I haven't read any big news stories about this so it doesn't seen to have ruffle too many feathers, but regardless, it should be pretty obvious that he is not to subtly trying to remind us that the prime reason Iran and co are trying to build nukes is precisely because Israel has them.

If we want to make a lasting effort in the restricting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, this issue must be addressed.

Israel has no reason to have them. Its capabilities in all other areas of military affairs are a million mile ahead of the rest of the middle east, doubly confounded by even Russia's refusal to give them and even remotely modern weapons. Letting Israel keep them sends a message that the nuclear non-proliferation process can be circumvented just because we feel like it.

Compare Israel to North Korea, they live in close proximity to highly capable yet hostile neighbors like South Korea and Japan, and like Israel, the are not entirely certain that their biggest backer would assist in time to save the regime. They tried to build nukes as a deterrent.

Another example is South Africa. They actually built nukes, a few of them in fact. They had a justified fear of all those nut job run countries to the north, but the west was able to pressure them into disarming.

So now we come back to Israel. Who do they really have to fear? Lebanon is a mess and the political elite are trying to make the country democratic again despite the efforts by Hezbollah. Jordan is a friend, Egypt has the Sinai so they are happy, Saudi Arabia just wants money, Iraq will either be pacified or so self destructive that it wont bother anyone, Syria will probably get the Golan Heights back and will be happy.

This leaves Iran. For an Iranian army or even air force (which their best plane is 30 years old with no spare parts), they have to get through Syria, who would not accept the threat to sovereignty, or Iraq, or the Kurdish areas of Iraq, or Turkey, so the Iranian army can't even get there. Their air force is utter crap, you don't fight terrorist cells with nukes, so in a modern reality Iran does not possess that much a threat that could not be easily neutralize by diplomacy with its immediate neighbors.

From the Iranian perspective, Israel, China, Pakistan India, Russia, and the USA has nuclear in the region, all of whom don't really have a qualm about bombing a city or two just for the fun. what do you think Iran could do as a response?

In short, disarm Israel through economic and military support sanctions, bring old fies like Syria back to the west by some positive reinforcement, continue sacntions against Iran, basically, be firm but most importantly, be fair and not hypocritical.

like you know how much each of the nuclear powers has strived to find an excuse to use nukes since WWII? cuz it's happened so many times...

you say outlandish things like that, it weakens the rest of what you're saying. i was following you for a moment, than you lost me at crazy

What does Israel fear ?

Are you a bonehead or what ?  Missle fly into their country everyday...and the west pressures them to do nothing about it.

They had to WALL in their borders to stay relatively safe from suicide murderers.

They were at one time SURROUNDED by a united alliance set on destroying their nation.
Now its only one in a perpetual Civil war, and another still Bent on their elimination (Syria).  Not to mention another given land within their own lands....PLO/HAMAS....that when not fighting themselves, do their best to kill Jews.
And a few nutarals on their borders that have a populace w/i their nations that hates all Jews.

To top that off....it was only a short 70+ years ago that their ANSESTORS, and a few fellow citizens were in camps where they were marched off to gas chambers, and their bodies tossed into ovens.

Oh yea...and there are still a few nut job NATIONAL LEADERS that vow to drive them into the ocean and take their country and all the wealth they have accumulated.

But hell, they dont have nukes anyway....only a FORMER PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES says they do To a FOREIGN PRESS Agency in a FOREIGN LAND !!!

Elysian, I an referring to some nations willingness to bomb other nations using conventional weapons without fear of reprisal, eg Israel bombing the Syrian facility a few months ago. Nuclear politics are not just saber rattling with ICBMs at 10 paces, it is a psychological predicament where a nuclear power feels they can get away with more when their opponent does not have them. The cold war was full of these examples, the worst being the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Chinese atrocities in Tibet, and especially Soviet repression of Eastern Europe are examples of things that i am pretty sure we would not have stood for if it were not for the nuclear threat.

This is what faces Iran today, where they are surrounded by nuclear power who feel they have the right to act because they have the ultimate trump card. I don't believe threat Iran should have nuclear weapons, but I also strongly believe that neither should Israel, or Pakistan India, North Korea etc, some of whom are in proximity to Iran, do not like Iran, and like many of us, cannot accept the society they have chosen for themselves.

Black_Wing, wonderful argument, nuclear weapons are really the best tool to use against terrorist groups hiding amongst civilians. I would love the see the result of a nuke attack to take out terrorists living in east Jerusalem.

And this is probably the hardest thing for you to accept as well, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an elected official. Regardless of the fact that he has a minuscule amount of power compared to the Supreme Leader. I have very little respect for Ahmadinejad, and I totally agree he is an arsehole, but he is doing what any other populist leader does in any western nation, he is playing the populist vote by running on stereotypes that win votes. Think of him as a George W Bush if he were a member of the KKK, or better yet, Ronald Regan. Don't forget that period between 1945 and 1991 when nearly every US president vowed the violent destruction of the Soviet Union, Ahmadinejad is doing the same thing, except he makes the distinction on racial and not ideological lines, just like a certain other popular western president who promised to build up weapons to destroy a certain ideologial oponend in the mid to late 80's.

as sad as that is Israel definatly needs nuclear weapons. the reason why it is still out there is not so much because it is somehow intrinsically superior or supported by divine favour, but because of US support and the many shortcomings of its neighbours

given the right conditions israel would lose and the only question would be how soon or how hard it would lose

therefor the only true guarantee for israel's survival are nuclear weapons, this is even true if its neigbhours also get nuclear weapons; to paraphrase what de gaulle rightfully said when comparing france's measly nuclear forces against the USSR's, what matters not is having more nuclear weapons than your opponents, but to be able to do enough damage to discourage your opponent from attacking

> TheYell wrote:

> Yah a deterrent

Israel was believed to have a few nukes by 1966 so the 1967 and 1973 wars were with a "nuclear power"

And how well known was Israel's nuke status at that time?

Not to mention that there's even levels of deterrence within the broad classification of "nuclear power."  For example, a nation that has just a few nukes would still be in the process of formulating policies, procedures, etc., with regards to the use of nukes.  It takes time for any nation to clearly know its entire nuclear policy once a weapon is developed.  It may have been possible that, since Israel was an infant nuclear power at the time, an assault on them at the time would allow the Arab nations to destroy or capture the weapons before they were fully operational.  The fact that Israel had to keep their nuke program secret means that the likelihood of high security in the vicinity of the warheads may be lessened, increasing the probability that a surgical strike could have taken down Israel's nuclear capabilities.  In addition, the fact that the '73 attack was a surprise assault on Israel further shows that, early on, a nuclear weapon could incite wars in the form of preemptive strikes.

Not to mention that those numbers are pretty fuzzy anyway.  We can't be entirely sure of when Israel did have a nuclear program.

@ Skoe... Thanks.  I needed your input to put it in perspective. 

hehe....waaa ?

come on Tpiddy, Israel has every reason to have nuclear missiles. they are outnumbered, out gunned, and surrounded by people that would love to kill them all. one of the main reasons why Israel hasnt been nuked themselves is because the hatred is mutual and Israel would be less hesitant to use their nukes when they have nothing to loose. nukes is almost mandatory for the existence of Israel.

"They win again, and again, because they have superior air support -- and their soldiers have superior training. This is logical.

Although, there was a time when Egypt could have walloped Israel...Luckily Syria, Egypt's trusted ally, fudged that up for them ."

this comment has already been discarded above

You dont win wars with nukes....you prevent them.

> Gladiator wrote:

> americans won WW2 with nukes

Japan was pretty much defeated at that point, beyond the point of return.  Winning was just a formality, really.