Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Israel 'has 150 nuclear weapons'

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Caverna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33 ✭Caverna


    Gobán Saor........hahaha


  • Options
    #93
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    be civil or dont post


  • Options
    #94
    St_Crispin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭St_Crispin


    wes wrote: »
    The Prime Minister of Israel saying they have them isn't proof? That is more proof than anyone has about Iran program. So we should disregard, what the Prime Minister of Israel says about his own country then. I already said if the the Supreme Leader of Iran, said something similar, I would accept Iran has nuclear weapons. You conveniently ignore this, to try and make out that I am looking for special treatment for Iran, of course that situation exists no where in reality, but once again an attempt by you try to confuse things.

    In fact didn't US intelligence say recently Iran, stopped its nuclear weapon program? Aren't the US the experts at finding WMDs? Is there a similar report about Israel? Last I check there isn't. There seems to be proof Iran has long stopped there nuclear weapons program. I see no such evidence for Israel.

    What about the guy they jailed for something like 20 years for leaking their nuclear program to the press. If they had a program 20 years ago then it looks likely that they have weapons now.


  • Options
    #95
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    St_Crispin wrote: »
    What about the guy they jailed for something like 20 years for leaking their nuclear program to the press. If they had a program 20 years ago then it looks likely that they have weapons now.

    Thanks for mentioning him. Completely forgot that.


  • Options
    #96
    Caverna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33 ✭Caverna


    GuanYin wrote: »
    be civil or dont post

    I am being civil GuanYin.

    What in the name of good God are you talking about?!

    I am agreeing with Goban Saor.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    wes wrote: »
    Also, they (Israel) could nuke others in the region without fear of retaliation.

    Right... Israel wouldn't be affected by radioactive fallout of course...

    Look its perfectly obvious that you hate Israel and hate the Jews and that you'll spin any argument in the obsession of yours. Israel has made no open threat of using nuclear weapons. If they do have them then they would only be used in a situation akin to the Yom Kippur war of 1973 which was a close run thing for the first week, only for the huge courage and professionalism of the israeli troops turning it around.

    Its much easier to imagine the Syrians (first strike on israel in the yom kippur war) or Iran (their president openly wishing to push israel into the sea) using nuclear weapons in a first strike.


  • Options
    #98
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Look its perfectly obvious that you hate Israel and hate the Jews and that you'll spin any argument in the obsession of yours.
    ...
    Its much easier to imagine the Syrians (first strike on israel in the yom kippur war) or Iran (their president openly wishing to push israel into the sea) using nuclear weapons in a first strike.
    "Wah wah wah - stop criticising Israel! If anyone's going to be using nuclear weapons, it'll be those smelly Iranians and Syrians (even though they don't have any), coz they'z EVIL I tellz ya!" :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Israel has made no open threat of using nuclear weapons. If they do have them then they would only be used in a situation akin to the Yom Kippur war of 1973 which was a close run thing for the first week, only for the huge courage and professionalism of the israeli troops turning it around.
    So Israel won't use nuclear weapons until they're pushed? Right. Gotcha.


  • Options
    #99
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    djpbarry wrote: »
    So Israel won't use nuclear weapons until they're pushed? Right. Gotcha.

    Since Israel began its alleged nuclear program in the mid-70's there hasn't been a repeat of the Yom Kippur war which threatened the state and people of Israel with destruction.

    If the arab states defeated israel in a war there would be a complete genocide of the Jewish people, faced with that threat nuclear retaliation would as a last resort be justifiable even though it is a terrible thing to contemplate.


  • Options
    #100
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    If the arab states defeated israel in a war there would be a complete genocide of the Jewish people...
    Would there indeed. And if Israel defeated all the Arab states in a war, all the Arabs would be subjected to genocide, so they'd be justified in dropping a few nuclear bombs on Israel, right? :rolleyes:
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    ...faced with that threat nuclear retaliation would as a last resort be justifiable...
    No, it wouldn't. The mass murder of potentially millions of innocent people is NEVER justified.


