Topic: What About Israel’s Nuclear Bomb? (Read 1103 times)

Yes either of the groups of piles should be smaller. Smaller piles of idiots, smaller piles of nukes and lesser piles of both are a good thing. That Iran isn't even close to building nukes doesn't stop the piles of idiots in nato from trying to convince non-idiots that they are.

After seeing that Congress wants to start a war with iran, I think if they're gonna acquire nukes they'd better do so soon. The greedy governments will be knocking on their door to take that oil soon enough.

Well israel doesnt have to tell the world of their nuclear weapons because they are no members of the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" (NPT).
Of all members of the United Nations only four didnt sign the treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan.

The negotiations that are going on are to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons, as I believe they should be. It's better than just attacking them without trying to talk to them like others want to do. : /
And if there are piles of idiots all over the world then isn't it better to have much fewer piles of nukes? I think GreekBitcoin is right. We should use this to start talking about it.

@DieJohnny I don't think America is a trusted country and it's because of that the US dollar is used. I think it's because it's a very powerful country that isn't afraid to use its military power to force others to do what it wants.

Nuclear Weapons and their risk isn't all that difficult to understand.

There are several piles of nukes all over the world
There are several piles of idiots all over the world
The shorter the distance between the two groups of piles the more risk of a nuclear conflict.

Arguing that the piles of idiots are larger in Iran then in democratic nations (which Israel, despite all the problems they have is) is fairly easy.

No country should have nuclear weapons? Ok, so lets have everyone turn in their nukes. Lets not live in a fictional universe.

Trust them...everyone already does or the world would have crippled their economy. Most definitely the USA is a trusted holder of Nukes or the US dollar would be the scourge of trade not the standard.

You are never disarming USA and Russia. The world will need one government before that ever is an option. China alone will keep us all armed up.

Well, perhaps they think the situation could be manageable and the Islam countries will wipe out each other or at least weakening each other enough to became fully exploitable.

-1

If they were a 'trusted' nuclear state, why does Israel not declare the amount of warheads the have? I'd also be interested to know the reasoning behind their reluctance to signing up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Exactly. America let Iraq fall into the mess it is now. If Iran is also attacked the conflict will probably spread through all that area, but many in America and Israel still want more war. It's crazy : /

@GreekBitcoin I think you are right. The best would be if no one had nuclear weapons, or maybe they could only be used with most countries agreeing with it. Maybe through the UN or something.
But the big countries are never going to agree with that. And do we know where all of these weapons are and who has control of them? With the collapse of the soviet union many components and weapons could have been lost. But it still would be a good thing if more weren't built. : /

Of course he's trying to avoid a war with Iran. That would bring the entire middle east (maybe together with North Africa) into a war with at least three sides fighting each other, and the whole region could end up as an Islamic caliphate... perhaps more caliphates.

And trusted by whom lol. The only reason no one can talk about Israel having nuclear weapons and how they got them is because of America and the diplomatic protection it gives Israel, I think. And even with that Israel is still trying to make others attack Iran, lying to fool others to do that, and threatening to attack Iran themselves. At least Obama is trying to avoid war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

You should trust noone having nuclear weapons. Those who say that Israel can be trusted are either bigots or stupid. You never know who is going to be in power in any country. Politics are volatile. Coups happen. Collapses happen. Politicians/Military can easily be corrupted, have psychiatric problems or make a mistake. Systems can make mistakes by themselves. No country should have nuclear weapons.

Can you trust USA having nuclear weapons? They did used them, twice, against mostly civilians although it was clear that the war was over just to show who is in control. They seriously thought about using them again in Korea and Vietnam. Who knows where else.

Can you trust USA or SU/Russia when they have done countless mistakes when transporting, testing or just holding them?

My proposition is that with the whole Iran Nuclear story people should start discussing not only about not letting Iran make the bomb but also about faster and serious disarmament of both USA and Russia and continuing to smaller nuclear powers. 

Define trusted.  I don't trust them at all with nukes. What they really mean by trusted is 'non-muslim' most likely. And most countries don't threaten their use. The fact they have them is usually a threat by itself.

We've found several Israeli spies in the US and Israel has also been aggressive militarily. How are they a trusted power and for DECADES at that?

Well, I'll be damned. As Lloyd says in Dumb and Dumber, "No Way!"  Had no idea I could do this. I agree it wouldn't be a positive to add Iran to the bad stack alongside North Korea to having these things.

yes you brain farted, but not because of that

also, you can move your thread yourself, it's on the bottom left.

#FreePalestine

1) they are a trusted nuclear powered country and have been for decades
2) they have not made threats about their weapons or what they intend to do with them
 
This current nuclear debate is about whether Iran should be included in trusted countries with nuclear power. I am laughing a little as I type this, i have no idea why this is a debate. Your leaders cannot make threats of nuclear war against Israel and then have the world allow you to develop that power. It is a comedy and Obama is a fool.

After Bibi Netanyahu’s provocative speech to Congress, The New York Times provided helpful clarifications in an article headlined “What Iran Won’t Say About the Bomb.” Written by two superbly expert reporters, William Broad and David Sanger, the piece walked through the technical complexities for non-experts (myself included) and explained key questions Iranians have failed to answer.

But this leads me to ask a different question: What about Israel’s bomb? Why isn’t that also part of the discussion?

In the flood of news stories about Iran’s nuclear intentions, I have yet to see mention of Israel’s nuclear arsenal (if I missed some mentions, they must have been rare).

Yet Israel’s bomb is obviously relevant to the controversy. The facts are deliberately murky, but Israel has had nuclear weapons for at least forty years, though it has never officially acknowledged their existence. The Israeli diplomatic approach has been called “nuclear ambiguity.”

I asked a friend who’s a national-security correspondent in Washington why news stories don’t mention Israel’s bomb. He shrugged off my question. “Because everybody knows that,” he said. Probably that’s true among policy elites and politicians, though I am not so sure this is widely known among average Americans.

In any case, if everyone knows Israel has the bomb, why not acknowledge this in the public debate?

I asked another friend (a well-informed journalist sympathetic to the Palestinian cause) why reporters don’t talk about the Israeli bomb. “Groupthink,” he said. “It’s almost as though Israel gets a bye from the media.”

More...http://www.thenation.com/blog/201369/what-about-israels-nuclear-bomb