Obama to uphold Israel nuke deal

[GiladS]

Report: Obama won't pressure Israel to disclose nukes


Washington Times says American president guaranteed Netanyahu he'd uphold four-decade-old secret understanding, won't demand Israel sign NPT

Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON – US President Barack Obama has decided not to press Israel (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/unescape(this.href)) to give international monitors access to its nuclear weapons, the Washington Times reported Saturday.

Three officials told the Washington Times that during their meting in May Obama gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/unescape(this.href))guarantees that he will keep a four-decade-old secret understanding between the US and Israel over its nuclear program and won't pressure the Jewish state to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Israeli expert Avner Cohen told the American newspaper that under the agreement the US passively accepts Israel's nuclear weapons status as long as Israel does not unveil publicly its capability or test a weapon.

According to foreign publications, Israel's nuclear arsenal consists of hundreds of bombs.

Israel feared that Obama, who has made nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament one of his key initiatives, would not uphold the agreement, which was reached in 1969 between then-US President Richard Nixon and former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir.

The Washington Times report said Netanyahu asked Obama to reaffirm the agreement due to fears that during its negotiations with the six world powers over its uranium enrichment program Iran may demand the exposure of Israel's nuclear arsenal.

It is not clear whether Iran had in fact made such a demand during Thursday's talks (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3784234,00.html) between its chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and US Under Secretary of State William Burns in Geneva.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3784741,00.html

[the_Wicked]

Of course he didn't press the issue. This supposedly common knowledge about Israel possessing hundreds of nukes is essentially nothing more than hearsay.

[Chimera]

I thought Obama wanted a world without nukes.

I'm disappointed. I thought he would bring change.

[Ambassador]

Given Israel's strong conventional military force, and its close ties to even stronger conventional military forces, the strongest of which is the U.S. military, I'm beginning to wonder if nukes are necessary at all.

[GiladS]

Given Israel's strong conventional military force, and its close ties to even stronger conventional military forces, the strongest of which is the U.S. military, I'm beginning to wonder if nukes are necessary at all.

Nuclear weapons for Israel are necessary in order to deter conventional militaries from even considering going to war or placing a goal as absolute as Israel's elimination.

As for Israel's allies, we should always rely on ourselves... especially as there is no defense treaty with the U.S, nor should we blindly believe in such a treaty.

[Ambassador]

Nuclear weapons for Israel are necessary in order to deter conventional militaries from even considering going to war or placing a goal as absolute as Israel's elimination.


That's subject to a very big debate. The same kind of argument came up within the South Korean, Taiwanese, and Japanese congresses also. In the end they opted not to acquire nuclear weapons in lieu of stronger conventional military, because it reduces the risk of escalation, and because fundamentally nuclear weapons are not necessary for consolidating national security and strategic deterrence. They become necessary only when the regime that makes the decision makes them so.

[GiladS]

That's subject to a very big debate. The same kind of argument came up within the South Korean, Taiwanese, and Japanese congresses also. In the end they opted not to acquire nuclear weapons in lieu of stronger conventional military, because it reduces the risk of escalation, and because fundamentally nuclear weapons are not necessary for consolidating national security and strategic deterrence. They become necessary only when the regime that makes the decision makes them so.

Asian governments made their decisions, we made ours.

[Ambassador]

Yeah. And now I'm telling you as a third person that sometimes the decision your government make are counterproductive, and have fundamental flaws in it.

[GiladS]

Yeah. And now I'm telling you as a third person that sometimes the decision your government make are counterproductive, and have fundamental flaws in it.

You can't really prove that Israel's nuclear detterence policy is flawed because fact is that it still exists and that since 1973 no country in the region has tried to driectly clash with it.

Another fact is that though South Korea and Japan don't posses nuclear weapons, this hasn't prevented their main threat in the region (North Korea) from acquiring such weapons.

[Ambassador]

You can't really prove that Israel's nuclear detterence policy is flawed because fact is that it still exists and that since 1973 no country in the region has tried to driectly clash with it.


Yeah, and in the same manner, South Korea and Japan had no clashes with either China or North Korea, and neither did Taiwan with China, since the 1950. And we did that without possessing any nuclear weapons.

So, again, there's a flaw if you say that 'we develop nuclear weapons because that's the only way to deter our enemies from attacking us.'

However there's no flaw if you say 'we develop nuclear weapons so that we can beat the hell out of our neighbors whenever it suits our interest'.



Another fact is that though South Korea and Japan don't posses nuclear weapons, this hasn't prevented their main threat in the region (North Korea) from acquiring such weapons.

Indeed, and we don't have a problem with it. North Korea acquired nuclear weapons, and yet we ourselves don't have nuclear weapons. Your country on the other hand have nuclear weapons even though none of your regional adversaries do.

And the case is even worse for Taiwan-China.

[GiladS]

So, again, there's a flaw if you say that 'we develop nuclear weapons because that's the only way to deter our enemies from attacking us.'


Lets put it this way...

Do you think any reasonable sovereign country would set a goal to eliminate a country like Israel if it knew this meant turning into a glass crater?


Indeed, and we don't have a problem with it.

I doubt North Korea having nuclear weapons isn't a problem in some form for you or the Japanese.

[Ambassador]

Lets put it this way...

Do you think any reasonable sovereign country would set a goal to eliminate a country like Israel if it knew this meant turning into a glass crater?


Nope, they won't. And again, even if they knew Israel would not turn them into glass crater, they'll not attack, as long as Israel keep up good political and diplomatic strategies and conventional self-defense.

Which means, even if Israel did not have nuclear weapons, they'll be just as likely to leave Israel alone. You could even say that Israel possessing nuclear weapons is what's making its neighbors more aggressive to Israel.