  • Options
    #101
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Would there indeed. And if Israel defeated all the Arab states in a war, all the Arabs would be subjected to genocide, so they'd be justified in dropping a few nuclear bombs on Israel, right? :rolleyes:
    No, it wouldn't. The mass murder of potentially millions of innocent people is NEVER justified.

    1: Israel already HAS defeated the Arab States in war. Twice. Perhaps you should read up on some middle east history. In 1967 they defeated the alliance of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq and in 1973 they defeated Egypt and Syria and neither time did they commit genocide so your first point is without any basis in fact.

    2: Right.... so Israel should just roll over and let its people be destroyed? The THREAT of nuclear retaliation is enough to stop a repeat of the Yom Kippur war.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    The Saint
    Registered Users Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    The 1973 war could have been avoided if Israel had not rejected a 1971 peace proposal by the UN to enter a peace agreement with Egypt for withdraw from occupied territories. The 1973 war was a direct result of this.


  • Options
    #103
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Let us focus on the points and leave accusations of racism and personal comments out of this.

    Understood?


  • Options
    #104
    St_Crispin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭St_Crispin


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    1: Israel already HAS defeated the Arab States in war. Twice. Perhaps you should read up on some middle east history. In 1967 they defeated the alliance of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq and in 1973 they defeated Egypt and Syria and neither time did they commit genocide so your first point is without any basis in fact.

    2: Right.... so Israel should just roll over and let its people be destroyed? The THREAT of nuclear retaliation is enough to stop a repeat of the Yom Kippur war.

    1: They just commited ethnic cleansing, massacres and forced the palestinian people to live in near ghetto like conditions.

    2: Nuclear weapons aren't an effective deterrant except against others with nukes or when faced with an army that wants to obliterate israel. QAll arab states know this. So it means that they either have to get their own (it's called an arms race:rolleyes:) or they fight wars to gain strategic objectives. Nukes have been around for 60 years, but it hasn't stopped wars from occuring.

    (and they've defeated them more than twice)


  • Options
    #105
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    St_Crispin wrote: »
    1: They just commited ethnic cleansing, massacres and forced the palestinian people to live in near ghetto like conditions.

    Theres also the 1956 conflict and the 1967 war as well, that Israel started to take more Arab land.


  • Options
    #106
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Right, and in 1956 the Egyptians did nothing like affect Israeli commerce by blocking their access to the Red Sea, and in 1967 all those Egyptian tanks and troops were sitting happily in their barracks playing cards and Egypt was being entirely unprovocative before the Israelis attacked.

    It really isn't all that simple, there's no way you can ever point at anything in the history of the Arab/Israeli conflict and say "He/That/They started it!"

    NTM


  • Options
    #107
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Right, and in 1956 the Egyptians did nothing like affect Israeli commerce by blocking their access to the Red Sea, and in 1967 all those Egyptian tanks and troops were sitting happily in their barracks playing cards and Egypt was being entirely unprovocative before the Israelis attacked.

    The Israeli's, the British and French plotted together to start the 1956 conflict, this is very well known at this point.

    As for 1967, the Israeli's decided to attack, there is no evidence that the Arab states were about to attack. There was posturing and rhetoric on all sides. Israel excuse for there war of aggression was that the Arab were about to attack. There is no basis for this at all. Also, to point out Israel policy called the "Iron Wall", you can read about it here. Then there is the simple fact that Israel, not that long ago attack Egypt to steal land from them in 1956.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    It really isn't all that simple, there's no way you can ever point at anything in the history of the Arab/Israeli conflict and say "He/That/They started it!"

    NTM

    It is very easy to do so actually. Just look at what people were planning. The Zionists planned to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians long before 1948, you can read the work of Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, or Ilan Pappe, on that. Also, most people would consider people from foreign countries demanding a country in someone else country as a act of aggression on its own.

    1956 was the British, French and Israeli's attempt to control the Suez canal. The war started due the Egyptian nationalizing the canal. You can read more here: Suez: End of empire

    The 1967 war is where Israel claims it was a pre-emptive attack, there is very little to back up there claims of a imminent attack by the Arab states. You can read:

    The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace By Avi Shlaim

    Its a biography, but it also addresses the 1967 conflict and what the Arabs were actually up to at this point of time.


