Does Israel have the right to have nuclear weapons?

[FalseDmitri]

It's a mute point I know, Israel already violated non-proliferation by building her stockpile of several hundred nuclear warheads. But just because she's Jewish and a "friend of the US," does that mean she's automatically entitled to have nukes? We don't allow any other country in the region to have them.

Anyone else ever heard of Israel's "Samson Policy?"

 

[rolltide]

1- Israel is not a woman
2- The US is very busy in the charade that they must abide by Israel's information in which they've neither confirmed, nor denied, the existence of nuclear warheads.

Keeping the blinders on assures the US of any favorable treatment concerns by other nations. You are certainly writing as if Israel has confirmed a nuclear arsenal, which is not the case at all.

Of course if this was Lebanon or Syria the US' position would be quite different...just part of the game

Yes I've heard of the Samson Option but can't tell you much more than it's allegedly their name for a nuclear program to deter regional attacks. I'm sure someone can expand

 

[kingbill]

According to the non proliferation treaty they have just as much right as Iran or North Korea

 

[rolltide]

pretty sure none of those 3 countries signed that treaty kb

 

[steaktartar]

100% yes they do have the right

 

[punter]

Gotta keep up with the Pakistanis, Indians and the Joneses.

 

[kingbill]

pretty sure none of those 3 countries signed that treaty kb

Bingo

 

[FalseDmitri]

They've never "confirmed" they have them, but the US has never confirmed drone strikes in the 'sthan next door either. Israel does have nukes.

If Israel were a Muslim nation, I'm sure the right-wing would be outraged that the US "let" her get nuclear weapons (while Israel isn't a female organism, it is proper to refer to the country as "she").

The Samson Policy is well, just that. Everyone knows the story of Samson in the bible, his greatest feat was killing over 3,000 Philistines by pulling the pillars down on himself (God supposedly gave him "special permission" to commit suicide).

If it ever looks like Israel will be "driven into the sea," she will just pull a Samson and detonate her nuclear arsenal so no one will have her land. It's a leading reason the US makes sure Israel has enough conventional arms to avoid such a scenario.

 

[FalseDmitri]

100% yes they do have the right

Why do they have that right? Because they're our Jewish friends? Seriously...

 

[Coldweather]

They should have nuclear weapons cause some bad Countries want to hurt them, cause they blame Israel for killing the baby Jesus.

Also, some Countries want to kill the beautiful people of Israel for other reasons that I don't get. So they need the nuclear weapons to protect them from the eminent dangers.

This is what I think about this here matter.


:toast:

 

[steaktartar]

Why do they have that right? Because they're our Jewish friends? Seriously...

why dont they have the right?..because you have a problem with Jews?...seriously....?

 

[FalseDmitri]

I meant that I seriously what to know why you think they have that right.

So all countries have a right to develop nuclear weapons?

 

[Mistermj]

They've never "confirmed" they have them, but the US has never confirmed drone strikes in the 'sthan next door either. Israel does have nukes.

If Israel were a Muslim nation, I'm sure the right-wing would be outraged that the US "let" her get nuclear weapons (while Israel isn't a female organism, it is proper to refer to the country as "she").

The Samson Policy is well, just that. Everyone knows the story of Samson in the bible, his greatest feat was killing over 3,000 Philistines by pulling the pillars down on himself (God supposedly gave him "special permission" to commit suicide).

If it ever looks like Israel will be "driven into the sea," she will just pull a Samson and detonate her nuclear arsenal so no one will have her land. It's a leading reason the US makes sure Israel has enough conventional arms to avoid such a scenario.

The Samson Policy ...which is nothing more than a book by Seymour Hersh and some wild speculation, is more about MAD than Israeli self destruction.

What's so strange about that?

Mutually Assured Destruction got us through the cold war didn't it?

 

[FalseDmitri]

Indeed it did. So it's no big deal if Iran gets nukes, right?

 

[Mistermj]

Indeed it did. So it's no big deal if Iran gets nukes, right?

That's a good response...I figured you might be heading there.

Of course the answer is debatable.

Does MAD apply to terrorist religious fanatics and a culture of death?

I don't think so...

 

[FalseDmitri]

As a nation-state, even if Iran develops nukes, there's no reason to actually use them. Sure, they have a nutty prez and a corrupt regime, but I wouldn't say their "culture of death" would encourage them start WW III.

Additionally, I fail to see what Iran would benefit by giving nukes to terrorist groups.

Now the situation in Pakistan has really worried me the last three years or so.

On a side note, I always find it interesting that the US is responsible for giving Iran it's first two nuclear reactors.

 

[barman]

100% yes they do have the right

Yep. It's the one sure way to deter foreign invaders.

 

[barman]

So all countries have a right to develop nuclear weapons?

Yes - with the understanding that if they use them in any kind of first strike they will be obliterated by the US and other countries with nuclear arms.

 

[Mistermj]

Yes - with the understanding that if they use them in any kind of first strike they will be obliterated by the US and other countries with nuclear arms.

Pie in the sky liberal fantasies have a long record of killing millions of innocent people.

Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" appeasing Hitler...and the anti-war movements ability to force our hasty retreat in SE Asia is responsible for at least 63 million deaths right there.

Based on history alone...you might want to re-calibrate those words.

 

[FalseDmitri]

Pie in the sky liberal fantasies have a long record of killing millions of innocent people.

Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" appeasing Hitler...and the anti-war movements ability to force our hasty retreat in SE Asia is responsible for at least 63 million deaths right there.

Based on history alone...you might want to re-calibrate those words.

So you're saying the US should have stayed in Viet Nam, no matter how long the war went on?