The Nuclear Annihilation of Israel?

I sort of hate to intervene as a moderator because I started this thread but the thread is NOT about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is about Israel possibly launching a nuclear strike against Iran and what the response should be to such an attack. Please limit posts to addressing this issue.

Thank you,
Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

Indeed fair enough.

The trouble is we've indicated the actual translation doesnt say any such thing about nuclear annihilation.

In response Subdermal has challenged us as to how zionism can be defeated, ended or whenever without levelling israel. Postulating that if it cannot then Ahmedinnijad must be indicating that he wants to flatten Israel.

I have explained exactly what Ahmedinnijad and will answer any further questions..

 

A nuclear attack by Israel against Iran has nothing to do with Zionism. It has to do with committing an act that could ultimately lead to the end of mankind. Nuclear wars cannot be allowed, ever.

There is only one means that can assure that we will never face the prospect of a nuclear war that could easily wipe out all of mankind and that is to ensure that any nation that uses a nuclear weapon is annihilated. Only a threat of that magnitute can be effective to prevent nuclear war. If even one nation uses a nuclear weapon without facing such a consequence for it's actions then every nation on Earth has a valid reason to produce and use nuclear weapons.

Israel, of all nations, should endorse the policy of total annihilation of any nation that uses a nuclear weapon.

 

I'm wondering if you had a problem with Harry Truman giving the orders to drop a couple of atomic bombs on Japan during WWII--knowing full well that in doing so it had eventually led to the ending of that war.

I see no problem with Israel nuking Iran if Israel does it for self defense reasons. Everyone knows that the despot and the rogue nation of Iran is developing nuke capability, and that they've already threatened to annihilate Israel in time, so if Iran does indeed bomb Israel, then who in their right mind would want to warn or stop Israel from nuking that worldwide threat of Iran?

You say anyone using nukes should be annihilated. Just who do you suppose would be annihilating Israel if Israel should happen to nuke Iran? Who would be your first choice to annihilate/nuke Israel? Would it be their ally America?

 

I cannot change history but certainly I have concerns related to the use of atomic weapons by President Truman. It was a choice that Truman made but we must also remember that it was not a first stike nuclear weapon attack as Japan attacked the US on 12/7/1941.

There is no evidence that Iran is producing a nuclear weapon according to this weeks IAEA report. It does express concerns that Iran could be exploring how to build a nuclear weapon but knowing how to build a nuclear weapon and actually making one are two different things. The NPT does not prevent a nation from knowing how to make a nuclear weapon. It merely prohibits the actual making of a nuclear weapon.

Iran has never threatened to directly attack Israel in spite of propaganda to the contrary. Israel in refusing to join the NPT and building nuclear weapons is a rogue nuclear weapons state and all member nations of the NPT should be taking all actions necessary to force Israel into dismantleing it's nuclear weapons. It presents a very real threat of nuclear war and must be forced to dismantle it's nuclear weapons and join the NPT. It is no different than N Korea in this regard.

If Israel were to nuke Iran then every nation in the region is justified in producing nuclear weapons to defend themselves from a possible nuclear attack by Israel. They already have a justifiable reason for doing so simply because Israel has nuclear weapons and does not comply with it's treaty obligations as a member of the UN.

All five of the NPT authorized nuclear weapons nations should respond with a retallitory nuclear strike if Israel were to use nuclear weapons against Iran. There are no allies for a nation that starts a nuclear war as ulitmately such actions would lead to the eventual nuclear destruction of all mankind.

 

So you oppose Iranians striking back if they were to lose hundreds of thousands of people in one stroke?

Id say it would be anyone that wished to annihilate israel. The US could not be trusted however to act for the iranian people. So they wouldnt really be a good choice.

Oh and Libhater, theyve not threatened to annihilate israel in time. Thats the propaganda youve been fed. Everyone else here knows the truth. If you want we can discuss the actual translation in detail - dont just rely on Fox news, rely instead on MEMRIs own translation.

 

While thats true, the policy of assured mutual destruction would not work today. Israel can nuke Iran all it wants, no one would stop it.

 

Let us hope that this will not happen.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

 

That doesn't argue against the fact that the Big Five that have nuclear weapons should retalliate against any nation that uses nuclear weapons. If Israel attacks Iran then is it okay for N Korea to nuke S Korea? Isn't it basically the same thing? If one nation is allowed to use nuclear weapons against other nations then all nations are allowed to use nuclear weapons against other nations.