  • Options
    #108
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,588 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    there is no evidence that the Arab states were about to attack. There was posturing and rhetoric on all sides.

    Okay, so what would you view as evidence?

    Egyptian tanks rolling into Israel?

    The Egyptians and the entire Arab world were spoiling for a fight. Israel gave it to them. Too bad, so sad.
    The Zionists planned to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians long before 1948, you can read the work of Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, or Ilan Pappe, on that.

    I dont see how that contradicts Manic Morans point given I can easily say something like "The Grand Mufti of Jeruselam was a vocal Nazi ally and worked heavily to assist them in their aim of wiping out the Jewish people, visiting Bosnia during WW2 to help the Nazis recruit a Muslim SS unit assist the Germans in their effort to ethnically cleanse the Jews from the face of the earth."

    Who started it again?

    Youll come back with a "Oh yeah, well back in 1923 some jewish guy said this" and so on and so forth and well trade examples of sons of bitches all the way back to the Hellenistic era and before....And well still be back to the same question: Who started it?

    The more relevant question is - who cares?


  • Options
    #109
    Kama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    Evidence is when troops etc cross the border, which makes the difference between posturing and invasion. That's when legitimate self-defence kicks in. Pre-emptive doctrines are no more than a pretext for aggression imo; striking first in self-defence is an oxymoron. But the real problem is if you accept a pre-emptive position, you need to accept it for everyone, or admit prejudice.
    Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Or more accurately, bad for both.


  • Options
    #110
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,588 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Yes, and in the real world if it looks like duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its a duck.

    If youre walking down the street and some crazed maniac runs at you with a bloody knife screaming hes going to butcher you, youre entitled to accept hes a threat and act accordingly to remove that threat.


  • Options
    #111
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    wes wrote: »
    Theres also the 1956 conflict and the 1967 war as well, that Israel started to take more Arab land.

    WRONG. Israel launched the attacks as a pre-emptive strike as Nasser and Assad were pushing for war. Since the geographical area of Israel is small and difficult to defend its much better from a tactical point of view to fight the battle on the other guys patch.

    And to pre-empt your obsession over palestine, Israel didn't want to take the west bank. They tried their utmost diplomatically to keep Jordan out of the war but Jordan was swept up on the wave of Pan-Arab nationalism. King Hussein admitted after the war that the main reason he came in on the side of Syria and Egypt was if he didn't there would have been a revolution in his country. Oh and the Iraqi tanks and jets stationed in Jordan probably helped convince him too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Kama wrote: »
    Evidence is when troops etc cross the border, which makes the difference between posturing and invasion. That's when legitimate self-defence kicks in. Pre-emptive doctrines are no more than a pretext for aggression imo; striking first in self-defence is an oxymoron. But the real problem is if you accept a pre-emptive position, you need to accept it for everyone, or admit prejudice.
    Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Or more accurately, bad for both.

    Have you looked at a map of Israel? At its narrowest its 20 kilometres from the west bank to the coastline... a tank attack from Jordan (who were under the command of a senior Egyptian General) would have cut Israel in two.

    Also the Golan Heights dominate northern Israel and the Syrians had already been shelling Israel for years, an armoured thrust from the heights would at the coast in 2 days or less. Then theres the fact that Egypt had massed 2/3rds of its army in the Sinai ready for an attack.

    There seems to be a wilful refusal from some to see into the Israeli psyche faced with this. A people that faced annihilation during WW2 were facing annihilation again and had to take action and gamble everything for their nation and peoples survival. In the event the morale, professionalism and bravery of their forces made up for their numerical inferiority against the pan-arab nationalist armies.


  • Options
    #113
    Mayo Exile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭Mayo Exile


    Question for pro-Israel supporters here: should Israel withdraw to the borders that existed on 4 June 1967 (day before six day day war) or should they not in the interests of peace in the region?

