Israel seen advancing on nukes

[maddezmom]

By Matt Spetalnick

DIMONA, Israel (Reuters) - Israel's nuclear secrets were once so well hidden that the world could only guess whether it had a "bomb in the basement" of its Dimona atomic reactor.

But 18 years after Mordechai Vanunu blew the whistle on the Jewish state as an undeclared nuclear power, the question is how far it has advanced from an underground programme to the ability to launch atomic weapons from land, air and beneath the sea.

Foreign-based experts who track Israel's murky nuclear developments say it is still forging ahead despite a sharp reduction in strategic threats from hostile neighbours since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq a year ago.

Whatever danger Iraq posed faded with the fall of Saddam Hussein. Libya, another longtime foe, is voluntarily scrapping its weapons of mass destruction. Even Iran, seen by Israel as the greatest threat to its existence, has agreed to U.N. inspection of its nuclear plants.

~snip~
more:http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=497107§ion=news

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Huh?

...despite a sharp reduction in strategic threats from hostile neighbours since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq a year ago.

[ugarte]

2. Exactly who is Israel afraid of these days?

Are they going to nuke suicide bombers?

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Iran for instance, Syria

Iran is trying to get nukes. Syria reportedly has other WMD. That's just for starters.

[ugarte]

5. Israel has never been stronger, relative to its neighbors

The problem is that, like the U.S., they have a large military-industrial infrastructure which must be fed. Strategically speaking, having 100 nukes as opposed to 50 is meaningless, but, as we know, that never stopped anyone from building more.

[SquireJons]

7. Never Been Stronger?

What? You've gotta be joking...

Maybe you meant that Israel has never had a larger population than it's combined neighbors? But when it comes to fire power, technology, cash, and intelligence, Israel is unmatched by any combination of other Middle East states. The fact that Israel has multiple atomic bombs just makes the gap wider. Even if an Arab state developed a bomb, and used it against Israel, that country would surely know that they could not destroy Israel, and that it was committing collective suicide. There is no doubt that Israel can and would retaliate with nuclear weapons, so it wouldn't work.

Peace must be negotiated. End the Sharon/Bush/Blair Triumvirate.

[tinnypriv]

8. Correct

And if you would like some Israeli facts to back that up, be my guest:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=15302

"The most powerful in the Middle East"

[ugarte]

9. Try reading my post again

Never been stronger=extremely strong

You're writing the same thing I wrote.

[SquireJons]

12. sorry...

A misread on my part.

[The Stranger]

10. Interesting concept/prinicple: Mutually Assured Destruction

Even if an Arab state developed a bomb, and used it against Israel, that country would surely know that they could not destroy Israel, and that it was committing collective suicide.

Mutually assured destruction has been the deterrent that has prevented the U.S. and U.S.S.R./Russia from destroying the world for half a century. It may be (I said "may be") the next best thing to total disarmament.

[SquireJons]

11. Maybe...

I had that same crazy thought myself. Not only did nukes keep the U.S. and U.S.S.R. from going at it, but India and Pakistan as well. Maybe the solution is to give the bomb to everyone? It would be a much harder world to control and exploit.

Can you imagine Uganda with the bomb?

[Mokito]

15. Here's the one major problem with that theory.

Some people don't give sh*t for M.A.D., they're just mad.
I belief you have some form of these lunatics living in America.

[The Stranger]

23. You are correct in that the U.S. is the only nation ever to use

nuclear weapons during war time. And, at that time, it was the world's only nuclear power.

Never during war time have they been used since.

[bicentennial_baby]

25. Uhhhh

MAD was dead as soon as France, China and the UK got nukes. The whole point of MAD was that if you saw in incoming nuke, you would know exactly where it was from, and could respond in kind, hence the "mutually assured destruction". Once more than 2 states have nuclear missile capabilities, you can't guarantee who sent it and know for sure who to nuke back, which leaves open the door for a chain reaction of nukes hitting all nuclear-capable nations, especially if you factor in the possibility of miscommunication. At least that's what I learned in American Foreign policy class :shrug: ...

[One_Life_To_Give]

26. MAD was always US vs. USSR

Actually with our early warning satelites and radars we can tell who launched on us. And in the case of MAD, the 2000 Nuclear Warheads in the first wave would leave little doubt as to the source.

[NickB79]

32. More accurately: US and their allies vs. USSR and their allies

Not since the 1950's when England and France developed nukes and entered into NATO was it only the US vs the USSR. Why else did Russian warheads target not only the US and its territories, but also a half-dozen other countries around the world? We did have US-made ICBM's stationed in various European countries as well. What would have happened if US ICBM's in Turkey had launched against Moscow, or USSR ICBM's in Cuba had launched against Washington DC? That draws allies into the fray of retaliation, meaning all allied countries become potential targets to strike.

[One_Life_To_Give]

44. US/Nato or USSR/WPact

In the case of Cuba Kennedy was clear, any attack from a Soviet satelite was a attack from the USSR itself. I would assume the Soviets thought the same about NATO. While France and the UK had a certain autonomy, the thought of their making a nuclear attack without the express support of the rest of NATO is suspect, especially against a Nuclear Superpower.