If Israel nukes Iran and doesn't completely destroy Iran and no other nation intervenes then doesn't the Iranian government have an obligation to the Iranian People to produce a nuclear weapon and retalliate against Israel? All governments have an obligation to take whatever measures are necessary to protect the People of that nation. If the Big Five can't assure all nations that they will not be nuked then every nation has an obligation to build nuclear weapons as a deterant against nuclear attack or to retalliate if they are attacked with nuclear weapons. This is a fundamental responsibility of all governments.

Either we continue the policy of M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) which worked throughout the cold war or we simply sit back and wait for an all-out nuclear war that will destroy mankind. There are no other options. Any nation that uses a nuclear weapon in today's world must be destroyed, period.

The biggest threat today are those nations which have nuclear weapons and not those that might acquire them someday. The goal of the NPT is to stop nuclear war and it is the ultimate responsibility of the five nations that are authorized to have nuclear weapons to ensure that a rogue nuclear weapon nation such as N Korea or Israel never uses the nuclear weapons in the possession.

At the same time all of the members of the NPT have an absolute obligation to take all measures necessary to disarm all rogue nuclear weapon nations. We're doing that with N Korea by imposing severe economic sanctions and the exact same measures should be taken relative to India, Pakestan and Israel.

 

Yes. That's correct. The killing is indiscriminate: Muhammad himself could have been in the bus bombed, or the market hit, and they wouldn't have known...or cared. Did you not read the article?

You would think that these Palestinian terrorists would reach out to those anti-Zionists with which they supposedly have so much in common, to warn them of their activities, so that they can avoid harm, but that's not what is taking place.

Because the Palestinian terrorists consider those "Pacifist anti-Zionists" nothing more than useful idiots: they are "the infidel" every bit as much as any strident Zionist.

Yes, I see you get so up-in-arms about the Israelis doing that, but not so much upset about Palestinians.



It seems as though you're not interested in peace; you're interested in retribution. You're rationalizing that "because they're doing it, we have to do it too" - but you're wholly ignoring that the tactics are completely different (and I doubt you will ever acknowledge that).

You're not acknowledging the moral bankruptcy of the method. It is unforgiveable to use children and old women as bomb mules, and it is unforgiveable to hop on a bus and blow it up. This is rationalized...how?

There are people who agree with their political positions on that bus. They're dead. That makes no sense whatsoever. People who really want what you claim they want would cherish those within the borders of a country who already agree with them!

Did the Irish use their own children? Did they have populations littered with sympathizers?

Did South American terrorists use their children? If they did; if the Irish did, then I'll grant your point.

Islamists use tactics which aren't traditional, moral or honorable. There is a type of honor in battle; it was what wearing uniforms were based upon. Islamists have no trouble at all shielding themselves with women and children.

They are the worst kind of coward.

This response makes no sense. You just restated the premise with which I am taking issue. Binyamin was very clear: he required Israeli settlers to be able to grow their families. There are Palestinians there too, and they can live their lives likewise.

And that mentality starts with the "well, he did it; I'll do it too" rationalization you offered earlier. You seem to acknowledge it in one way, and ignore it in the other.

You seem to object to my assertion that Arabs do not know how to lose a war; you're reacting to that by calling the statement bigoted.

I offer as evidence the reality of the situation. Israel fought a very short war, and won. The land is theirs to do with as they please. Hamas, Hizbollah, etc have no say anymore.

Part of the problem is Israel's reticence to absolutely crush them, and the entire region in which they live, and the countries who support them. Make no mistake: Israel could do that (and still may). Israel itself is a dichotomy: they truly do not want to level those who are their sworn enemies; they eternally wish to 'work it out'.

The truth remains: if antagonistic Arabs would put down their weapons, there would be no more war. If Israel did, there would be no more Israel.

Not "want" the land. The land is already theirs. They won the land through the spoils of war. The problem seems to be that the enemy has no honor, and Israel is too benevolent to drive them to extinction.

The criteria requires a level of harmony that you don't seem to acknowledge is important, or even a consideration.

What do you mean, you people?

If the land was so important, why was it never incorporated into a country? This land is desired for the same reason my 5 year old nephew fights with my 4 year old nephew for a tonka truck: the 4 year old has it.

.

 

Israel's Mossad played a key role in that. Israel's Special Forces, as well as Speciality Weapons from Israel played a key role.

