'If attacked, Israel might nuke Iraq'

[L@mplighterM]

Snip:

'If attacked, Israel might nuke Iraq'

By Ze'ev Schiff




If Iraq strikes at Israel with non-conventional weapons, causing massive casualties among the civilian population, Israel could respond with a nuclear retaliation that would eradicate Iraq as a country. This grave assessment, from American intelligence, was presented last week to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

During the 1991 Gulf War, then U.S. defense secretary Richard Cheney, now vice-president, told CNN that Israel could respond with nuclear weapons to an Iraqi strike that included the use of chemical weapons. This assessment has only been strengthened since then, because according to all the signs, Iraq now has biological weapons that could cause mass casualties.

According to one assessment, military-grade biological weapons can be almost as lethal as a nuclear bomb.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=197819&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y



I wonder what radiated camels taste like?

[richcrassus]

First my point is what does israel consider as mass casualties? 1000? 100,000, 1,000,000?
Second if all in the Ha'aretz article it says that biological weapons are NEARLY as bad as nukes.
Thats a joke, they are WORSE.
I have seen dozens of american documentaries that have shown a fake attack on New York with Bio weapons and nukes.
It showed that a bio attack would kill about 10 times as many people as a nuke.Plus a bio attack would spread accross all of america killing crops and soils and poluting water.
Nukes could do this too but they are too expensive.
Saddam wont do it anyway, unless he's mentally disturbed and he hates his people.
Saddams missiles are basically duds anyway, even if he lauches say 10 probably 8 will miss the mark and 2 will hit the negev somewhere and it will only kill a few kibbutzim and bedouins.
Thats it, any comments?
Im surprised theres not any more comments here this is an interesting topic.

[NewsGuy]

Sounds to me like an intentional leak (or even public announcement) to serve as deterrent to an Iraqi biological or chemical attack against Israel.

The question is what does Israel consider to be an existential threat. I don't really know that it is defined by a specific number of casualties. Maybe it does. Maybe not.

For example, what if Iraq shot a biological weapons missile towards Tel Aviv and it did not explode? I think this would still be regarded as an existential threat.

Maybe the Arabs need a reminder about Israel's true capabilities, especially at a time when so many Arabs view Israel as weak for not crushing Hizbullah and the Palestinians.

[richcrassus]

Let me say, im all for israel defending itself, my concern is if israel nukes iraq, it will give ALL the media in the world and all the anti-semites out there excellent ammunition.
Secondly, if israel is attacked with bio weapons, and it depends the number of dead, etc... but cant israel retaliate with its own biological weapons?
I mean this makes more sence to me, it makes more sense to do that then to nuke a city and kill millions of civillians.
The world media would be like a pack of wild dogs, i can just see the headlines now, where as if israel would retaliate with the same stuff, it would have a much better defence against the world media. It could just say, we were attacked first and we defended ourselves with bio weapons.
If Israel nuked iraq in this situation, i think its world reputation will be tarnished for a very long time.
I think israel should INFECT,lol all of iraq, with the EBOLA virus, no cure, 80-90% death rate, death within a few days- a week.
Easy, and less media scrutiny.
Also israel should do that without telling the media, israel should just say, we dont know how they got the virus, it must have come from africa some way.lol
In conclusion, nuking iraq by israel in this instance would be a bad idea. Unless Iraqs bios killed hundreds of thousands of israelis.
Israel should only use its nukes in the following circumstances.
1.)If its attacked by bio or chemi or nukes and hundreds of thousands of its civillians die.
2.)Theres a war and israel is loosing with conventional weapons and it will be overrun by arabs in a day or 2.

No other reason would really justify it, using a nuke is serious ****, it should only be used it the absolute last case.

[L@mplighterM]

As far as I?m concerned a ladyfinger would warrant a nuke dropped on Iraq. In 1991 Iraq sent scud missiles into Israel at the time Iraq was the (third or fifth?)most powerful military power in the world.

Iraq has a population about four times that of Israel ( 23.4 million). Theoretically Israel would be wiped out in a conventional war if all things were equal.

Screw what the world thinks.

Them that are pro Israel are pro Israel and the others will respect her more.




ladyfinger=smallest firecracker manufactured

[Blowy]

israel would win iraq with a toy gun!
israel has the best army in the middle east and the best air force in the world.

israel doens't need nukes to win iraq

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Blowy
israel would win iraq with a toy gun!
israel has the best army in the middle east and the best air force in the world.

israel doens't need nukes to win iraq


And to hell with casualties ?


I seem to recall that 23 IDF soldiers died at Jenin and a total of 53? Palestinians. That confrontation could be classified as urban warfare. I don?t think that the Palestinians were well equipped or trained as well as the IDF.

The tragic loss of life has set a precedent that the IDF can suffer losses under the right conditions. A prolonged armed conflict between Israel and Iraq would not be sustainable for the IDF.

I can well imagine what the results would be if Israel involved itself in ground warfare with Iraq and the battle was waged in the cities.

Hit quick and hard. Short and sweet.

[minusthejihad]

I'm in the midst of Ze'ev Schiff's book, "The History of the IDF". Very good reading for anyone interested in how the Organization was organized.

[Adversary2Arabs]

Biological Weapons are worse than nuclear. Biological weapons cause severe suffering on its victims, where nuclear bombs just dicinigrate its victims, in which is painless. It's only painful effects are radiation fallout, which isn't even deadly in all cases. Israel SHOULD use nuclear bombs, but an extremely large one to ensure every square inch of Iraq is leveled, which would not only make the world safer, but make the world a...cleaner...place.

[L@mplighterM]

I would tend to think that a couple of low yield nuclear bombs would be adequate to bring the Iraqis to the unconditional surrender table.

I don?t know is Israel has in their possession a Neutron bomb if so that would be desirable because it would leave the structures undamaged.