I doubt North Korea having nuclear weapons isn't a problem in some form for you or the Japanese.

We do not see a problem in the immediate future because North Korea's nuclear weapons still cannot be deployed for use in war. Even if North Korea succeeded in mounting a nuclear warhead atop a ballistic missile, South Korea still has the TMD capability to intercept at least 136 missiles simultaneously at any given time using our SM-2 missiles, not counting our vast stockpile of I-HAWKs and Patriot missiles for secondary defense. Our primary concern is still North Korea's conventional military, and our defense is also our conventional military. (TMD is conventional, no?) North Korea's nuclear capability is nullified because of our conventional military force.

In the same manner, it is well within Israel's capability to protect itself using conventional military alone, because Israel is already powerful.

[GiladS]

Nope, they won't. And again, even if they knew Israel would not turn them into glass crater, they'll not attack, as long as Israel keep up good political and diplomatic strategies and conventional self-defense.


Israel became a regional superpower after the Six Day War, yet even the huge defeat suffered in that war and Israel's elevated status didn't prevent the War of Attrition and more importantly the Syrian and Egyptian assaults during the Yom Kippur War.

Of course I don't believe their goals were Israel's elimination as was in 1948 but rather regaining land and saving face. Yet a lot of Israelis felt that (especially on the Syrian front) Israel might be overrun.

Also it is the fact that we opened our missile silos that helped spur Nixon and Kissinger to launch Operation Nickel Grass.



Which means, even if Israel did not have nuclear weapons, they'll be just as likely to leave Israel alone.


Again there is the example of the Yom Kippur War.


You could even say that Israel possessing nuclear weapons is what's making its neighbors more aggressive to Israel.


Israel didn't have nuclear weapons in 1948, it barely had an army actually... yet in that conflict there was a unified effort by Israel's enemies (practically all its neighbours) to eliminate it.



We do not see a problem in the immediate future because North Korea's nuclear weapons still cannot be deployed for use in war.


Then that is plain shortsightedness...



In the same manner, it is well within Israel's capability to protect itself using conventional military alone, because Israel is already powerful.


Israel's 'Samson Option' is its "insurance policy" so to speak.

We might have a strong conventional military yet we have a bomb in the basement for any future challenge that might arise and it is proven that nuclear capabilities have always reinforced the posture of the country's that acquired them.

That is why North Korea acquired them and why Iran wants to acquire them.

[timetraveller]

No Country would ever need to have or maintain Nukes if people/ countries learned to trust and accept one another .

Yet the planet we live on has always been ravaged by conflict and will continue to do so untill people of this world see sense ....

that will never happen which is why we have endless arms sales etc etc War and threat of wars etc keeps people in jobs

And if there was no threat at all what jobs would they be doing ..

[Ambassador]

Israel became a regional superpower after the Six Day War, yet even the huge defeat suffered in that war and Israel's elevated status didn't prevent the War of Attrition and more importantly the Syrian and Egyptian assaults during the Yom Kippur War.


Yeah, and the wars stopped through diplomacy, no? Afterward you developed the Merkava tanks so that Israel's armored forces will not be so easily defeated again by the Syrian and Egyptian infantry, right? Did you have to include nukes in it? You didn't have to. But you rationalized it your own way and included them anyway.



Of course I don't believe their goals were Israel's elimination as was in 1948 but rather regaining land and saving face. Yet a lot of Israelis felt that (especially on the Syrian front) Israel might be overrun.

Also it is the fact that we opened our missile silos that helped spur Nixon and Kissinger to launch Operation Nickel Grass.


Yeah, and my point still stands that an advanced conventional military can do as much as a nuclear arsenal in deterring a war and winning a war.



Again there is the example of the Yom Kippur War.


Which was solved through diplomacy, not through nuclear deterrence.



Israel didn't have nuclear weapons in 1948, it barely had an army actually... yet in that conflict there was a unified effort by Israel's enemies (practically all its neighbours) to eliminate it.


And you still won all your wars through conventional warfare, and prevented future wars through diplomacy. Egypt is kind to you today because of diplomacy, not because of nuclear deterrence. In fact, Egypt despises Israel's nuclear deterrence; it voted in favor of Israel's inclusion in the NPT and in favor of an IAEA inspection into Israel's nuclear program. So did Saudi Arabia, so did Kuwait, so did UAE, so did every Islamic/Arabic/Persian/Palestinian nation who are within the striking range of Israeli nuclear weapons who signed the NPT. Do you see now how your nuclear weapons keep you away from a more friendly relationship with your neighbors?



Then that is plain shortsightedness...


To you, maybe. We know North Korea's nuclear program is not as serious as you Israelis make out Iran's own nuclear programs makes it to be, for example. We are less sensational and more pragmatic, despite having more powerful adversaries next door. (You're lucky you'll never have to face China; now compare that to Syria/Iran/Lebanon/Hamas rofl) How do you think we lived in the Cold War? No wonder we are the smaller troublemakers in the world.

And we have a lot of faith in our diplomatic abilities and our allies' capacity to help us in times of crisis, and we trust the strength of our conventional military. We do not believe nuclear weapons are necessary at all to protect South Korea and Japan even in the face of the North Korean nuclear threat, and that was unilaterally agreed upon not just by ourselves, but by the whole world.



Israel's 'Samson Option' is its "insurance policy" so to speak.


An insurance policy that produces a lot of harm in the process.

What I'm saying is, look a for better insurance policy. Try diplomacy. Try ramping up your conventional military forces. It succeeded before, as proven by history, and it will succeed in again. Or are you telling me that Israel is a weakling who can't protect itself without using cheat devices like nukes?



We might have a strong conventional military yet we have a bomb in the basement for any future challenge that might arise and it is proven that nuclear capabilities have always reinforced the posture of the country's that acquired them.


