Question is :

Why do some nations insist on keeping their nuclear weapons and replacing their expired nuclear weapons if they do not think that they might use them some day ?

Who is more dangerous by the way ? The country that  twice used  nuclear/atomic weapon on another nation and would occassionally tip/spice up their conventional weapons with nuclear bits or the country that has insisted from day 1 that they only intend to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful use ?

Of course Iran's  threat to Israel should be taken seriously especially by Israel, but there are fundamental issues that need to be resolved in middle east if fair should be fair. Israel should comply with all the UN resolutions demanding that they withdrew from all occupied territories.

All nations have equal inalienable rights to self defence and economic pursuit. No nation should be allowed to choose which nations get what privilege the master nation deems suitable.

Face generally thinks that the world would self destruct at some point anyway unless all nations disarm themselves of their nuclear arsenal and that is not about to happen in a hurry.

Moscow could attack US missile system

By FT Reporters

Published: March 5 2007 20:30 | Last updated: March 5 2007 20:30

Russia said it was revising its military doctrine to reflect other powers’ growing use of military force, while a Russian general warned again that Moscow could knock out elements of the US missile defence system planned for eastern Europe.

The comments came as Angela Merkel, German chancellor, added her voice to the heated international debate over the missile defence system by calling for Nato to be given responsibility for defusing concerns over the plan.

“Nato is the best place for discussion of this issue,” she told the Financial Times in an interview, arguing that Washington should step up consultation with its western allies and Russia.

Her statement reflects concerns over increasing east-west tensions since Vladimir Putin, Russian president, delivered a speech in Munich sharply criticising US unilateralism, and the US formally asked Poland and the Czech Republic to host parts of the anti-missile system.

Russia disputes Washington’s claims that the system is not aimed at Russia but designed to intercept missiles from “rogue” states such as Iran or North Korea.

Russia has said that it might withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, which outlawed an entire class of medium-range weapons, unless the US drops plans to site the system in eastern Europe.

In the latest warning, Gen Igor Khvorov, head of Russia’s strategic bomber force, said Russian bombers could easily knock out the installations. Since missile defence elements are weakly protected, all types of our aircraft are capable of applying electronic counter measures against them or physically destroying them.

At the same time, Russia’s presidential security council said it was developing a new military doctrine to take account of the growing role of force in the foreign policy of leading states. Without naming the US, it echoed the language of Mr Putin’s complaints about Washington’s unrestrained use of force.

Leading states are paying increasing attention in military policy to modernising their military forces and improving their weaponry, the statement added. Modern forms of armed conflict are being actively implemented, technologies for use of force are being reviewed, the configuration of military presence is being changed, and military alliances are being strengthened.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/793b7e4c-cb55-11db-b436-000b5df10621.html

Jerusalem Post staff and AP, THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 1, 2007


The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 6," according to reports in the Russian media on Saturday.

According to Russian intelligence sources, the reports said, the US has devised a plan to attack several targets in Iran, and an assault could be carried out by launching missiles from fighter jets and warships stationed in the Persian Gulf.

[url]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879220977&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter[/url]

PS:In my opinion,the story lacks credibility

It's totally inconceivable that such an attack will take place. Again,
there is no justification for it. Such a blatant attack on a sovereign
nation without provocation is against international law and contrary
to all conventional wisdom.

The result will be catastrophic to say the least. The entire Arabic
peninsula will be in flames, a retaliatory strike by Iran will
further destabilize the region, and the whole neighborhood will
be devastated. There will never be a clear cut winner in a nuclear
confrontation of any kind. War is ugly and the consequences of
war is even more uglier than the war itself.
Lets hope that the state of Israel will not think about such things,
even if she feels that it can be done. It can never be pulled off.

It can be pulled off, remember the Israelis took out Iraq's reactor in the 80's - the question is this: will the Israeli's admit to making the strike, or will they convince the US to 'take responsibility' for the action. Never underestimate the Israeli's resolve for self preservation. They will never allow a direct threat of annihilation to hang over their heads without doing something about it.

bobezey:

It's totally inconceivable that such an attack will take place. Again,
there is no justification for it. Such a blatant attack on a sovereign
nation without provocation is against international law and contrary
to all conventional wisdom.

Unfortunately, the US attacked Iraq without any justifiations whatsoever, all they needed were lies and lies.

Whether Israel or US strikes Iran no one needs to be told it won't be an easy ride. Even Iraq has become too embarassing for the so called most powerful nation in the world.

debosky:

It can be pulled off, remember the Israelis took out Iraq's reactor in the 80's - the question is this: will the Israeli's admit to making the strike, or will they convince the US to 'take responsibility' for the action. Never underestimate the Israeli's resolve for self preservation. They will never allow a direct threat of annihilation to hang over their heads without doing something about it.