Wouldn?t want to damage their mosques!

Iraq has demonstrated that it has no compunctions when it comes to using chemical weapons to murder defenseless civilians.

The argument can be made that there are Iraqis that are Peacelovers but the same could have been said about some Germans pre/during WW II and in any event if such individuals do indeed exist they are powerless.

Anyone that recalls seeing the oil fields in Kuwait on fire must realize that Saddam doesn?t give a damn about the environment and he?s a dangerous individual.

[gev]

Another question is about other countries that would be hit by a biological/chemical missle that was meant for israel, but was shot down by an arrow missle before it reached Israel.
most likely it would be jordan, or Syria.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by gev
Another question is about other countries that would be hit by a biological/chemical missle that was meant for israel, but was shot down by an arrow missle before it reached Israel.
most likely it would be jordan, or Syria.


I never really gave that a thought but it sounds good to me.

[gev]

It is not a fiction, that IS the purpose of the arrow missle system!
And If you take into acount the new spy satelite Israel has launched a few months ago...

I just wonder what will be the reaction of the state that affected by the missle, Iraq, and the world in general...

[Mediocrates]

FYI: While the program is nearly black it is generally believed by scientists that Israel has neutron bombs (fast fission fusion) as well as 'micronukes'.

[L@mplighterM]

In the back of my mind I'm still wondering why Arafat would have 12 liters of Bromide in his compound (the IDF found it). I wonder if it's used in the manufacture of Pyridostigmine Bromide.

If that?s the case one has to wonder if Arafat had a supply at his compound in readiness if it was required. As far as I recall all the soldiers in the ?Gulf War? was given Pyridostigmine Bromide in case they were exposed to a chemical attack in Iraq.

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
I would tend to think that a couple of low yield nuclear bombs would be adequate to bring the Iraqis to the unconditional surrender table.

I don?t know is Israel has in their possession a Neutron bomb if so that would be desirable because it would leave the structures undamaged.

Wouldn?t want to damage their mosques!

Iraq has demonstrated that it has no compunctions when it comes to using chemical weapons to murder defenseless civilians.

The argument can be made that there are Iraqis that are Peacelovers but the same could have been said about some Germans pre/during WW II and in any event if such individuals do indeed exist they are powerless.

Anyone that recalls seeing the oil fields in Kuwait on fire must realize that Saddam doesn?t give a damn about the environment and he?s a dangerous individual.

I like the idea of mass destruction in Iraq. And I don't think we should "bring them to the negotiation tables." In my opinion, if Iraq uses any form of attack on Israel, or the rest of the world for that matter, it should be wiped off of the map. As a figure of speech and literally. No one needs Iraq, all it does it waste resources that could be used somewhere else. But since I'm talking about that now, not just Iraq, but all other countries with the Religion of Murder.

As well, anyone who says the Iraqis are peacelovers, are the same people who say the Holocaust never happened and Islam is peace.

[L@mplighterM]

I’m certain that there are individuals living in Iraq that want to overthrow Hussein the Kurds being one example.

Low yield nukes would accomplish the overthrow of Hussein and bring his evil regime to an end.

I don’t think it would serve anyone’s purpose to destroy the oilfields in Iraq.

Next year warfare will undertake another tone individuals engaged in wholesale slaughter of civilians will be subject to criminal charges from the International courts.

[eltbuston]

Israel has nuclear weapons and has had for over 30 years, right? They have been producing the requisite material for their weapons at Dimona. As far as the world knows, Israel has a first-strike nuclear capacity with multiple delivery options.

I ask you, why is it ok for the Israelis to have nukes, biochem. gear and other nasty toys and it is NOT ok for the Arabs to have these items as well? I suspect I will hear about 'self defence' and "Never Again!"....but aren't the Arab countries entitled to run their homelands as they see fit?

When the French and the Israelis were building the Dimona reactor they told the world many lies and covered the whole thing up until the facts could no longer be hidden. They lied about the power producing capacity of the plant and they lied about the weapons program. They constructed 'dummy' sites for international inspectors to see and effectively hid their true mission. Why lie about it? Who could have stopped the Israelis?*

This chatter about using 'low yield' nukes does not surprise me. Personally, I believe such devices may already have been applied....but I can provide no evidence to support this theory...so it is moot (but interesting to ponder).

I can hypothesize.....when the Arabs had the IDF on the run in '73, Samson was being seriously considered. I find it amazing that Israel was able to stop the Arabs so completely and so quickly after those first severe setbacks (crossing of the Suez, breach of BarLev line, attacks against Golan, the loss of Mt.Hermon). The aforementioned occurances represent decisive defeats for the IDF, yet they were able to 'bounce back' and regain the initiative. The IAF was in dire straights when it discovered the accuracy of the new SAM equipment being applied against it....and since the IDF uses it's airforce as 'flying artillery'(regular artillery was lacking at that time), the threat of utter defeat loomed large indeed. No better time could possibly exist for the application of the Samson option.

Fortunately, the Jews are a humane collective and would not stoop to such fantastically insidious actions....perhaps I have answered one of my own questions here. The Jews would never use the hardware first and if they did....it would be for the most intense reasons. The Arabs, on the other hand, would not be as responsible. Is this a correct evaluation?

I look forward to enlightenment.






*power producing capacity = potential uranium creation...the higher the wattage of the plant, the more radioactive elements produced (I am no scientist....I realize my terminology is not 100% accurate - but you get the point?!).

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by eltbuston
Fortunately, the Jews are a humane collective and would not stoop to such fantastically insidious actions....perhaps I have answered one of my own questions here. The Jews would never use the hardware first and if they did....it would be for the most intense reasons. The Arabs, on the other hand, would not be as responsible. Is this a correct evaluation?