It's a bomb that you do not need. You can have them if you choose to, but you don't imperatively need them. You can choose not to have them also, and the end result will be the same, or even better. You will protect yourself without nuclear weapons. You can bend your neighbors to your will without nuclear weapons. But you chose to make a shortcut and got yourselves nukes anyway because, well, just because you could.



That is why North Korea acquired them and why Iran wants to acquire them.

North Korea acquired the nukes because South Korea's and Japan's conventional military became disproportionately strong. In the same way Iran will seek to acquire nuclear weapons if Israel's own grip in the Middle East become disproportionately strong for Iran to properly consolidate its own strategic influence in the region. This sentiment is not shared in Iran alone; it's also shared among ALL the Islamic/Arab/Palestinian country in the Middle East. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3778884,00.html) It's only that these countries still have trust in other countries', like the U.S.'s, abililty to rein in Israel's strategic ambitions, that they didn't build nuclear weapons yet even though they had all the resources and technology to build one.

[Unbekannt]

We might have a strong conventional military yet we have a bomb in the basement for any future challenge that might arise and it is proven that nuclear capabilities have always reinforced the posture of the country's that acquired them.

How so? North Korea is still isolated, their nukes didn't change anything. France and Britain didn't gain much from getting nukes either. And the US being the only nuclear power after the end of WWII didn't prevent the Soviet Union from behaving very aggressive towards them.

[Hollis]

Given Israel's strong conventional military force, and its close ties to even stronger conventional military forces, the strongest of which is the U.S. military, I'm beginning to wonder if nukes are necessary at all.


I would suggest look at the first half the the 20th century, then the last half of the 20th century. If would be great if, as Timetraveler said, "No Country would ever need to have or maintain Nukes if people/ countries learned to trust and accept one another."

How about learning a bit more about the conflicts with Israel. So called diplomatic ending to conflicts happened with Israel ended when it was apparent that the invading countries were loosing. If Israel was loosing there were no diplomatic solutions. One of the criticism in, is that foreign intervention (diplomatic solutions) only encouraged more invasions of Israel. Israel was not allowed to finish what the invaders started. There is a common view, if any of those invasion would have succeeded, there would be no Israel, No two state solution, no going back, no return of lands seized, etc. Stuff that is usually demanded of Israel when they succeeded in defending themselves.

[Ambassador]

What made those countries lose were conventional military. Despite the surprising effectiveness of Russian AT missiles in the hands of Syrian and Egyptian infantry against Israel's mechanized forces of that time, their own mechanized forces and air forces could not keep up with the the prowess of Israel's respective conventional forces. If your conventional military is sufficiently strong that your enemy cannot hope to defeat you, they'll stop the attack. (Japan and South Korea as prime examples) The end deal will be carried through diplomatic cooperation.

China does not attack Taiwan not because China is afraid of Taiwan's nuclear weapons, no. Taiwan has no nuclear weapons. But rather China understands the nascent but ever present international support behind Taiwan's back that can seriously undermine China's global influence as a whole, (Taiwan is officially an unrecognized country; such an isolated country needs nuke more, but it didn't get nukes, and yet it still lives) and that's why China's deterred from sparking a war with Taiwan. Nukes did not help. Diplomacy did.

And again, North Korea does not attack South Korea not because South Korea has nukes, but rather because South Korea's conventional military is too strong to overwhelm.

So, again and again, I'm proving that nukes are unnecessary. You have alternatives known as diplomacy and conventional-only military. You will find yourselves reasons to keep nuclear weapons, of course. But fundamentally there's a flaw if you say you only need nuclear weapons to protect yourselves.

[Hollis]

What made those countries lose were conventional military. Despite the surprising effectiveness of Russian AT missiles in the hands of Syrian and Egyptian infantry against Israel's mechanized forces of that time, their own mechanized forces and air forces could not keep up with the the prowess of Israel's respective conventional forces. If your conventional military is sufficiently strong that your enemy cannot hope to defeat you, they'll stop the attack. (Japan and South Korea as prime examples) The end deal will be carried through diplomatic cooperation.

China does not attack Taiwan not because China is afraid of Taiwan's nuclear weapons, no. Taiwan has no nuclear weapons. But rather China understands the nascent but ever present international support behind Taiwan's back that can seriously undermine China's global influence as a whole, (Taiwan is officially an unrecognized country; such an isolated country needs nuke more, but it didn't get nukes, and yet it still lives) and that's why China's deterred from sparking a war with Taiwan. Nukes did not help. Diplomacy did.

And again, North Korea does not attack South Korea not because South Korea has nukes, but rather because South Korea's conventional military is too strong to overwhelm.

So, again and again, I'm proving that nukes are unnecessary. You have alternatives known as diplomacy and conventional-only military. You will find yourselves reasons to keep nuclear weapons, of course. But fundamentally there's a flaw if you say you only need nuclear weapons to protect yourselves.


Try reading my post again. Yes Israel did not use nukes, Yes Israel was making decisive military gains, But with each political solution there was another invasion/war. Again review the first half of the 20th century and compare it to the second half.


WARS happen because diplomacy fails. In each case, the so called diplomatic ending, failed. Israel was able to achieve success by a conventional use of force because the invader were not able to succeed.

Also the invaders did have other weapons that where not used, because of Israel ability to retaliate. Also why do you think the current attacks on Israel is done by proxies?

BTW, look at the big picture, The US uses it's nuclear umbrella over it's allies too. If S Korea got nuked, the US would respond. Same with Taiwan, same with Japan. BTW google DEFCON, when did it go to 2 or possibly 1. The threat of using nukes kept the Soviet Union from fielding troops in the Yom Kippur/October war. Conventional forces where not enough.