You don't seem to understand the role that Israel played there, but - regardless - my point was that the money is used to defend Israel from its surrounding enemies.

Without weakening them economically, as an economically weak nation cannot defend itself physically either.

I've seen nothing regarding an elucidation of an actual strategy for eliminating Zionism without destroying Israel in the process.

To me, "Zionism" is a strawman.

That requires a premise that I have not seen substance for: that Palestinians or surround Arab States would be satisfied, as they had not been satisfied with prior arrangements. This is because they're interested in completely eliminating Israel. That assertion is supported by the behaviours and statements of surrounding Arabia.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Thousands and millions of Israelis live under constant threat.

Yes! Now we're getting somewhere! A specific strategy, you say? Please: tell us!

Because I think the only specific strategy Nutjob is following is keeping the IEAE off his arse while he develops a nuke.

In the case of Reagan, the specific strategy was publicized: bankrupt the USSR with an arms race. It worked.

Oh, there is nothing even about these two adversaries - at least right now. Israel would turn Iran into a pretty little glass bowl in about 30 minutes, and there's not a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed thing that Nutjob could do about it. This is not an even fight at this point, and Israel has been using scads of restraint in avoiding doing just that to this point.

Oh, if life and intel were only as simple as reading that which has been written, and hearing that which has been said.

I don't know if it's willful or unconscious on your part, but your myopia is incredible.

If this is your idea of Peace, I do not want to contemplate your idea of War

 

Your childish and fantastical objections to it aside, this is how virtually every country has been established. All lands became known as specific countries through equal measures of defeat and/or assimilation of the natives of that area.

Calling it fascism is a red herring.

I'm not sure what "undermines my prejudices". I pointed out that in the case of Israel, they could not do what they had done before, and they deeply resent it - along with having a religiously ingrained bias towards Israel, which just beautifully colours their rage over the fact a crimson red.

Is that like "kinda" pregnant?

This confrontation over insurmountable differences proves that what they've been living with hasn't been peace, but an unsettled truce. That isn't the same thing. The foot has been over their heads, waiting to drop.

Along with the more than occasional Qassam, Grad and WS-1E rockets lobbed at random to keep them even more off balance. There have been more than 6,300 rockets and mortars thrown at Israel since 2005.
Some peace.

I quoted the dictionary definition of War. If you think it's nonsense, take it up with Merriam, or Webster. Robbing is not equivalent to committing an act of War.

The latter requires groups of people at minimum.

No. "Theft" is the word the bitter loser uses to describe no longer possessing something as a result of being beaten in a war.

Trust me, the destruction Israel could wreak on any surrounding country in the ME absolutely dwarfs anything they could create.

Israel has massive firepower; firepower which you have not seen. They have exercised incredible restraint.

 

Youre asking palestinians to do something for peaceul israelis that no people have ever done for the peaceful people on the otheer side, not americans, not british and not israelis. Thats just hypocrisy.

Im up in arms about all these violent and injust impositions, its actually you who seeks to blame one side more because it has used bus bombs etc.

Youre again asking palestinians to do more reaching out than anyone has ever done, in history ever - thats hypocrisy.

Yes, they used the local teenagers extensively to stir up trouble against british forces and subsequently get shot at. They also did indeed have populations on all sides littered with sympathisers, and they didnt reach to them or tell them early that they were going to bomb the local pub where they may be going for a pint - thats game set match is it not?

Your focus on a few instances of the recruitment of chilldren, as in teenagers, is a convenient ruse to (*)(*)(*)(*) the palestinians cause because you dont like their methods.

Irish, South Americans, Africans have all recruited teenagers to get into trouble, and to even fore weapons in various guerrilla conflicts. Theyve all forgone uniforms as have the israelis and have all melted into the common citizenry of women and children.

In what way doesnt it make sense? Go grow a family elsewhere.

If you want israelis and palestinians to grow families anywhere they like then opt for a unitary state. But no you want israelis to be able to build and grow wherever they like whatever the local government says yet palestinians may not build and grow wherever they like whatever the local israeli government says. Thats your problem right there.

No my response to your approval of taking land in war was;
The trouble with that notion is that its all too easy for a nation to cook up some reason, some slight, some perceived threat, in order to justify a war. Its happened everywhere over and over again. Even Saddam Hussein did it. Thats the inadmissibility clause of territorial acquisition by war was introduced.