I'm not sure if there are any other reasons, but that sure is one of em. :) Israel has no reason to use weapons of mass destruction, unless it was in defence. In fact, has it ever gone to war before without knowledge they were going to be attacked? If Israel waited to get attacked in its previous wars, it would have been crushed. Why? Because 7 armies on 1, isn't easy. So Israel HAD to strike first. Israel doesn't officially have nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, but many people (including me) believe they do. Why? Because Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and who knows how many other countries hostile towards Israel do. The United States and Russia have them too, but have no reason for using them, unless they were used on them. I'm sure Israel developed them mainly out of sheer necessity. Why else? Israel doesn't want to take over the world and kill everyone else, so defense is the only reason I can come up with.

[L@mplighterM]

I don’t believe Israel has biological weapons in its possession. Further, I’m not sure what nasty toys you’re talking about.

Arab/Muslim countries are entitled to run their countries as they please and so is the west.

Now you might ague that all Arab/Muslim countries should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Hell you might even argue that they are entitled to be in possession of intercontinental nuclear warheads.

At least you’re alive to argue but if day they develop an interest in melting the ice statues in Montreal you might change your mind.

[alexbmn]

God forbid Israel could be hit with chemical or bio weapons.For a country of that size and such populational density a WMD strike would be ARMAGEDDON. As defense it possesses the Arrow which is quite capable, I hope, and the Tactical High Energy Laser althought the latter is designed to destroy Katushas and honestly I dont know how much testing it has undergone.

[minusthejihad]

Fortunately, the Muslim World has lacked the intellect, not initiative, to build Nuclear weapons. How embarrassing, when almost all their R and D and capital has been spent on this task. Lucky for them, they have had the oil to pay for weapons, but once again, lacked the brains to get it out of the ground and to refine it themselves. I don't believe in god, but I sure believe in statistics.

[Mediocrates]

I can hypothesize.....when the Arabs had the IDF on the run in '73, Samson was being seriously considered.

The Israelis have been placed according to declassified sources, on nuclear alert 3 times. Once in 67, the second time on the 2-4th day of the 73 war and apparently for approx 43 days during Desert Storm. In 1967 it is generally agreed that the IDF had 2-3 armed and fused weapons and perhaps 6 more in partial disassembly mode. During 1973 the standdown was issued after the 2nd day of the alert. If you believe it apparently Henry Kissinger went to his Arab contacts and warned them that the IDF was at the highest nuclear alert which may have mitigated the situation. At this time it is estimated that the IDF had several but an unknown number of armed fused & deployed weapons.

I find it amazing that Israel was able to stop the Arabs so completely and so quickly after those first severe setbacks (crossing of the Suez, breach of BarLev line, attacks against Golan, the loss of Mt.Hermon). The aforementioned occurances represent decisive defeats for the IDF, yet they were able to 'bounce back' and regain the initiative.

See above - if you read military history though the recorded facts of the Golan engagement are quite a bit different than that. By the 4th day most Syrian mobile armour was in flames


The IAF was in dire straights when it discovered the accuracy of the new SAM equipment being applied against it....and since the IDF uses it's airforce as 'flying artillery'(regular artillery was lacking at that time),

Mobile armor is the backbone of the IDF, always has been. Massive mobile guns and tanks are the standard deployment approach of the IDF. Since the IAF has always had unchallenged air superiority it is configured to rapidly switch to ground support after eliminating air threats. In 67 the IAF eliminated the entire Egyptian air force in 6 hours. The IAF ran at 100% operational capacity for the first 72 hours which caused a high level of mechanical breakdowns aftter that time window. Normal operational doctrine assumes nearly 50% operational capacity fall off after 100 hrs @ ~100% capacity.

BTW the "Samson" option is one of 6 nuclear options and is generally considered to be a last ditch effort. There are 5 others that are more strategic in nature including an advanced 2nd strike capability from SLB/SLCM platforms (sub- missile/cruise missile). Current estimates are 250-400 possible warheads mounted on a variety of launch modes: aircraft (FYI: the IAF helped the French design early model Mirage F/Bombers specifically for nuclear payload), artillery (155mm), SLB/C and ballistic missile (Jericho series).

Because of the deep black nature of the nuclear program the difficulty in acquiring the necessary materials the Israelis have seemingly pioneered radical new fuel seperation techniques that allow them to build weapons out of tiny amounts of nuclear material (BTW the Israelis worked WITH the French to develop French nuclear weapons technology which lead up to Force Frappe and the divorce from NATO) in the 3-4Kg total fuel weight range. They may have also developed several fast fission fusion (neutron) variants. One would expect that normal nuclear doctrine includes the development of high energy EMP weapons as well though that has never been demonstrated.

[eltbuston]

Unfortunately for me, L@mplighterM, I already have a developed dislike for all things related to mankind's annihilation....ALL things. The nasty toys I am refering to are such items as super high tech. satellites, Mach 2+ indigenous fighter aircraft, nuclear artillery and the Israeli Airborne (haha - good troops, no doubt). Mediocrates also mentions some of the systems I was refering to. Would you prefer more elaboration on this? You mention that the Arab countries are free to run things as they feel (not a quote)! Really? Tsk tsk, thats not true. Try again. Also, you should refrain from making generalizations.....here in Montreal, we have reached a humid 32 degrees with a smog warning to boot. No 'ice sculptures' at this time. I am here to ask many questions, I require some solid answers...I am not here to spar verbally. Okey Dokey?