[Ambassador]

Try reading my post again. Yes Israel did not use nukes, Yes Israel was making decisive military gains, But with each political solution there was another invasion/war. Again review the first half of the 20th century and compare it to the second half.


WARS happen because diplomacy fails. In each case, the so called diplomatic ending, failed. Israel was able to achieve success by a conventional use of force because the invader were not able to succeed.


Today, if Israel did not have nukes, Israel will be able to deter a war with its regional adversaries through diplomacy and conventional military. This is especially so because Israel has a very close relationship with the most powerful countries in the world, namely the U.S. of America. Whether or not Israel had nukes, Israel can still defend itself. Is my point wrong?



Also the invaders did have other weapons that where not used, because of Israel ability to retaliate. Also why do you think the current attacks on Israel is done by proxies?

Proxies are utilized because they are less costly than conventional war and have less risk for escalation. The nuclear stalemate between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. is what led to excessive prevalence of U.S.-U.S.S.R. proxy wars all around the globe, e.g. the Cuban Missile Crisis, the war in Korea, the war in Vietnam, the wars in the Middle East, the war in Namibia, the war in Afghanistan, etc.

I believe you are meaning that Israel will face a conventional war, instead of a proxy war, from its regional adversaries if Israel had no nuclear weapons. Ok, think about it. Do you actually believe that countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc. will really conventionally attack Israel today in this kind of climate merely because Israel is not nuclear armed? Think about it.



BTW, look at the big picture, The US uses it's nuclear umbrella over it's allies too. If S Korea got nuked, the US would respond. Same with Taiwan, same with Japan. BTW google DEFCON, when did it go to 2 or possibly 1. The threat of using nukes kept the Soviet Union from fielding troops in the Yom Kippur/October war. Conventional forces where not enough.

Indeed, and that's why S.K. does not need nukes, Japan does not need nukes, Taiwan does not need nukes, and today Israel does not need nukes either and it never did. Israel doesn't need nukes. Israel's diplomacy with the U.S. is enough. From an outsider's perspective Israel's justification for having nuclear weapons has inherent flaws in it, because overwhelming number of indubitable evidences, both theoretical and historical, point out that Israel does not need nuclear weapons for the fulfillment of its current national interest, which is the protection of the Israeli territory and the development of peaceful relationships between Middle East countries today.

[Hollis]

I believe you are meaning that Israel will face a conventional war, instead of a proxy war, from its regional adversaries if Israel had no nuclear weapons. Ok, think about it. Do you actually believe that countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc. will really conventionally attack Israel today in this kind of climate merely because Israel is not nuclear armed? Think about it.




Let me throw the "think about it" back at you. I am sure most Israelis don't agree with you. It is there lives that will suffer not ours.

Again look at the past attacks on Israel.. Also re-read my previous post on them. It is not conventional weapons or nukes, the security that invaders have is because of diplomatic interference. It is almost like, they can invade Israel with immunity. Israel up to this point has only responded in a measured way in conventional attacks. Israel enemies know how Israel will respond, you seem to miss that point. Israel has made it very clear, they will not use all methods to defend itself except to prevent another holocaust.

Problem with another countries Nuclear umbrella, it may not always be there. One can say Russian (Ex-Soviet Union) can cover, Iraq/Iran or other countries too. Change in political climates will change if it is available for other countries. Every country knows that in the US, that change can come every 4 - 8 years or even sooner. I would not want to trust another country for my security. Personally I would like to see all means of war, gone. Not going to happen because of human nature.


Hopefully diplomacy will work, but it doesn't always.

[tanks_alot]

Nukes are Israel's insurance. today we have good relations with the US and have a powerful conventional army, who knows what tomorrow would bring? we also had the French as allies in the 60's, who helped in developing the Israeli nuclear progrem, yet they had no qualms to do a 180 degrees turn and backstab Israel once their interests did not require Israel anymore.

The point is to be self reliant even if push come to shove and Israel is left completely friendless. what works for S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan, seems like vulnerability through Israeli strategic grasp.

[Ambassador]

^^Essentially our differences lie in that you believe only nukes can prevent the troublesome history of the Cold-War era Middle East from repeating itself. I on the other hand believe that a no-nuke diplomacy and military will still also be enough to stop another war of the Korean-War magnitude from happening again. I have 60 years of continued proliferation of both North Korea and South Korea, and of Japan and China and Taiwan, to back it up. Nukes are not a no-no to Israel. Israel has all the rights to build nuclear weapons for whatever purpose, yes. But it isn't an imperative requirement either, and that's what I'm pointing out.

I believe it's more right to say 'Israel build nukes because they want to', not 'Israel build nukes because they need to'.

[GiladS]

Yeah, and the wars stopped through diplomacy, no?

Who's to say that the 'Samson Option' didn't spur the diplomatic process?

Jordan understood that Israel wasn't going to disappear after the Six Day War. Israel's nuclear capabilities emphasized this.

I believe Egypt also understood this but they had to regain some of their Arab pride through the Yom Kippur War before they could talk peace.

Later they made peace with us and at the same time exchanged the USSR's sponsorship with that of the U.S (a smart move on their part).

Still these are the only two Arab countries (Egypt and Jordan) that have an official status of peace with Israel though such a status depends on who's running the regime and this can change as was proven with Iran in 1979.

The rest of our enemies only abandoned direct full scale wars in favor of asymmetrical proxy warfare but that's not to say the threat of conventional wars is completely gone.


Afterward you developed the Merkava tanks so that Israel's armored forces will not be so easily defeated again by the Syrian and Egyptian infantry, right? Did you have to include nukes in it? You didn't have to. But you rationalized it your own way and included them anyway.

Israel's nuclear program began before the Merkava project.