Additionally I am not sure if either the UK or France ever had a big enough arsenal to completly destroy the USSR and it's retaliatory strike capability.

[Roaming]

52. Mutually assured destruction only works on people who are afraid

to die. What if a leader of a government decided to make his entire country a martyr on behalf of the jihad?

[Zero Gravitas]

16. umm..

I suppose it never occurred to you that Syria & Iran are acquiring WMDs in response to the threat posed by a 100 Israeli nukes?

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Iran's already trying to get them and Syria has WMD

The difference is, those two nations, among many Arab nations, consistently threaten the mere existence of Israel. Israel does not do the same in turn.

Israel needs nukes to ensure survival. They do not.

[denverbill]

29. "Israel needs nukes to ensure survival. They do not."

Are you nuts?

If the invasion of Iraq did nothing else, it proved to every third world country that their survival as nations depends on getting nukes ASAP.

[Zhade]

34. I'm more distrubed by the following comment:

Israel does not do the same in turn.

Israel stole the Golan Heights, and large swaths of Palestine, and it doesn't threaten other nations? What planet is this again, Bizarro World?

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Stole?

The Syrians were using the Golan Heights to rain death down upon Israel. Until there is peace between those two nations, the Golan will not be returned because of its strategic importance. Clearly, Israel has shown an ability to make peace with former enemies like Egypt and Jordan and they got land back that they lost in their ill-advised wars against Israel.

[SquireJons]

51. Ummm...

You seemed to be forgetting that Israel started war in 56, 67, and 81. Israel is the most dangerous country in the world today, and has been for decades. The U.S. should cut ties to Israel or make them sue for peace with their neighbors, especially now, with 150,000 troops on the ground.

[newyorican]

43. yes...

It obvious.

[NickB79]

35. Question: when did Israel acquire nuclear warheads?

And when did Syria acquire significant chemical weapons capabilities? If Israel developed nukes before Syria developed WMD's, it does seem to support the claim Syria is simply reacting to Israel's actions, not vice versa.

Since Iran doesn't even have nukes yet, it is pretty clear they are indeed responding to Israel's initial nuclear threat.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Go back a little further

When did Syria first attack Israel?

[NickB79]

46. Syria attacked with conventional forces

And Israel repelled them with conventional forces. The Israelis are the ones who upped the odds by introducing nuclear weaponry to the mix.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Syria had friends, a whole bunch in fact

And Israel has barely managed to survive ongoing attack from the entire Arab world ever since. Acquiring nukes was a perfectly sane and logical move to prevent another Holocaust.

[Nihil]

4. Even then, the USUK wouldn't dare to complain out loud ...

> Exactly who is Israel afraid of these days?

Try "everyone outside of that f*ck-off big wall they're putting up".

> Are they going to nuke suicide bombers?

If they thought it would be worth it ...

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Not everyone

And it's a fence in 95% of the locations. It's only a wall in heavily populated urban areas.

[mbperrin]

13. If true, that makes it a friendly wall, right?

Yes, jolly old saint Sharon, bringing gifts!

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Just efficient

Making it tough for psycho murdering Hamas terrorists and the rest of their buddies to have access to Israel is indeed a good thing.

[mbperrin]

21. Actually, walls don't work:

Berlin wall - gone; Hadrian's wall - didn't work; Chinese wall - didn't work; Maginot Line - didn't work.

Sure does soak up US taxpayer dollars for contractor buddies of those in power, though, doesn't it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Doesn't have to work forever

It just has to help in the now until there is peace.

[mbperrin]

27. Killing for peace is like

fucking for virginity. Cuts both ways.

Want war? Prepare for war and do war.

Want peace? Prepare for peace and do peace.

No evidence either side wants peace.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Israel made an offer for peace

Arafat declared Intifada instead.

Israel wants peace, but when have the Palestinians ever offered it?

Failing that, Israel is trying to limit access by the Palestinian terrorists.

[Chicago Democrat]

49. Israel is every bit as much at fault for the present conflict.

And two wrongs never make a roght.

[Zhade]

36. "No evidence either side wants peace."

BINGO. Especially true with a madman like Sharon in power, encouraging theft and the the killing of innocents.

One day Sharon will get his, and I for one will be glad to see that karma works.

I wonder if he's ever haunted in his dreams by the innocents whose blood is on his hands.

[Chicago Democrat]

50. That is correct. They both want war and have mutually exclusive

goals. At least Sharon and Arafat do. Both sides need to get rid of both these stupid old men.

[bobthedrummer]

17. Debkafile used to mention neutron bomb cruise missiles carried on

submarines, but it may have gotten miniaturized now.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Debka, al Jazeera and Faux News all have credibility issues

[bobthedrummer]

20. Hey remember the Office of Stategic Influence/OSI that was going to

use the world's media to plant disinfo in the war on terrorism, but the last story about OSI was that it wouldn't open?

The truth is out there, so is a lot of mind control.

[madrchsod]

24. just get it over with and

turn your neighbors into radioactive piles of sand. the world will watch and do nothing , so there is no problem.the usa will still write checks cause they`ll take the oil fields..no one gives a shit if it`s 2 or 3 people a day or all at once..if ya got them-use them...