Mediocrates,
I see right away that you are a learned individual, with some of the same interests that I may have as well. I would hope that I am capable of maintaining a respectable dialogue with you...but you may already know that my perspective on some matters are 'unpopular' to say the least.
I have read a great deal on the conflicts between the Arabs and the Jews in the Middle East. I know that the Arab armoured forces were no match for the IDF Centurion MBT's and Super Shermans of 1973. I am also aware of the capabilities of the IDF when using it's armoured forces. But, man-portable SAM weaponary was not the only new equipment introduced in that conflict. The Sagger Anti-Tank missile made it's 'debute' battlefield appearance as well. The combined tactical application of these weapons (SAM and AT missiles) was apparently quite a shock for the battle toughened IDF....there is even record of some men 'leaving their posts' (to put it mildly).
Needless to say, you are right. The Syrian tank forces were smashed. Apparently by the 'peoples' Army (ie. IDF with reserves called up). This is stunning. Regardless of the 9-1 tank vs tank ratio (accurate ratio?), regardless of the severely hampered and debilitated IAF and against all odds - the Israelis pulled it off.
So, as I sit and consider these momentous feats, I cannot help but ask myself "What if...".

Alexbmn,
If the Israelis have developed a system capable of taking out Katyushas (those utterly inconsistent and inaccurate MLR's) then WOW! What a technological breakthrough!

Minusthejihad,

Libya tried to construct a nuclear reactor and were obviously doing a good job....why else would the entire facility be 'taken out' by fighter bombers? I reckon there is more to the story than a lack of intelligence on the part of the Arabs.

AdversarytoArabs,

As far as I know, the Israeli Nuclear program has been publically (but not extravagantly) exposed.

On the upside, if somebody does decide to 'pop off' some nukes....those folks will be the world's pariah. Heck, we might even learn something from it!

[minusthejihad]

Eltbuston,

Libya tried to construct a nuclear reactor and were obviously doing a good job....why else would the entire facility be 'taken out' by fighter bombers? I reckon there is more to the story than a lack of intelligence on the part of the Arabs.

A ouple of things:

1. Did you mean Iraq as well?

2. There's not a chance in hell that either of those countries had the intellectual know-how nor the resources to construct a nuclear reactor without the help of the Western worlds knowledge, money, or resources.

Let's not forget that the entire concept of nuclear energy was created in the Western World, and let's definately not forget how many important Jews (a large ratio) had a part in it. The only sad part is, is that Jews have created so many things unfortunately used against them. Depressing.

[minusthejihad]

Let's not forget the most hilarious statistic:

I believe in the 67 war (I could be mistaken), Egypts Air Force was destroyed before they even left the ground. And Israel's IAF vs Syrians Air Force was something like 85 downed planes to 0. They must of had monkeys flying them like in Project X or Planet of the Apes. Actually, I think the monkeys wouls have made better pilots.

[eltbuston]

I was referring to the the Libyan project in particular, but the Iraq example deserves mention as well, considering the thread we are following here. Both countries had their 'freedom to run their countries as they see fit' revoked by a very worried third party.

I do think that the Arabs have both the necessary resources and intellectual acumen to build just about anything. We probably should not delude ourselves otherwise.

I am well aware of the Jewish contributions to the world's Atomic developments. I am happy to say that no nukes have been used against the Jews. Infact, I remain unaware of any weapons- systems being applied against the Jews without the Jewish people applying such hardware themselves (either primarily or in retaliation).

As for the IAF superiority over the monkey piloted Migs...I can only scratch my head and wonder just how advanced the Arab airforces really were at those times. Did they have stand off capability like the IAF (ie. long range AA missile systems --sidewinder for example-- and AWACS support)? Heck, did they even get a glimpse of the missile that took them out? Hmmm and hmmm again.

[L@mplighterM]

The Russians having bilked the world bank of billions is really starting to show its arrogance. I suspect that the west poured billions into that country in an effort to buy peace and stability.

Snips:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/17/russia.iraq/index.html

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Iraq's ambassador to Russia, Abbas Khalaf, said Saturday that Russia and Iraq are planning to sign a five-year, $40 billion economic cooperation agreement.
The news comes as the United States decides whether to attack Iraq, contending it is a threat to the United States under the rule of President Saddam Hussein.
Khalaf said the agreement was proposed by Iraq's vice president, who visited Moscow last year. Khalaf said it is in the "last stages of agreement."
Asked about potential repercussions from the United States over the pending agreement, the ambassador said, "We couldn't care less what the U.S. thinks about it ... let America bring its own house into order."

When the story of Russia selling the components for a nuclear reactor broke earlier in the year it remained obscure barely making headlines. What comes next? Reactors to Iraq or N. Korea?
Apparently not everyone in the world is buying into Bushes view of the world.
Back in the 1970?s Canada sold CANDU reactors to India and the leadership in that country promised that they wouldn?t build nuclear weapons. Guess what? They lied!
The same scenario will most likely come to pass in Iran. Promise this and promise that is just so much nonsense. I think this world is full of broken promises.
It seems to me like Russia is becoming a nuclear proliferation whore selling to the highest bidder.
It has been argued on this forum and elsewhere that Israel?s ?Ace up the sleeves? is its nuclear weapons. What happens when Iran and Iraq has nuclear weapons? What then?
This latest proposed deal between Russia and Iraq is not good news for Israel.
In my books it?s a lot easier to wipe out a small country like Israel with nuclear vs. one like Iran or Iraq.

[eltbuston]

So, essentially, you are justifying the Israeli nuclear program and it's inception by mentioning the 'ever-present' threat of annihilation from it's enemies?

Nobody has explained to me why the Israeli government felt it needed to cover up it's nuclear program. If it is so clear to us now, why could it not be understood then? And, as I said before....who in the world could have stopped the construction anyway? It seems counterproductive to me and shines a bleak light on the creditability of Jews around the world.

Now the Arabs can say "We must defend ourselves!" as well. The world (contrary to media opinion) may not disagree with this POV.

Also, if Iraq is even half smart, they would not deign to buy ANYTHING from Russia. History has repeatedly proven the technical unreliability and relative 'backwardness' of Russian military hardware.