The same isrealis that were humiliated by hezbollah? (i dont think so)
Besides Iran is far more advanced than Iraq & would any isreali jets shot down & confiscated

hezbollah was using human shields and fighting a guerrilla war, that is completely different from a tactical strike on nuclear facilities.

Iran is far more advanced? maybe. . . but Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world in '91, didn't stop them from being defeated by the aerial bombardment.

If they decide to do it, they can achieve it, it may not be the easiest task, but it is very feasible

Yes ofcourse, it can be done (indeed) Not only does israel lack the technical ability (fighter planes that can make the trip 2 & fro without gettting shot down) but they will be unable 2 cope with irans response.

Iran & iraq r completely different countries. This so called large "american supplied" iraqi army was unable 2 break th resolve of the iranians (even with chemical weapons)

@jagwar

It appears that you are just trying to appear controversial.

In the unlikely event that you are actually as ignorant as your statements make you out to be, let me say this for the benefit of those who may be misled by your statements:

Yes, Israel has that capability. Do a little research.

dakmanzero:

Yes, Israel has that capability. Do a little research.

What you fail to realize is that despite Israel's alleged capability to strike Iranian strategic sites, it does not have the capability of facing the repercussions.  A violent counter-attack on Israel and American interests in the Gulf would surely have to be checked by geographically spread forces.  Israel is a tiny country and would be vulnerable from all directions, and if countries such as Syria, Egypt, or Libya join the war, it would spell the end of Israel and probably a devastating Israeli nuclear attack on Teheran, Damascus or whatever.

I think that the right ingredients for a war is more American lies, an Iranian "provocation" (Which would be faked by the US as usual), and even more audacity from the Zionist/neocon camp in Washington.

I don't see an all-out war coming.  The price tag is too high, especially for the politically bankrupt Bush.

zexyworm:

What you fail to realize is that despite Israel's alleged capability to strike Iranian strategic sites, it does not have the capability of facing the repercussions.
I don't see an all-out war coming. The price tag is too high, especially for the politically bankrupt Bush.

u'v said it all. Besides an israeli nuclear strike on any of its neighbours will affect isreali citizens aswell long term(radiation fallout).

dakmanzero:


It appears that you are just trying to appear controversial.

@ dakmanzero
I wont waste my time responding to u. Maybe wen u learn 2 talk more politely i might consider the rubbish u hav 2 say.

@jagwar

Thanks for confirming my suspicions (both of them). Consider yourself ignored from now on.


@zexyworm

Israel does not need to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, so they will not need to deal with fallout.

Israel has faced an assault from all sides by all of its neighbours in the past, and defeated them all.

Israel retains military superiority in the region.

Israel has destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq in the past, and faced no repercussions whatsoever.

We should not underestimate the power that Israel holds in the middle east.

dakmanzero:

@jagwar

Thanks for confirming my suspicions (both of them). Consider yourself ignored from now on.


@zexyworm

Israel does not need to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, so they will not need to deal with fallout.

Israel has faced an assault from all sides by all of its neighbours in the past, and defeated them all.

Israel retains military superiority in the region.

Israel has destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq in the past, and faced no repercussions whatsoever.

We should not underestimate the power that Israel holds in the middle east.

Your parrot-like babbling about Israel's "superiority" in 2007 suggests you are either an impassioned Nigerian Zionist (who believes Israel must flourish at any cost), an Israeli citizen, or a Nigerian who spends his time reading Wikipedia articles with no clue about recent developments in the Middle East.

You are plain wrong about Israel not using its nukes to perform an illegal strike on Iran. This is because Nukes dont' have to be used, to be used. Nukes are preemptive tools. Their possesstion by Israel might be a good cover for them to unleash devastation on Lebanon, and whoever challenges their supremacist posturing in the Middle East. I hope you understand this point. This is the exact reason why Israel doesn't wanted a nuclearized Iran. It wants to continue its unilateralist policies in the occupied territories, and dominate the region, unchallenged, using nukes as a deterrant. "Do not even think about it' is the implied message.

>>Israel retains military superiority in the region.<<
Thanks to American tax-payers, who are being brainwashed by Liar Bush, Israel retains the largest, deadliest artillery and high-tech death machines. However, all of that is not enough, as illustrated by the July 2006 Israel/Hezbollah war. Hezbollah rockets cost Israel 120 lives and over $5b in economic losses. Non-conventional war techniques have been perfected by Hezbollah, and soon, Syria and Hamas. They hope to counter Israeli hegemony with more surprises of their own. The storey is far from over. The days of unquestioned Israeli military superiority are gone. The evidence is the Winograd Report released in Israel last week which basically formalized Israel's defeat at the hand of Hezbollah, who are as strong as ever.