Israel's Merkava maybe the best tank the IDF can have yet it isn't a strategic asset like nuclear capabilities.


Yeah, and my point still stands that an advanced conventional military can do as much as a nuclear arsenal in deterring a war and winning a war.

And my point is that Israel had a strong conventional military prior to the Yom Kippur War, yet this didn't prevent war and though Israel wasn't defeated, it was in dire straits at the beginning.

Many Israelis shared your views in the period between 1967 and 1973 and this concept was proven wrong.

And as I explained, Israel's nuclear arsenal helped us facilitate U.S assistance in the face of Arab pressure.



Which was solved through diplomacy, not through nuclear deterrence.


Diplomacy came after the Yom Kippur War, not during the war.


And you still won all your wars through conventional warfare.

Israel's 'Samson Option' isn't intended to win wars but either to prevent them or prevent Israel's distruction in the worse case scenario.



Egypt is kind to you today because of diplomacy, not because of nuclear deterrence.

They are "kind"? :)

Egypt is at peace with Israel because:

A)Pan-Arabism is dead.

B)They understood that Israel's distruction would mean their own distruction.

C) Returning the Sinai back to Egypt couldn't be achieved through military means.

D) The Egyptian regime wanted to replace the sponsership of the USSR with that of the U.S.

Keep in mind that the Egyptian population is still on the most part hostile to Israel and it is more correct to describe Israel's peace with Egypt as a peace with the Egyptian regime.


In fact, Egypt despises Israel's nuclear deterrence; it voted in favor of Israel's inclusion in the NPT and in favor of an IAEA inspection into Israel's nuclear program. So did Saudi Arabia, so did Kuwait, so did UAE, so did every Islamic/Arabic/Persian/Palestinian nation who are within the striking range of Israeli nuclear weapons who signed the NPT.

Should I be shocked or something?

If they could, they would have also demanded that Israel be demilitarized yet targeting our nuclear capabilities is much easier as there are people such as yourself who actually believe this to be a legitimate demand.


Do you see now how your nuclear weapons keep you away from a more friendly relationship with your neighbors?

Did it prevent peace with Egypt and Jordan?

You seem to be unable to understand the key factors of the Arab-Israeli conflict if you trully believe that Israel's nuclear arsenal is what's preventing regional peace.


To you, maybe. We know North Korea's nuclear program is not as serious as you Israelis make out Iran's own nuclear programs makes it to be, for example. We are less sensational and more pragmatic, despite having more powerful adversaries next door. (You're lucky you'll never have to face China; now compare that to Syria/Iran/Lebanon/Hamas rofl

With all due respect, I think North Korea and especially China have much different mentality than our adversaries.



How do you think we lived in the Cold War?


And the Middle East wasn't one of the biggest Cold War theatres. :roll:


No wonder we are the smaller troublemakers in the world.

If someone wishes to eliminate us, then he should know that this won't happen without having us kicking and screaming while making him pay a heavy price.

If that makes us "troublemakers" to you then I can live with that.



And we have a lot of faith in our diplomatic abilities and our allies' capacity to help us in times of crisis, and we trust the strength of our conventional military. We do not believe nuclear weapons are necessary at all to protect South Korea and Japan even in the face of the North Korean nuclear threat, and that was unilaterally agreed upon not just by ourselves, but by the whole world.

You know what was a major factor in convincing Israel to acquire nuclear weapons and to rely mostly on itself?

Here's a clue:

Never again... (rumored to have been inscribed on Israel's first nuclear bomb).



An insurance policy that produces a lot of harm in the process.



You know this because you can see into a parallel universe where Israel doesn't have a nuclear arsenal and the result of this is the Middle East being a thriving utopia?


What I'm saying is, look a for better insurance policy. Try diplomacy. Try ramping up your conventional military forces. It succeeded before, as proven by history, and it will succeed in again.

I doubt there has been another state in the same situation as Israel.

And no, fact is that Asia is not the Middle East, no matter how much you'll try to push forward such a comparison.



Or are you telling me that Israel is a weakling who can't protect itself without using cheat devices like nukes?


Too bad you have stooped to flaimebaiting.


It's a bomb that you do not need. You can have them if you choose to, but you don't imperatively need them. You can choose not to have them also, and the end result will be the same, or even better. You will protect yourself without nuclear weapons. You can bend your neighbors to your will without nuclear weapons. But you chose to make a shortcut and got yourselves nukes anyway because, well, just because you could.


Yeah, we acquired nuclear weapons only because we can... such a winning argument.


North Korea acquired the nukes because South Korea's and Japan's conventional military became disproportionately strong.

And that changes my point in what way?

[Ambassador]

Bottomline:

Israel doesn't need nuclear weapons. However it can acquire it if it wants to, and it did.

[GiladS]

How so? North Korea is still isolated, their nukes didn't change anything.

I doubt their nuclear program was ever intended to end isolation but rather to give everyone a reason not to directly confront them.



And the US being the only nuclear power after the end of WWII didn't prevent the Soviet Union from behaving very aggressive towards them.


How do you define "very aggressive"?

[GiladS]

Bottomline:

Israel doesn't need nuclear weapons. However it can acquire it if it wants to, and it did.

Lets agree to disagree because I can see that this will only drag on and on like a broken record.

[Eye]

Do you think any reasonable sovereign country would set a goal to eliminate a country like Israel if it knew this meant turning into a glass crater?



Don't you think it's more reasonable just to destroy enemy army and crucial enemy infrastructure then kill whole nation and a few in neighbourhood?

[GiladS]

Don't you think it's more reasonable just to destroy enemy army and crucial enemy infrastructure then kill whole nation and a few in neighbourhood?

Can we ensure a complete conventional victory in each and every round as you propose? No.