I strongly suspect that any attempt by Iraq to use Russian gear against Israel will end in the most dismal kind of failure (that is a good thing....nobody realistic wants to see Israel destroyed). And then the new media playground will be in Iraq instead of Afghanistan.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by eltbuston
So, essentially, you are justifying the Israeli nuclear program and it's inception by mentioning the 'ever-present' threat of annihilation from it's enemies?

"Essentially," yeah.

Nuclear weapons were invented to serve as a deterrent to war. There is no other nation on earth surrounded by dozens of enemies sworn to its destruction, like the state of Israel.

Of course someone who would like to see Israel destroyed and the Jewish people exterminated would object to Israel's right of self-defense and deterrent. That's understandsable.

But if you like to complain about nuclear weapons in a land full of Islamic terrorists and their supporters, please feel free to contact the Pakistani and the Iranian governments to share your feelings and to explore your concerns about exactly who is "justified" in obtaining nuclear weapons.


It seems counterproductive to me and shines a bleak light on the creditability of Jews around the world.

Where do you get the nerve to blame Jews all over the world and the Jewish religion itself apparently for the Israeli government's political strategy? I think this comment explains a lot about the source of your comments and about your own credibility.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by eltbuston
So, essentially, you are justifying the Israeli nuclear program and it's inception by mentioning the 'ever-present' threat of annihilation from it's enemies?





I don?t have to justify anything Israel has nuclear weapons and I assume that Israel knows how to deliver them. So what?
Israel/Jews have a proven track record when it comes to handling such weapons. They are strictly for defensive purposes.
The individuals that have their fingers at the ready to push the buttons have shown remarkable restraint. I?m not certain I would do the same given the same set of circumstances.

[Mediocrates]

Nobody has explained to me why the Israeli government felt it needed to cover up it's nuclear program. If it is so clear to us now, why could it not be understood then? And, as I said before....who in the world could have stopped the construction anyway? It seems counterproductive to me and shines a bleak light on the creditability of Jews around the world

It has nothing to do with construction and everything to do with opacity as a strategy. It is enormously more lfexible as a strategy to neither sign nor not sign the non proliferation treaty and to make no public doctrinal statements one way or the other. It allowed them for example to co develop with the South Africans until 1979 w/o having to divulge actual capabilities.

In fact I'd bet that up to the present, because of the difficulty of testing it is somewhat likely that the Israelis have a simulation testing agreement with the US using the resources at Sandia and Livermore. That's what those 'Top500 SuperC' systems like ASCI RED, ASCI WHITE and others are built to do.

[eltbuston]

It is wise for Israel/Jews to show restraint in this respect. The repercussions of a nuclear attack against any country (be it Israel, Iraq, Iran, the U.S etc.) are too grim to imagine....and the 'button pushing' country will forever join the ranks of the despised. No amount of justification will eradicate the stain of guilt on the offensive country. Unfortunately, when considering a worst case scenario (ex. an Arab country nukes Tel Aviv and then Israel retaliates), the fates of the parties involved will be intertwined....those countries will suffer not only domestically, but internationally.

The U.S. still bears the awful stigmata of being a 'great destroyer' and this fact has shaped the attitudes of many countries around the world in its dealings with the West.

The only 'track record' I am aware of when considering operational strategic nuclear weapons has to do with the U.S. and it's actions in 1945.

As for nuclear weapons being considered a deterrent....this concept has been proven fallacious. The fact that Israel was armed with nukes did not stop Arab plannings in '67 or '73. It did not stop the numerous clashes between Soviet Russia and China as they 'debated' the borders around the Amur river region, nor did it hinder Vietnamese warfare against the U.S., it failed to stop the Argentinians from seizing the Falklands, it did not check the heavy fighting in the Slovakia's, it make no impression upon the Algerian 'freedom fighters' as they fought the Nuclear armed French, it made zero impression upon the North Koreans (and China) when they decided to try and 'reunify' the Korean peninsula..... as a deterrent, it would seem as though nuclear weaponary is quite useless indeed.

But still, I ask you....why do you think it was necessary to hide the fact that Israel was on it's way to becoming a nuclear power back in the 1960's?

[eltbuston]

Thank you, Mediocrates. An interesting response, deserving some consideration on my part.

[peacelover]

Israel would not use a nuclear strike unless attacked first, of that I am sure.

I kinda support the threat to nuke Iraq, because of the success that mutually assured destruction has had up til now, the problem is that Saddam Hussein doesn't give a damn about his people, and he might think the loss of thousands of Iraqi lives would be worth it to destroy Israel. He will of course be safe in his underground bunker.

However, if the THREAT of nuking Iraq doesn't work, I'm not sure I would support a retaliatory strike from Israel. Two wrongs don't make a right. I am yet to see what good nuking Iraq AFTER Israel had been essentially destroyed would do, except cost thousands of innocent lives, just to follow through a threat. Surely this talk of nuking Iraq is only good for the deterrent factor - but if it doesn't work...?

That incidentally is a question to those who don't advocate the death of every sinlge Iraqi in the country - for ****'s sake Newsguy, I thought you were supposed to moderate these forums? How can you let someone say we should kill all the Iraqis to make the world a 'cleaner' place?

eltbuston: welcome

Yes, you can expect many insults from this forum, you can expect to be called a terror supporter, an anti-semite, naive, ignorant, propagandist etc etc (this is regardless of what you say). Newsguy is usually one of the civil ones though - at least, I like discussing with him (even if he is lettinf filth be posted on these forums right now!)

[eltbuston]

Haha, peacelover.....thanks for 'reminding me' of all the wonderful traits I can expect to have applied to me as I visit here (you pretty much covered them all and in such a tactfully, diplomatic manner!!).