    Also that guy who was locked up for leaking israeli nuclear secrets was called Mordechai Vanunu.


  • Options
    #114
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Mayo Exile wrote: »
    Question for pro-Israel supporters here: should Israel withdraw to the borders that existed on 4 June 1967 (day before six day day war) or should they not in the interests of peace in the region?

    Also that guy who was locked up for leaking israeli nuclear secrets was called Mordechai Vanunu.

    The israeli state treated Vanunu like the traitor that he was.

    And personally yes I think Israel should withdraw to the pre six day war borders as long as all factions involved recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and to guarantee peaceful relations with Israel (President Sadat of Egypt who was one of the main instigators of the Yom Kippur war agreed to this at Camp David in 1979 which prompted the Israeli handover of the Sinai to Egypt)

    The one sticking point really would be the Golan heights, it is so important strategically that to completely give it up would be difficult. If Israel hadn't commanded those heights in 1973 then there might not be an Israel today. A demilitarized area on both sides administered by the UN might be a solution but it would probably be the toughest sell.


  • Options
    #115
    Mayo Exile
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭Mayo Exile


    Yes. Agree with this. Any country will lock up its citizens for a very long time if they betray secrets of a national security nature. They actually get executed too and not just in wartime. The USA executed some scientists whom they accused of betraying nuclear secrets to the USSR in the early 1950's.

    Golan Heights should be a DMZ. No offensive weaponry of anykind there (artillery, missiles, rockets etc.). The West Bank then needs some type of "Marshall Plan" assistance to lift the Palestinian population out of the poverty it finds itself in. History shows that poverty breeds extremism, and hence extremist actions.

    As for the thread title itself, its pretty clear that Israel does have them. No accurate figures exist. Anywhere between 70 and 400 has been mentioned. Also what type and yield are they?, thermonuclear, fission or even neutron weapons. Also critical is that Israel has the delivery systems for them too.

    Google France and israeli nuclear weapons and you will get a good few bits on the early stages of the development of the programme. (The Dimona reactor site etc.)


  • Options
    #116
    The Saint
    Registered Users Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    There wouldn't have been a war in 1973 if Israel hadn't rejected the peace offer in 1971 with Egypt. The Arab League offered full peace and normalisation of realtion with Israel for a return to pre-June 1967 borders in 2002 and again last year.


  • Options
    #117
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Sand wrote: »
    Okay, so what would you view as evidence?

    How can I answer such a questions. Seeing as potential evidence can come in so many forms.
    Sand wrote: »
    Egyptian tanks rolling into Israel?

    Perhaps, some proof that Egypt were about to attack. There is evidence that shows they were not about to attack.

    We know Israel attacked Egypt. That is a fact.
    Sand wrote: »
    The Egyptians and the entire Arab world were spoiling for a fight. Israel gave it to them. Too bad, so sad.

    So instead of looking at the history you trot out this nonsense. You see there is evidence to suggest the Arabs were not about to attack and I provided a book that makes that case. You see the historical record suggest the opposite of what your on about. The claims made by Israel, were made for them to justify there land grab, which they are doing to this day.

    Israel are the ones who attacked. I think thats plenty of evidence right there for them being the aggressors. Israel as per there policy (the aforementioned Iron Wall) were the ones looking for a fight. You see there is a far better case that Israel were the aggressors, seeing as they actually attacked the Arabs. Why is this very clear evidence not enough?
    Sand wrote: »
    I dont see how that contradicts Manic Morans point given I can easily say something like "The Grand Mufti of Jeruselam was a vocal Nazi ally and worked heavily to assist them in their aim of wiping out the Jewish people, visiting Bosnia during WW2 to help the Nazis recruit a Muslim SS unit assist the Germans in their effort to ethnically cleanse the Jews from the face of the earth."

    Who started it again?

    The Zionist movement existed before that. This is well known.

    Also, people from other countries (as the Palestinians would have seen the Zionists as) showing up and demanding there own state, tend to be considered aggressors.
    Sand wrote: »
    Youll come back with a "Oh yeah, well back in 1923 some jewish guy said this" and so on and so forth and well trade examples of sons of bitches all the way back to the Hellenistic era and before....And well still be back to the same question: Who started it?