>>Israel has destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq in the past, and faced no repercussions whatsoever.<<

Again, dwelling in these early 1980s events will not serve anyone after insight about the immediate future. Things changed in the ME. Saddam is dead. The Iranian revolution happened in 1979. Whether we like it or not, Iran will rise to rival Israel from a strategic perspective, if not shadow it once and for all.

*whistling like an african grey parrot*

Hello!

How are you?!?!?!?

*whistle!*

Ayekooooto!!!!!

(parrots can type too!)

Seriously speaking.

zexyworm, I speak in short sentences to make sure my points come across clearly. Once those points have been recognised, the grammar can begin!

I am not an israeli citizen
I am not a zionist
I don't base my current affairs knowledge on Wikipedia, *alone*.

I see there's quite a bit of emotion in your response! Well, if you are a good natured person, that cannot be avoided. Afterall any concerned person will feel strongly considering the nasty deeds perpetrated by Israel every day in the middle east. However we must not let our feelings to cloud our judgement.

Be objective. Israel/palestine are not  arsenal/man u and we don't need to take sides. As a Nigerian, the only side you should take is Nigeria.

So on to your points:

1)

True, nukes don't have to be used. They are used in the way you describe, every living day, as a deterrent.  However the conversation topic is, will Israel blast Iran's Nuclear facilities off the face of the earth with destructive military force, and your point earlier was, they will not because of fallout. I say, fallout is not a problem because conventional weapons will be sufficient, as they were against Iraq.


2)

First you agree that american taxpayers have contributed to Israeli military supremacy, then you go ahead to claim that petty terrorist attacks by hezbollah are in any way equal to the strength of a nations' mechanized arsenal? I'm sorry but when the gears of war begin to turn 120 people will be just a drop in the bucket.

A prosperous nation places a premium on the lives of its citizens, and is likely to capitulate to demands from less comfortable folks who are prepared to lose more. This is how guerillas and terrorists 'win' wars against far superior forces. The 'winners' still find themselves in abject poverty, and all the 'losers' have to show for it are a few lost lives and a bruised ego. Nonetheless if things become do or die, the likes of hezbollah will be crushed in an instant.


3)

Your response is pure sentiment- no facts,  its nice to imagine that Iran will rise to rival Israel, but my friend I don't see that happening. At the moment the location I'm typing this from is a stones throw from Iran (equiv. 10,000 naira's flight). And having been there last week, dude. It ain't happening.


Oh, by the way, since my current location will be in the crossfire during an israel-iran war, I assure you, I keep myself abreast of these events!

Well well well, we have something in common.  I'm in Bahrain.  Where are YOU?

We both have got opinions about the Middle East. I was born there, and I'm here now, so you bet I get emotional about it, as it affects me in many ways.

PS. I'm not Nigerian, not even African  

I'm in the UAE! Bahrain isnt too far either, I gather. The consultant I'm working with is there right now. The other one is going to Kish (Iran) tomorrow. Me i think I'll just stay here!

Oh, and I am Nigerian by ancestry and only here for a while so we don't have *that* in common!

if israel nukes iran or fights iran Nigeria will get bigger payments, thats if the bigger dawgs don't take it by force.

If a man can come out to say He did not believe that Holocaust did happen with the overwhelming footage of the war and crime committed ageist the Jews.
If a man can come out publicly to say that a nation should be wiped off the map.Common that man is insane and should no be allowed to have nuks.Iranian president is a hardliner and should be stopped.

Israel should do anything possible to stop Iran from having nuk even if they have to at tact their nuk facilities in Iran.
i rest my case

No nation is good enough to have nukes afterall the US is the only nation on record to have knowingly used atomic bombs to target 2 civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki so what are we talking about here?

If a country feels it has the right to own nukes then any country that wants to own them should go ahead and acquire them.

If you don't plan to use it one day why spend money developing it

So if Idi Amin wanted nukes,let him have it.Brilliant!

@ I-man
sometimes you have to wonder whether rational reasoning still exists.