Thank you for your welcome, I will try to maintain a respectable demeanour, regardless of my obvious flaws!

[cerulean]

From smallpox vaccines to gas masks, Israel is doing everything possible to help protect its citizens in the event of an attack from Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51195-2002Aug22.html
Israelis Brace For Fallout Of Attack by U.S. on Iraq
By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, August 23, 2002; Page A01

JERUSALEM, Aug. 22 -- An estimated 15,000 Israeli emergency and health workers are receiving vaccinations against smallpox. Thousands of families are lining up at neighborhood distribution centers to stock up on gas masks. And the military is scrambling to expand a new missile defense system.

In this terrorism-weary country, every headline from the United States forecasting an attack on Iraq brings a wave of anxiety about a smorgasbord of potential threats. The dangers Israelis see include missiles delivering destruction and deadly diseases, nuclear annihilation, or perhaps death by nerve agents. . . .
=====

The article includes a photograph (which I found particularly touching) of a young, female IDF soldier helping an Ethiopian boy with his gas mask.

[Mediocrates]

Yeah it's the only country on earth where parents have to buy gas masks for their children like shoes; because they're constantly outgrowing them. :mad:

[minusthejihad]

Peacelover,

That incidentally is a question to those who don't advocate the death of every sinlge Iraqi in the country - for ****'s sake Newsguy, I thought you were supposed to moderate these forums? How can you let someone say we should kill all the Iraqis to make the world a 'cleaner' place?

eltbuston: welcome

Yes, you can expect many insults from this forum, you can expect to be called a terror supporter, an anti-semite, naive, ignorant, propagandist etc etc (this is regardless of what you say). Newsguy is usually one of the civil ones though - at least, I like discussing with him (even if he is lettinf filth be posted on these forums right now!)

If he did in fact say that, than it is wrong to justify his statements, but 2 things I find interesting is:

1. You misquoted him, then could not find the quote, and actually, the source came forward and cited his own quote. Very similar to yelling "massacre, massacre" on every occasion.

2. Your constant litigator approach of taking someone's angry comments way out of context and then consistently dwelling on them, thus allowing others to take them out of context.

I highly doubt anyone in here truly would like to see all Iraqis murdered. In fact, there happen to be some Jews left in Iraq, and I know that the most ardent Zionist would at least want them spared. If this is true, that is a sad testament. Personally, I would rather see a Peaceful solution to all of this, but unfortunately, it ain's gonna happen. The problem is, it takes a long time for a people, or in this case, a dictator to see that they lost and will lose again. It's a shame 1 man can drag an entire helpless people down with him.

[peacelover]

minusthejihad


You misquoted him, then could not find the quote, and actually, the source came forward and cited his own quote. Very similar to yelling "massacre, massacre" on every occasion.

Actually, I did post the quote on another thread. I assume you have seen it now, if you haven't, let me know, and I will post it. It's on the first page of this thread.

In what way did I misquote him? And when did I ever say there was a masscare? I always argued that there was not.

So the fact that you call me a 'terror-supporter' when I have condemned all forms of illegal violence, and suggested I cried 'massacre' when I have never said any such thing, makes it seem you should look at yourself before acusing me of taking things out of context.

[minusthejihad]

Well of course I expected you to try to turn the tables like a lawyer. You sure are getting better though, if not quicker at it. It sure beats answering questions.

Also, I used an analogy with the massacre thing, and I do remember you completely overreacting during the Jenin incursion.

What I love the most, is that as soon as there is another poster who "doesn't tow the Israeli line" (a cliche you've coined), you jump on them with the fervor of an Airport born-again Christian. DO you have to court every single person who "doesn't tow the line", because I have noticed that it doesn't matter what they say, if its anti-Israel, you become their best friend.

And I have never seen anyone call Ayesha or even some of the leftists on this forum "terror-supporters", just the ones who blatantly "tow that line".

So before you jump back on your righteous, "I'm an Oxford potential graduate" high horse, I may remind you of the time where several months ago, you specifically said "I have no connection whatsoever to this issue, I'm just concerned" and then a week or two later, proclaiming that "the Jews stole my grandfather's land!". Was that not "stretching the truth"?

[peacelover]

minusthejihad:

So I stretch the truth?

Case study a:

I have no connection whatsoever to this issue, I'm just concerned

What I in fact said was that I have no partiuclar allegiance to Islam . If you dispute this fact, you absolutely MUST provide the quote where I said I had no connection to the wider issue. Otherwise accept that I spoke of Islam, in response to a point from James about Islam, and that you have either misunderstood or deliberately lied.

Case study 2:

the Jews stole my grandfather's land

Where did I say that? Could you please stop inferring things and provide the links to where I said this?
It was my Grandmother, not my grandfather, and I don't recall ever saying it in that hysterical and melodramatic fashion.

Case study 3:

I do remember you completely overreacting during the Jenin incursion.

Oh, really? That's strange, because I didn't join until June. You must be confusing me with another peacelover.

Again, the links to where I said this would be nice.


What I love the most, is that as soon as there is another poster who "doesn't tow the Israeli line" (a cliche you've coined), you jump on them with the fervor of an Airport born-again Christian

Actually, I gave the Christianity up a few weeks ago, so that doesn't really work either.


So before you jump back on your righteous, "I'm an Oxford potential graduate" high horse

As I recall, I didn't even mention the fact I went to Oxford until you said that I needed to 'stop watching MTV and get educated' and 'stop being jealous of Jews and try to beat us by getting an education'.

While I'm at it, after you finish justifying the things you quote me with above, could you also get the links to show where I have supported suicide bombs?

Here's a checklist of things I need (if you are being fair in what you say about me, none of these should cause a problem for you)


no connection to the Middle Eastern Question (as opposed to Islam)
Jenin 'massacre'
Terrorism is good
Where the fact I am a Christian has been relevant to the way I have approached new members
Where I got on my Oxford horse before you inferred that I was uneducated


If you can provide me with direct evidence of these, fair enough, I will apologise.