Can armies and infrastructures be rebuilt? Yes.

Thus the 'Samson Option' was decided to be the best form of detterence.

[Ambassador]

^^Yeah, well, nukes are better for that purpose.

Btw if you obliterate an entire nation... armies can't be rebuilt.

And you can ensure a complete conventional victory each and every time, yes. Especially in the current state of military balance.

[GiladS]

^^Yeah, well, nukes are better for that purpose.

Btw if you obliterate an entire nation... armies can't be rebuilt.


And your point is?



And you can ensure a complete conventional victory each and every time, yes. Especially in the current state of military balance.


And you know what will be tommorow or the day after tommorow?

Also Israel wished to put a complete end to Arab intentions of destroying it with invading armies (as we don't plan to live by the sword forever) and has succeeded on the most part.

[Ambassador]

Why don't you build nukes tomorrow?

[GiladS]

Why don't you build nukes tomorrow?

Because it takes time and resources to properly develop such capabilities.

It doesn't happen overnight.

I'm assuming that you are also unaware of the fact that Israel built Dimona before 1967 when it was yet to become a regional superpower.

[Ambassador]

But you can still choose to build nukes tomorrow, you know. Just like many other countries. Well, to each his own. It wasn't necessary to build nukes before, but you wanted to. And that's ok from many perspectives. It was also ok not to have built nukes back in those days and waited for the tomorrows, and that's what we followed.

[GiladS]

But you can still choose to build nukes tomorrow, you know.

I clearly explained why we can't.



It wasn't necessary to build nukes before, but you wanted to.


Before 1967 it was very necessary, especially when considering your argument regarding a favorable balance of power.

And when Israel had the balance in it's favor, it was best to preserve and develop these capabilities when considering Saddam's nuclear ambitions, Syria's nuclear ambitions and especially now with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

[Ambassador]

Yes, you can. But you won't accept it. You can keep your nuclear technology and warhead blueprints all you want; but you didn't need to make them existential yet.

Before 1967, what was more important to you was your conventional military still, not yet the nuclear arsenal. And still now your most important defensive assets are your IDF, not your nuclear warheads. Tomorrow might bringing a new World Order and a new military balance, yes. You chose to hurry up your preparations; we decided to keep a more leisurely pace. Either way is ok, but neither is a required step.

[dindin]

Asian governments made their decisions, we made ours.
lol you think peoples are stupid,,, you expect the world to go tough n iran,,,,




CAN I SAY IRANIANS MADE THEY DECISIONS TO GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS,,

IS THAT OKAY ???:roll: STOP THIS DOUBLE HYPOCRISY STANDARD, IF YOU WANT HELP....

[GiladS]

Yes, you can. But you won't accept it.


Again... it takes time and resources and the Middle East is a geopolitical roller coaster as the Six Day War, Iran's Islamic Revolution and other cases have clearly proven.



Before 1967, what was more important to you was your conventional military still, not yet the nuclear arsenal.


Both were important, the conventional military maybe more as we still didn't have a nuclear arsenal.



And still now your most important defensive assets are your IDF, not your nuclear warheads.


Sure because a nuclear arsenal doesn't help much in asymmetrical warfare.



You chose to hurry up your preparations; we decided to keep a more leisurely pace.


Before 1967 Israel was a country that had a question mark over its continued existence, so of course we hurried up preparations.

As for your decision... well again, the comparison isn't really valid in my opinion.

[dindin]

Nukes are Israel's insurance. today we have good relations with the US and have a powerful conventional army, who knows what tomorrow would bring? we also had the French as allies in the 60's, who helped in developing the Israeli nuclear progrem, yet they had no qualms to do a 180 degrees turn and backstab Israel once their interests did not require Israel anymore.

The point is to be self reliant even if push come to shove and Israel is left completely friendless. what works for S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan, seems like vulnerability through Israeli strategic grasp.
You I know the day US stop support the state Israel, what could happen

[GiladS]

lol you think peoples are stupid,,, you expect the world to go tough n iran,,,,




CAN I SAY IRANIANS MADE THEY DECISIONS TO GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS,,

IS THAT OKAY ???:roll: STOP THIS DOUBLE HYPOCRISY STANDARD, IF YOU WANT HELP....

You think that by writing in capital letters your message will be more reinforced? No, I think it just pisses off the mods.

Comparing Israel and Iran is idiotic in any sense.

[dindin]

Bottomline:

Israel doesn't need nuclear weapons. However it can acquire it if it wants to, and it did.


great :-*$

[dindin]

You think that by writing in capital letters your message will be more reinforced? No, I think it just pisses off the mods.

Comparing Israel and Iran is idiotic in any sense.

The true matter

[MaverickCowboy]

I thought Obama wanted a world without nukes.

I'm disappointed. I thought he would bring change.

what are you a hippe?

[Chimera]

what are you a hippe?

I am indeed a naive treehugger eurosocialist who thought Obama would bring peace, end the Iranian nuclear threat and build bridges between Turkey and Greece.

And I'm disappointed.

[timetraveller]

Living in the Past ....


Still and look how Japan and Germany have come and advanced since the end of ww2 for the better might i add ..

[Player]

what are you a hippe?

And what are you a warmonger? :roll:

P.S. Supporting the idea of a world without nukes doesn't make one a hippie.

[timetraveller]

WARS happen because diplomacy fails.



Wars happen because of a leaders greed to expand his/her empire

Alexander the Great and his father before him , Ghenghis Khan , Napoleon , The Moors , The romans , the Eygptians , the Spanish and England all conqured nations to expanded there domain

[Hollis]

I am indeed a naive treehugger eurosocialist who thought Obama would bring peace, end the Iranian nuclear threat and build bridges between Turkey and Greece.

And I'm disappointed.