[daleo]

30. Reduction in strategic threats?

It is now glaringly obvious that Iraq was never a strategic threat. It seems doubtful that Libya was either - the whole "Libya volunteers to disarm" thing seems like a big round of political theater, convenient for all parties involved (Bush, Blair, Ghaddafi). If Iran is any sort of a strategic threat, I really doubt that invading Iraq will be the key to convincing them to disarm - common sense indicates that the converse is the case.

If Israel faces strategic threats, this war has done nothing to alleviate them. In fact, it has done plenty to increase them. Every country in the region will now want to pack as much power as it can manage.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Iraq was never a stragic threat?

They attacked three nations in the region, tried to put a stranglehold on the world oil supply and violating the 1991 peace agreement on a daily basis. How does that make them NOT a threat.

[NickB79]

33. And they failed every time

They attacked three nations, and failed miserably. If they would have ever been any real threat to Israel, Israel could have crushed any Iraqi assault single-handedly without US or Coalition help. Furthermore, when Saudi Arabia was threatened with invasion, Bin Laden offered his battle-hardened mujahadeen forces to fight against Saddam's forces. It would have been far longer and bloodier than the Coalition assault, but if Bin Laden's men could stop the USSR in Afghanistan, they should have been able to stop Saddam. The only nation that really needed Coalition defense was Kuwait, and its now debatable if they were really in the right on this one (see below).

They tried to put a stranglehold on the world oil supply, and failed. *Actually, this point is debatable as to their true motives, as there is ample evidence Iraq invaded Kuwait to stop illegal Kuwaiti slant-drilling operations into Iraqi oilfields. Ask yourself, how would the US respond if Mexico was slant-drilling into a rich oilfield in Texas and refused to stop? Not friendly, you can bet.*

They violated the 1991 peace agreement on a daily basis by what, locking onto Coalition aircraft with outdated anti-aircraft and missile batteries? The result was that we blew up those batteries and lost no planes to them. And as we've seen since the invasion, they were not continuing research into WMD's that would have been the only significant danger to Israel.

Iraq did nothing for the past 13 years to be considered more than a pest. Muddle, you yourself have on many occasions made the claim that the far superior Israeli military could crush any conventional attack from any combination of Arab nations. But now you're saying they were a threat to Israel even without their mythical WMD's?

[Zhade]

37. It's the same mentality that probably believed Iraq had WMD.

Of course, millions of people - including myself - knew better thanks to people like Scott Ritter.

They violated the 1991 peace agreement on a daily basis by what, locking onto Coalition aircraft with outdated anti-aircraft and missile batteries? The result was that we blew up those batteries and lost no planes to them.

You forgot to mention that the no-flight zones were NOT sanctioned by the UN, but were instead unilateral (well, bilateral) on the part of the US/UK.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Well, they only failed in Kuwait because the entire world attacked them

How they violated their peace treaty is of little consequence. That they did so on a regular basis indicates that Saddam wasn't interested in peace.

I have never once argued FOR Gulf II, just wanted to set a few things straight.

Actually, I have argued that Israel can CURRENTLY win battles, but wars are fought more than on the battlefield. They combine funding, politics and logistics to name a few.

[daleo]

41. In practice the term "strategic threat" means nuclear threat

At least that is the way I see it used most of the time. I didn't say they couldn't be a threat, just not a strategic threat. Anybody can be a threat to anybody else, although some threats are mortal and others are not. A nuclear threat should not be confused with any other kind of threat, on this basis.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. So what were "strategic threats" before 1945?

Or do other WMD also count in your use of the term?

[daleo]

45. Words and phrases change meaning with technology

One sense of strategic threat is the old fashioned one used before 1945 (cut supply lines, etc. - eg. "the German fleet posed a strategic threat to the British fleet in 1917 if it could get to the high seas").

I suppose a strategic threat can mean:
- a threat to vital interests (peak oil is a strategic threat to the American economy)
- a threat to national political existence, but not necessarily biological existence (a unified Germany was a strategic threat to Poland, for example)
- a threat to actual biological existence (the Nazis threat to the Jewish people, or any nuclear power's threat to any other nation, just by virtue of having nuclear weapons)

However, given that the term strategic threat was initiated by the discussion of nuclear weapons, which are usually called "strategic weapons", it seems sensible to assume that is the sense in which the term was meant. As for other weapons of mass destruction, although there are some very bad ones (Dresden for example was destroyed with chemical explosives), none are in the same league as nuclear weapons, to my knowledge.

So in this sense, Israel is the only middle east power thus far that poses a true strategic threat to its neighbors. However, this could change very quickly, and I suppose it eventually will (perhaps it already has, via Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons).

I understand Israel's unique fear in this regard, given the Nazi experience. I am not saying they shouldn't possess nuclear weapons, just that they have no strategic threat to fear in this regard from their neighbors at this moment. That is not to say they don't face threats, or don't have real and legitimate fears.

[cornfedyank]

48. remember 8 june, 1967

the uss liberty was attacked in waves. no accident.

shrub et al should remember.