If not, then will you accept that you have been misquoting me? And then we can forget this petty squabble, because it really isn't serving much purpose.
And then when we can discuss, you can leave out my age, the fact I am a lawyer, go to Oxford etc and whatever else you may know about me, because I don't refer to your walk of life in my posts to you, and I only ask for the same in return. Recently, following discussion with a Jewish friend of mine, I'm starting to see things more from Israel's point of view. Don't make it harder for me - you might have a convert on your hands

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by peacelover
minusthejihad:

Recently, following discussion with a Jewish friend of mine, I'm starting to see things more from Israel's point of view. Don't make it harder for me - you might have a convert on your hands

A Jewish pope and a Palestinian converting to Judaism.

What comes next a five-cent cigar?

Time to press the reset button for the Matrix!

[peacelover]

L@mplighter - I didn't mean a convert to Judaism religiously, just I'm starting to think I've been too harsh on Israel.

[Mediocrates]

you might have a convert on your hands


come on in the mikvah's fine!!

[5-alef]

ehm.........guys? would you relax?
this supposed to be a debate not a school yard brawl.
kiss and make up and lets talk buisness.

[victot]

Recently, following discussion with a Jewish friend of mine, I'm starting to see things more from Israel's point of view. Don't make it harder for me - you might have a convert on your hands

peacelover, i am curious, what did your friend explain to you that made you see more israel's point of view? are there any aspects of the situation in particular?

[cerulean]

Palestinian Children Call Iraq to Attack Israel
http://www.idf.il/newsite/english/kids.stm
(the site has several photos of the demonstration in Gaza)

Clearly the children are being exploited. The adults ordering them around are not thinking about the future, since any chemical or nuclear attack on Israel would affect Gaza also.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by cerulean
Palestinian Children Call Iraq to Attack Israel
http://www.idf.il/newsite/english/kids.stm
(the site has several photos of the demonstration in Gaza)

Clearly the children are being exploited. The adults ordering them around are not thinking about the future, since any chemical or nuclear attack on Israel would affect Gaza also.

They are most likely being exploited like their parents were exploited and their parents before them. When they grow up they’ll exploit their children and the cycle of life in the WB and GS continues.

Its difficult to be cold and callous and hope that if a scud is launched from Iraq it’ll land right in the center of GS or WB. It would be desirable if authorities existed that would remove these children from their keepers.

[peacelover]

Originally posted by victot

peacelover, i am curious, what did your friend explain to you that made you see more israel's point of view? are there any aspects of the situation in particular?

Basically, we sat and discussed, and it was not a bitter conversation. It was done in good faith, in a manner such that we were not afraid to be wrong - when a discussion is done wth bad feeling and hatred, polarisation occurs. You find someone else's view offensive, so you are defensive of your own perspective. (That probably makes no sense, but I know what I mean!)

I haven't suddenly started thinking that Israel is perfect, and I still have huge issues with some Israeli actions. BUt I also have HUGE problems with the Palestinians now. What really got me thinking was the way Hamas etc vowed to ruin the 'gaza first' plan. I thought the plan was the best piece of news I'd heard from the ME in ages, and now it seems people are determined to wreck it. Put more specifically, the PALESTINIANS seem determined to wreck it. It made me see the impossibility of Israel's position I suppose.

I also am sick and tired of defending people who will march in the street to celebrate the fact some Israeli schoolkids have just been blown up. I have such sympathy for the conditions the Palestinians currently live under, but when the chance comes to ease these conditions, Hamas decide they want to ruin it by making more attacks, which they know will bring the IDF back, and make things worse for the pals. This goes apparently unchallenged by the Palestinian people. But the main thing I have a problem with is Arafat. I just wish he would do more to stop the terror, and to plough that money into helping his own people. He also needs to rework the education system to breed a new generation of Palestinians who want a dual-state existence.

This is very simplistic, and I have issues with the Israeli government as well. Basically, I certainly feel that the civilians on either side are being let down by their leaders. But my friend didn't tell me some radical piece of info I hadn't known before, but she was sympathetic to the grievances I feel on the part of the palestinians, and was encouraging when I told her about my new line of thinking - she didn't laugh or gloat, but made me see that it is not a crime to be descended from a Palestinian, but to point out their faults. It is also not a self-hating crime to be Jewish but to criticise israel where she is wrong. I can't really explain what she said - I think I came to my own conclusions, and she was just there to listen and to help me. My mind is changing because so many people are suffering and dying, and my only concern is how to make it stop. My anger at anyone who can be responsible for this human suffering was just huge. But while I don't think Israel is perfect, I'm beginning to think that no matter what she does, the Palestinians will not seize the opportunity to advance relations, but try to sabotage.

To be honest victot, I'm sick of people who seem more interested in their side being right than they are in peace. As far as I am concerned, the end to the conflict will only come when both sides stop trying to blame the other, and start looking at their own role. Opinions on the conflict should be determined by what is right, not by who you are more ethnically similar to. Is it any coincidence that most Muslims are in favour of the Pals and most Jews are for Israel? But I don't think this will happen on a wide-scale any time soon, because as TS Eliot says:
"Nothing dies harder than the desire to think well of oneself"

[elke]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM


They are most likely being exploited like their parents were exploited and their parents before them. When they grow up they’ll exploit their children and the cycle of life in the WB and GS continues.

Its difficult to be cold and callous and hope that if a scud is launched from Iraq it’ll land right in the center of GS or WB. It would be desirable if authorities existed that would remove these children from their keepers.