@kliverpool

Just to straighten out a few things:

(a) The Iranian presidents words are not as you say. What he said was that the blame for the holocaust does not lie with those that are currently being punished.

ref: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/16/90524.shtml

(b) The Iranian president did not advocate that Israel be wiped off the map. He rather said:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Which is anti-Israel, as is to be expected, but not in a 'bomb em to death' way, more like a 'we are going to iraq to create a regime change' way.

ref: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=5866



I'm not anti-Israel, neither am I anti-palestine. I only bear allegiance to two nations: the nation of my birth and the nation of my parents' birth. However I am against public misrepresentation of facts.

kliverpool:

If a man can come out to say He did not believe that Holocaust did happen with the overwhelming footage of the war and crime committed ageist the Jews.
If a man can come out publicly to say that a nation should be wiped off the map.Common that man is insane and should no be allowed to have nuks,

Funny, because Israel HAS BEEN wiping Palestine off the map.  By usurping its lands, settling its territories, building Jewish-only roads, and rendering the West Bank a block of swiss-cheese (were the Palestinians are rounded in the air pockets).   In fact, 700,000 Arab Palestinians were expelled from "Israel" of today (1948 historical Palestine) to make way for a "Jewish-only"  or "exclusive Jewish state".
By all measure, Israel is an apartheid state which PRACTICES genocide.

The conclusion is that the entire free world should bomb Israel and contain its Dimona nuclear reactors + nukes.

How's that for fair game?

zexyworm:

Funny, because Israel HAS BEEN wiping Palestine off the map. By usurping its lands, settling its territories, building Jewish-only roads, and rendering the West Bank a block of swiss-cheese (were the Palestinians are rounded in the air pockets). In fact, 700,000 Arab Palestinians were expelled from "Israel" of today (1948 historical Palestine) to make way for a "Jewish-only" or "exclusive Jewish state".
By all measure, Israel is an apartheid state which PRACTICES genocide.

The conclusion is that the entire free world should bomb Israel and contain its Dimona nuclear reactors + nukes.

How's that for fair game?

I'm tired of correctin misrepresentation of facts and the manipulation of history especially from those who dont know what they are talking about.

zexyworm:

Funny, because Israel HAS BEEN wiping Palestine off the map. By usurping its lands, settling its territories, building Jewish-only roads, and rendering the West Bank a block of swiss-cheese (were the Palestinians are rounded in the air pockets). In fact, 700,000 Arab Palestinians were expelled from "Israel" of today (1948 historical Palestine) to make way for a "Jewish-only" or "exclusive Jewish state".
By all measure, Israel is an apartheid state which PRACTICES genocide.

[b]The conclusion is that the entire free world should bomb Israel and contain its Dimona nuclear reactors + nukes.[/b]How's that for fair game?

Didn't the Arabs try that in 47 instead accepting the land they were given,look what happened after that.

zexyworm:

In fact, 700,000 Arab Palestinians were expelled from "Israel" of today (1948 historical Palestine) to make way for a "Jewish-only" or "exclusive Jewish state".

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived , On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.

Be careful when next you use the words "in fact" when you you have no knowledge of the real facts.

zexyworm:

Funny, because Israel HAS BEEN wiping Palestine off the map.

It might interest you to note that 75-80% of British controlled Palestine is what makes up the nation of Jordan today.

Be careful when next you use the words "in fact" when you you have no knowledge of the real facts.

zexyworm:

By all measure, Israel is an apartheid state which PRACTICES genocide.

"Kill the Jews - kill them with your hands, kill them with your teeth - this is well pleasing to Allah."
- Haj Amin al Husseini,speaking together with Hitler on Berlin Radio in 1942

-----------------------------

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will

obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'

------------------------

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and

kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the

rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind

me, come and kill him.' (Hamas Article 7)

Be careful when next you use the words "in fact" when you you have no knowledge of the real facts.

davidylan:

-----------------------------


------------------------

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Jews fight Muslims and

kill them. Then, the Muslims will hide behind rocks and trees, and the

rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Jew there is a Muslim hiding behind

me, come and kill him.' (Kadima Article 7)

Perhaps it will have greater impact on Zexyworm in the rephrased version.

Hey DD, nice to see you here!

However it seems this touchy subject may have struck a few nerves! Your posts are a small departure from your usual calm and measured reasoning.

You made a good point clarifying the whole 'expulsion from Israel' thing, but quoting verses from hate texts created by a hate group and  silently implying that the view therein is one shared by a larger group isn't in the best interests of rational discourse, don't you think?

Quoting Hitler's cohorts only makes things worse. How much better to demonize your opponent than to represent him as an all of the Ultimate Lord Of All Evil Forever And Ever As Decreed By The Internet Amen (Hitler)

Also, the 75-80% of palestine=Jordan thing is really interesting to me! I was under the Impression that palestinians occupied the land that is now Israel. Of course I don't claim to be an authority on that subject. Can you kindly provide sources as a frame of reference? Googling anything palestine or israel just vomits a load of bigotry and hate-mongering.

Thanks!