    The conflict goes back to the beginnings of the Zionist movement. Your making excuses for them basically, by trying to say we can't see who started the conflict, when its very clear. You seem to think the conflict goes back 1000's of years. There is no basis for this at all.

    The Zionists lived in Europe and wanted to create a country in the ME and the people living there didn't want to give up there land. The Zionists used force to get what they wanted. This is backed up by the historical record. Read the authors and the books I mentioned and you will see a very clear narrative, that does not go back 1000's of years. I fail to see how anyone can suggest that people from Europe demanding a state in the Middle East, can not be seen as aggressors.
    Sand wrote: »
    The more relevant question is - who cares?

    Yet, oddly you replied to my posts. So you must care a little bit.


  • Options
    #118
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Sand wrote: »
    Yes, and in the real world if it looks like duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its a duck.

    If youre walking down the street and some crazed maniac runs at you with a bloody knife screaming hes going to butcher you, youre entitled to accept hes a threat and act accordingly to remove that threat.

    So this should apply to Israel then. Going to another country and demanding a state and then kicking out the people who lived there is a great way to make friends.


  • Options
    #119
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    The Saint wrote: »
    There wouldn't have been a war in 1973 if Israel hadn't rejected the peace offer in 1971 with Egypt. The Arab League offered full peace and normalisation of realtion with Israel for a return to pre-June 1967 borders in 2002 and again last year.

    Its a fallacy to blame the failure of the 1971 negotiations on Israel, Syria were not interested in peace with Israel and Assad was pushing full pelt for a war with Israel. Sadat I think may have been more conciliatory towards Israel but he got caught up in the arab nationalist fervour to avenge 1967.

    Not only does one have to look at the Israeli psyche but also the arab psyche too. The 1967 defeat was a terrible blow to the pride of the Arab nations and their people. To be utterly defeated in 6 days by a country that was outnumbered and surrounded was a huge source of anger in the arab "street" and carried them along towards another war.


  • Options
    #120
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    WRONG. Israel launched the attacks as a pre-emptive strike as Nasser and Assad were pushing for war. Since the geographical area of Israel is small and difficult to defend its much better from a tactical point of view to fight the battle on the other guys patch.

    So you admit they started the conflict. Also, for a war to be pre-emptive, you have to prove that a attack was imminent. There is no proof that such a attack was going to happen. In fact as I pointed out there is proof that there was no attack imminent and the Arabs were willing to talk, when Israel attacked. Again see the biography I linked.

    We do know Israel intend to attack as per there war of aggression.
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    And to pre-empt your obsession over palestine, Israel didn't want to take the west bank. They tried their utmost diplomatically to keep Jordan out of the war but Jordan was swept up on the wave of Pan-Arab nationalism. King Hussein admitted after the war that the main reason he came in on the side of Syria and Egypt was if he didn't there would have been a revolution in his country. Oh and the Iraqi tanks and jets stationed in Jordan probably helped convince him too.

    The Jordanians did everything to prevent the war, see the biography I linked. Israel were the ones who attacked and not the Arabs. They were willing to talk, when Israel attacked.

    They did join in to help there fellow Arabs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    The Saint
    Registered Users Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    Um, Saddat accepted the UN peace proposal. Israel rejected it. The proposal had nothing to do with Syria. I think this says more than speculation.
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Its a fallacy to blame the failure of the 1971 negotiations on Israel, Syria were not interested in peace with Israel and Assad was pushing full pelt for a war with Israel. Sadat I think may have been more conciliatory towards Israel but he got caught up in the arab nationalist fervour to avenge 1967.

    Not only does one have to look at the Israeli psyche but also the arab psyche too. The 1967 defeat was a terrible blow to the pride of the Arab nations and their people. To be utterly defeated in 6 days by a country that was outnumbered and surrounded was a huge source of anger in the arab "street" and carried them along towards another war.


Advertisement