ROFLMFAO.............. Welcome to the world of American Partisan Politics. Funny how the ideas of liberation often lead to people being oppressed.

[Universal_Soldier]

Wow!! Washington won't pressure France to admit that Paris is it's capital......Worst kept secret!!!

[Estopped]

If true it undermines Obama's credentials on nuclear proliferation.

[Ambassador]

Again... it takes time and resources and the Middle East is a geopolitical roller coaster as the Six Day War, Iran's Islamic Revolution and other cases have clearly proven.


So what, you can still choose build it tomorrow. I know it takes time, I know it takes resources. But you still can. You chose otherwise, and that's all we need to say that Israel got their nuclear weapons not out of fundamental necessity, but out of rationalized choice.



Both were important, the conventional military maybe more as we still didn't have a nuclear arsenal.


Yeah, and I'm telling you still can deter your enemies from attacking you using conventional military alone. Did your nuclear weapons prevent Hamas and Hezbollah from launching their rockets on you? Do you think, if Israel had no nuclear weapons, Egypt/Jordan/Syria/Iran will suddenly launch a massive Middle East war again?

And now you'll go back again to your little hole of 'we don't know the future' which of course totally necessitate the development of nuclear weapons, righ'?



Sure because a nuclear arsenal doesn't help much in asymmetrical warfare.


Indeed. Nukes don't help fighting against Hamas and Hezbollah.

Nukes do not help Israel safeguard its national interest. It is not the nukes that deter Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Iran from attacking Israel today. It is not the nukes that protect the citizens of Israel. It is not the nukes that help attain peace among the countries in the Middle East.

You do not have nuclear armed opponents. You do not have enemies who are vastly more powerful than you are. You do not plan to dominate the world. therefore, you don't need nuclear weapons. But you can obtain them if you want to.



Before 1967 Israel was a country that had a question mark over its continued existence, so of course we hurried up preparations.


Indeed, and for that, you totally required nuclear weapons. You believe continued existence would have been impossible without obtaining nuclear capability.

No, actually you didn't require them. You.Did.Not.

But again, we don't always build things because we need to. Sometimes we build things just because we want to.



As for your decision... well again, the comparison isn't really valid in my opinion.

As you yourself said, we do not know what the future will bring. We do not know how much more assertive and aggressive China or North Korea will become in the future. We have a lot more at stake than you. We have the world's 2nd largest superpower and the world's craziest regime on our doorstep, and we are the ones who are facing countries who truly have nuclear weapons. We need nuclear weapons more than you do. And yet, it is us who uphold the ideal of nuclear non-proliferation. Can you see the irony? You say that the threat posed by China/North Korea to Japan/Taiwan/South Korea is much less than the threat posed by Syria/Egypt/Jordan/Lebanon/Iran/Iraq/Hamas/Hezbollah on Israel. Actually, it's the opposite. We are more endangered. Simply because our enemies are more powerful and more unpredictable.

And again, it is us who don't have nuclear weapons. A big irony, indeed.

It is because we know the alternatives to a nuclear strategy, and we accept it. We know and accept that nuclear weapons are not necessary for our survival. But you do not; instead you waste time coming up with excuses which you insist are totally true, with reasons that you say are totally justified.

You don't need nuclear weapons, pure and simple. Yet you insist you do.

[rhino]

yet isnt it funn how, though Taiwan and South Korea, though they dont need nukes insist on presence of a nuclear power within their borders/ports:roll:

[Ambassador]

yet isnt it funn how, though Taiwan and South Korea, though they dont need nukes insist on presence of a nuclear power within their borders/ports:roll:

Do you have proof that it is we who insist?

Taiwan has no U.S. forces present within its territory. Taiwan does not even have diplomatic relationship with the U.S. nor with anyone in the UN for that matter. However the U.S. would love to station a few forces in Taiwan because it can become a strategic buffer against China; however they decided not to because it might escalation the tension with China too much.

It is not South Korea who insist on maintaining U.S. presence in the Korean peninsula. We've already started building our own Aegis cruisers and aircraft carriers so that the U.S. can leave us in peace already. The U.S. troops are slated to unilaterally pull out by 2012.

[rhino]

awsome, can you hurry up a bit though?
too many paid ultimate sacrifice defending your freedom
I would hate to see the whole region flame up again when US pulls out and Uncle Kim comes in knocking


btw do you have proof that they dont insist?

[Ambassador]

The South Korean military is currently under the command of the Combined Forces Command. It was decided that South Korea will slowly reestablish total command over its own forces by 2012, out of South Korea's own volition, in view of less aggression from the U.S.'s strategic adversaries in the region, and in view of South Korea's growing military power. By 2012 the U.S. forces will start unilaterally pulling out; which means, once a number of troops is pulled out, none will go back in. The U.S. forces will then be relocated in Yokosuka in the case of the U.S. Navy, and relocated in Okinawa in the case of the U.S. Air Force.

The proof that we don't insist is the lack of proof that we insist.

[rhino]

again, God Bless Korea, hope you dont have to prove yourself


btw do you have proof that they dont insist?

[rhino]

in all honesty I only went through the first page before posting so some of my argument may have been adressed but here is one more on behalve of Israel

in all the conflicts that have been fought against Israel, how many time were the Biological/Chemical agents used? I mean those kinds of weapons have been known to humanity for quite a long time, yet somehow any agressor vowing totall annihilation of Jewish state limits himself only to use of conventional arms
strange, no?

