named Israel, who is standing in a circle of 11 people. They all have guns pointed at you, so you pull out your guns in defense.

Your that same person, so what do you do? You starve the children of the 11 surrounding you. You murder and torture thier families, crush protestors with bulldozers, attempt genocide, crush thier homes and place setlements there. Build a fence around them. Assasinate them in other countries, oh wait, got the wrong guy oooops.

Its total hypocracy to expect Iran and other to take the the no nuke pledge seriously when Israel flaunts it with every oppurtunity.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Think of it this way:
You're a person, named Israel, who is standing in a circle of 11 people. They all have guns pointed at you, so you pull out your guns in defense.

Your that same person, so what do you do? You starve the children of the 11 surrounding you. You murder and torture thier families, crush protestors with bulldozers, attempt genocide, crush thier homes and place setlements there. Build a fence around them. Assasinate them in other countries, oh wait, got the wrong guy oooops.

Its total hypocracy to expect Iran and other to take the the no nuke pledge seriously when Israel flaunts it with every oppurtunity.





But it becomes a lot more complicated when you consider Israel has been attacked on every side by its Arab neighbors in five wars('48,'56',67,'73,'82:not every side in every war, however), and SCUD missile attacks in 1991, not to mention hundreds of terrorist attacks supported by its hostile neighbors.

Iran is the biggest terrorist danger in the world, and it, rather than Iraq should have been the focus of war.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Iran is the biggest terrorist danger in the world, and it, rather than Iraq should have been the focus of war.

You are correct, Israel has alot to be worried about. And yes they have been attacked multiple times. But cause and effect play a huge part in this. Would the have been attack if they....... That type of historical debate could go on forever. However, the use of nuclear weapons by Israel would be a doomsday type weapon anyway. They have one launcher that could hit far away (the Jericho 2) but alot of thier weapons would most likely be deployed close enough to cause residual contamination of Israel itself.

Iran is a whole nother ballpark. You have an unhappy population, but not to the level that Iraq's was. Id wager that the population would not stand around passivly while our tank roll through Terhan. Also as the Iran Iraq was showed they have a stomach for attrittion warefare that we do not.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
FredT, there is no debate, every war Israel has fought has been defensive against aggressive Arab Nationalist neighbors. The only debate is could more be done to maintain peace?

As for Iran, that is not a good focus for the US, Iran has a large pro-US population, and its government is firmly entrenched. Attacking it would result in the alienation of the only pro-US group in that country and thus be counter-productive.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Israel is surrounded by countries that would love to see Israel burn to ash. Israel is coventianally more powerful to any regional power by a long margin, any attempt by any surrounding nation to attack Israel directly will involve a bloody good thrashing.

This leaves the Arab states with only one recourse, to oneday obtain and use Nuclear Weapons against Israel.

Israel knows this, that is why its unofficially declared that it has nukes and a lot of them. My friend is an Israeli living near a kibbutz in the north. It is an open secret that if Israel is attacked by an enemy wielding nuclear weapons or in a conventional war israel looks as if it will lose Israel with envoke the M.A.D. senario and turn the Middle East into a giant microwave oven.

It's a mexican standoff and israel will not give up its nukes and if they do bet your bottom dollar they will have enough hidden to vapourise any enemy if it came to that desperate point.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by rustiswordz
Israel is surrounded by countries that would love to see Israel burn to ash. Israel is coventianally more powerful to any regional power by a long margin, any attempt by any surrounding nation to attack Israel directly will involve a bloody good thrashing.

This leaves the Arab states with only one recourse, to oneday obtain and use Nuclear Weapons against Israel.

Israel knows this, that is why its unofficially declared that it has nukes and a lot of them. My friend is an Israeli living near a kibbutz in the north. It is an open secret that if Israel is attacked by an enemy wielding nuclear weapons or in a conventional war israel looks as if it will lose Israel with envoke the M.A.D. senario and turn the Middle East into a giant microwave oven.

It's a mexican standoff and israel will not give up its nukes and if they do bet your bottom dollar they will have enough hidden to vapourise any enemy if it came to that desperate point.


South Africa is the only country, supposedly, to have had nuclear weapons and to voluntarily have given them up. Can anyone imagine if they didn't, if the modern state of South Africa had nuclear weapons?



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Let me put my reply above another way. One man stands in a room surrounded with people all with guns pointing at him who wants the man dead, he cant take everyone on at the same time despite the big maching gun tucked under his arm so he reaches into his coat and pulls out a Hand Grenade and pulls the pin.

His enemies cant fire because the man will let go of the grenade and like a dead mans handle the the grenade will detonate killing the slain mans enemies with him.

Its a cold way in the Mid East, a cold war....



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rustiswordz
Let me put my reply above another way. One man stands in a room surrounded with people all with guns pointing at him who wants the man dead, he cant take everyone on at the same time despite the big maching gun tucked under his arm so he reaches into his coat and pulls out a Hand Grenade and pulls the pin.

His enemies cant fire because the man will let go of the grenade and like a dead mans handle the the grenade will detonate killing the slain mans enemies with him.

Its a cold way in the Mid East, a cold war....


good analogy.

seperately, i wonder also how long isreal's convential military deterrent would remain in deterring shape if america ceased it's military support. the nuclear weapons would be all the more valuable.

-koji K.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Lets give them all short range nukes, and let them destroy each other...then the problem is solved for all...


Not a serious suggestion, but certainly my gut reaction... I'm tired of their petty squabling over sand impeding on the way I live, etc.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
FredT, there is no debate, every war Israel has fought has been defensive against aggressive Arab Nationalist neighbors. The only debate is could more be done to maintain peace?


FM, not every war... almost every war, but not all of them. There were one or two incursions that Israel had where they invaded other territories.

Furthermore, yes, you are right in saying that the huge part of the 'debate' lies in what more could be done in terms of peace in the region. The first, and most significant, thing that could be done in terms of promoting peace is for the Rothschilds to give up their interests and authority within Israel. But you know as well as I do that such a thing wouldn't happen so easily, eh, FreeMason?

Also, I think my metaphor was largely misinterpreted. What I meant was that it is unfair for all other countries in the region to disarm when the one major propogator of aggression (as in a primary reason why the area is so rife with conflict, but not generally the main insigator of those conflicts) gets to keep their nukes.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join