:cool:

This is where the UN, EU, Japan, and other PA donors could prove their usefulness and good faith: demand that their money is spent on real education, and get involved in setting up the curriculum. This curriculum should include some units on the Holocaust, Stalin's and Pol Pot's exploits, some of the African fiascos, etc. - and be as explicit as is appropriate for the target age group.

[Haifa]

Adversay2Arabs:

Yea, you should be able to find a few arabs here and there. All were born in American though. so they are not technically "arabs."

But still:

All arabs who support Israel are right-wing religious people.

All Jews who support palestinians are left-wing intellectuals and PHDs :cool:

For example: Norman Felkstein, Noam Chomsky, and Israel Shahak just to name a few. All PHDs. All university professors. All leftists.

[Adversary2Arabs]

I just wanted to say that it seems that everyone who is anti-Israel is so because they read/listen to/trust anti-Semitic sources whom spew out lies in order to accopmlish the exact thing that si happening! Normal people being brainwashed to think self defence is wrong. For me it's simple. The land in which Israel is on was GIVEN to them by the British Mandate (not to mentino G-d because only Christians believe this too; Muslims whos brain is advanced enough to understand the quotes that state Israel is for the Jews). The rest of Israel (Judea, Samaria and Gaza) were taken because Israel was ATTACKED because it was JEWISH! If it was an Arab state, no one would have attacked it. Because it was Jewish, the Arabs wanted it destroyed. Israel then took VERY SMALL portions of lands on each side of the country in which they were attacked which were and are used as buffer zones. If the Arabs weren't anti-Semitic and didn't attack Israel, then they would still have their land. It pisses me off how ignorant the world is. They are ignorant towards Jewish subjects because they ORIGINALLY wanted to be. Then, their ancestors who believed their lies kept passing it down through the generations and the news began to keep and use these biases and so on and so forth. This is very evident in England - even to this day. The BBC is very very very biased. So biased when I watch it, I have to take pepto bismal fo the stomach ache I get from it.

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by Haifa
Adversay2Arabs:

Yea, you should be able to find a few arabs here and there. All were born in American though. so they are not technically "arabs."

But still:

All arabs who support Israel are right-wing religious people.

All Jews who support palestinians are left-wing intellectuals and PHDs :cool:

For example: Norman Felkstein, Noam Chomsky, and Israel Shahak just to name a few. All PHDs. All university professors. All leftists.

Those are actually assimilated self-hating Jews who are very similar to the German Jews who said "Berlin is our Jerusalem, and Germany is our Motherland." They don't want to be Jewish by race - they want to be American, etc.

[richcrassus]

Isnt it interesting that some jews, i didnt write their names down(silly me), that i read about in the encyclopedia britannica, that themselves were anti-semites, and wrote books which contained anti-semitic sentences or remarks. Yes these jews knew they were jews and they still did it.
How is this explained?
They werent mentally disturbed cos if they were how could they be excllant writers good enough to be in an encyclopedia?
any explainations?

[victot]

peacelover,
well i'm glad you left the completely anti-israel team...

i hope that further non-bias, peace and justice oriented searching brings you even more over to israel's side...

i hope that if a g-d with a universal knowledge of right and wrong, justice and fairness exists, that he supports israel too...

it's rough out there in the middle east.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Haifa
Adversay2Arabs:

Yea, you should be able to find a few arabs here and there. All were born in American though. so they are not technically "arabs."

But still:

All arabs who support Israel are right-wing religious people.

All Jews who support palestinians are left-wing intellectuals and PHDs :cool:

For example: Norman Felkstein, Noam Chomsky, and Israel Shahak just to name a few. All PHDs. All university professors. All leftists.

Dr. Chomsky hates America more than he supports you. You're just this year's model of hate.

[peacelover]

victot

Thanks - but I think it's unfair to say I was ever completely anti-Israel when I was against right of return, terrorism, Arafat etc etc etc.

[Mediocrates]

Happy Summer Bank Holiday.....Day (except for Scotland) peacelover.

[minusthejihad]

Peacelover,

You're right. My apologies. I get a little overreactive sometimes and I do apologize. Especially after reading your post today, it is imperative that people like us stop the splintering and work together for the sake of good and peace, after all, this isn't a competition.

I'm glad to hear that you have a friend whom you are able to communicate freely with and understand each other's perspective. Hopefully you understand that the majority of Jews and Israelis want peace and would give almost anything to have it, but have to maintain a defensive stance in light of the decades of programmed hate they have to contend with.

[peacelover]

Minusthejihad:

I too apologise for the times I have lived up to my immature reputation! It was silly us bickering while people were dying every day. Here's to the start of a beautiful friendhsip :D (you never know..!)

Have a good day :)

[minusthejihad]

Right on. I'm down with that. You have a nice day as well.

[elke]

Peacelover,You're right. My apologies


Minusthejihad:I too apologise for the times I have lived up to my immature reputation!

Awesome!!! :) :cool:

[cerulean]

Take this report from unnamed sources with a few grains of salt, but interesting nonetheless:

U.S. general tells Israelis war will start by late November

http://216.26.163.62/2002/ss_israel_08_29.html

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Thursday, August 29, 2002
TEL AVIV — The United States has told Israel that it will attack Iraq before the end of November.

Israeli military sources said a a senior U.S. military visited Israel earlier this week and toured facilities where the U.S. military has prepositioned equipment and weapons for an emergency in the Middle East.

The sources quoted a visiting U.S. general who heads army logistics as saying that Washington intends to strike the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by late November.

The Israeli sources said the two countries discussed Israel's role in any U.S. military attack, Middle East Newsline reported. . . .

========

Elsewhere, I was reading an e-mail list where a member said he had been told by his two Republican senators (in Indiana) that a US war with Iraq would cost $40-80 billion dollars, and most of the tab would have to be picked up by the US. Sorry for the lack of a better source, but the figures sound relatively reasonable.