[Ambassador]

You are arguing the way 'There's no proof that God doesn't exist. Therefore, God exists.' :roll:



in all the conflicts that have been fought against Israel, how many time were the Biological/Chemical agents used? I mean those kinds of weapons have been known to humanity for quite a long time, yet somehow any agressor vowing totall annihilation of Jewish state limits himself only to use of conventional arms
strange, no?

yeah that's totally because it's impossible to undermine the national integrity of a particular country without the use of WMD hehehe

[rhino]

You are arguing the way 'There's no proof that God doesn't exist. Therefore, God exists.' :roll:


best argument one who has no argument can have
back to Israel, in the above yours post

[Ambassador]

Rhino, it is you who brought up the theory that South Korea is insisting on keeping the military of a nuclear power within its territory without proof. You are the one who's using the best argument one without proof can use.

It's like saying I am an alien in disguise because no proof exists that I am not.

[rhino]

You are arguing the way 'There's no proof that God doesn't exist. Therefore, God exists.' :roll:



yeah that's totally because it's impossible to undermine the national integrity of a particular country without the use of WMD hehehe

not at all, but if we focus on the rhetoric of the ivading countries, why did they limit themselve to just sluging it out?


Rhino, it is you who brought up the theory that South Korea is insisting on keeping the military of a nuclear power within its territory without proof. You are the one who's using the best argument one without proof can use.

It's like saying I am an alien in disguise because no proof exists that I am not.

didnt make it clear, in my second post I was refering to Taiwan, my bad.

[Ambassador]

There are no U.S. forces in Taiwan >_> How can they insist to keep something which they don't keep in the first place?

If you are asking why Taiwan doesn't ask the U.S. lend Taiwan direct military support, it's because a U.S. military presence in Taiwan will cause apprehension and provoke aggression from China, which will give China more reason to attack Taiwan, than if Taiwan had no U.S. military presence. The casus belli China will utilize is 'the U.S. is establishing its military forces in our land, which is Taiwan, and therefore, we'll attack the U.S. and establish our own military in Taiwan, because we have the right to protect our land from a foreign incursion.' Taiwan does not want to give China anymore reason than it already has given to invade and occupy it. That's how Taiwan still exists as a de facto sovereign country, and they want to keep it that way. There are also legality issues that Taiwan cannot circumvent; for example, as far as the U.S. is concerned, the country 'Taiwan' is nonexistent. There is no such country as 'Republic of China' in this world. U.S. cannot establish a military presence on a country with which the don't have a diplomatic relationship short of it being classified an 'invasion'; in this case, an invasion on the territory of People's Republic of China, because Taiwan is officially under the PRC control.

[rhino]

There are no U.S. forces in Taiwan >_> How can they insist to keep something which they don't keep in the first place?

If you are asking why Taiwan doesn't ask the U.S. lend Taiwan direct military support, it's because a U.S. military presence in Taiwan will cause apprehension and provoke aggression from China, which will give China more reason to attack Taiwan, than if Taiwan had no U.S. military presence. The casus belli China will utilize is 'the U.S. is establishing its military forces in our land, which is Taiwan, and therefore, we'll attack the U.S. and establish our own military in Taiwan, because we have the right to protect our land from a foreign incursion.' Taiwan does not want to give China anymore reason than it already has given to invade and occupy it. That's how Taiwan still exist as a de facto sovereign country, and they want to keep it that way. There are also legality issues that Taiwan cannot circumvent; for example, as far as the U.S. is concerned, the country 'Taiwan' is nonexistent. There is no such country as 'Republic of China' in this world. U.S. cannot establish a military presence on a country with which the don't have a diplomatic relationship short of it being classified an 'invasion'.

the issue of Taiwan is way too complicated

<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana', 'sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">U.S. commercial ties with Taiwan have been maintained and have expanded since 1979. Taiwan continues to enjoy Export-Import Bank financing, Overseas Private Investment Corporation guarantees, normal trade relations (NTR) status, and ready access to U.S. markets. In recent years, AIT commercial dealings with Taiwan have focused on expanding market access for American goods and services. AIT has been engaged in a series of trade discussions, which have focused on protection of intellectual property rights and market access for U.S. goods and services.

[Ambassador]

Taiwan can have trade relationship with the U.S. because trade does not require statehood; it's just like a business deal, and you don't need to be a state to conduct business with the U.S. However the U.S. cannot lend direct military support to a businessman named 'Taiwan', and Taiwan will not insist for something that it will never receive.

[LRPV]

Yeah, and in the same manner, South Korea and Japan had no clashes with either China or North Korea, and neither did Taiwan with China, since the 1950. And we did that without possessing any nuclear weapons.

So, again, there's a flaw if you say that 'we develop nuclear weapons because that's the only way to deter our enemies from attacking us.'

However there's no flaw if you say 'we develop nuclear weapons so that we can beat the hell out of our neighbors whenever it suits our interest'.



Indeed, and we don't have a problem with it. North Korea acquired nuclear weapons, and yet we ourselves don't have nuclear weapons. Your country on the other hand have nuclear weapons even though none of your regional adversaries do.

And the case is even worse for Taiwan-China.


The Israeli-Arab conflict remains unresolved and a technical state of war exists on two borders. To use a direct comparison with Asian statesmanship is in your termsw, flawed. Reading through your posts I see a subjective tint.....

[Ambassador]

What you cannot refute is that nuclear weapons are fundamentally not a 'necessity'.

Your own opinion that Israel requires nuclear weapons to defy its Arab neighbors is in itself subjective. I'm not saying mine is completely objective, but my words weigh just as much as yours.

[rhino]

Taiwan can have trade relationship with the U.S. because trade does not require statehood; it's just like a business deal, and you don't need to be a state to conduct business with the U.S. However the U.S. cannot lend direct military support to a businessman named 'Taiwan', and Taiwan will not insist for something that it will never receive.


like I said the issue is complicated, there is no doubt that all parties involved have some gain in the present status quo, otherwise Taiwan would be flying red flag for quite some time