That applies to everyone.

No I object to your denial of arabs as having honour. And your notions of how to lose a war are ridiculous nonsense that you just made up to suit yourself - thats all that notion is.

Fighting a war and winning has never in history simply made the land ones own. The continual sweeping tides of armies across the years disproves your nonsense claim.

And no, israel has limits to what in can do, real military limits. Arabs have put down their weapons many times and have accepted numerous proposals, all it led to was israeli settlement building. Before the first intifada Israel had little trouble in the west bank - settlement building continued apace.

Except you didnt win the land. You merely gained it.

Indeed, I dont acknowledge your term harmony as important, feel free to explain it.

You people as in the rabid pro-israel bigots one often finds on the internet. Fair enough?

It was never incorprated because it was under the power of another empire. And here you seem to admit that europeans jews wanted palestine because the arabs had it?

 

it seems no one can disarm iran or other "rogue" nations because its too costly to do so and the best way to handle this rogue nation since its near the worlds oil supply which is vital to the function of the markets is to allow israel to nuclear bomb it

if it is possible the big five most powerful countries should form a coalition and forcibly disarm all other nuclear countries and prevent those who are pursuing them

 

Calling it what it is means it cant be a red herring. Look Im not saying other nations and peoples havent done the same. Of course they have.

But your problem is you seek to justify the theft/ takeover etc on the basis that they were / are weak and we are strong. Which is fine and dandy, but then youve spent all this complaining about the violence done to your side and other rubbish about arabs have no honour.
Your above glorification of violence and theft on the basis of might undermines everything youve said.

But if you want to just say yeah we took it and we'll keep it, then fine. But dont complain when the oppostion think the same way against you. Just accept it, value it even - its really ok isnt it? or is ok only when you do it?

Well indeed, they did and do resent it. Because unlike previously the latest takeover involved not only an army rolling through and depositing a new local governor, but the explusion of whole populations and the burying of arab villages in the hundreds. The effects of which all the surrounding states had to deal with too - this had never happened before in anyones living memory and hardly in recorded history in the area. It wouldve been the very same if hundreds of thousands of iranians, or russians, or americans had forced themselves on the area too.

No its not like pregnancy at all. You fight with your wife now and then, does that mean youve always been fighting? No it means youve mostly been at peace.
Youve said that arabs and jews have always been at war. Thats just nonsense. As for weaponry fired at israel, it goes both ways.

Did you quote a dictionary? Thats fantastic. When did you do this? Tell your friends.

Theft is a reason for wars. It is the primary act. The first cause.

And its a not word for a bitter loser. Its a common word. Used by winners too as the reason for wars.

Oh really? In the 73 war they required a massive arms resupply from the USA. In Lebanon in 2006 their first foray was a disaster. They were hassled out of Lebanon. I dont believe you one bit.

And your restraint point is irrelevant anyway.

 

Im sure it really really did. All those tanks and planes and cruise missiles counted for nought. But no one really knows except you and the USA pays its billions so it can use Mossad now and again eh?

Your point was that the US pays billions to use israel as a check on any power getting too powerful in the ME. Youve admitted that really its just about defending israels gains.

Just pressure them to get out of occupied territory by the continued support of those who oppose it.

Zionism as a strawman is a convenient ruse youve cooked up to deny the need for israel to get out of occupied territory that you consider as much yours as anyone elses because you happen to have gained in wars you started years ago.

They have indeed been satsified with prior arrangements. And theyve accepted numerous proposals before and put forward more today. See the Saudi peace plan. The Saudis arabian enough for you?

Rubbish. Thats just the usual israeli fear mongering. Investment to and by israelis continues apace. People dont invest in places they consider under threat.

Just pressure them to get out of occupied territory by the continued support of those who oppose it. There you go, the strategy.

The iranians are developing the capability to quickly weaponise in a few months should they need to. Just like the israelis, having the capability doesnt mean its going to nuke anyone.

Indeed Reagan did have such a strategy, and despite his opposing speeches and keeness for defence it diidnt mean he was going to invade or nuke did it?

You can see whhy theyd want to have the same kind of thing you have, given that sort of gloating talk from you about the vaporisation of millions - and the iranians should refrain why?

Ah yes, the actual translations arent good enough so one should read betweenn the lines eh? And come to a conclusion that you with your bague knowedge of both israeli and iranian and middle eastern history and basic hatred of arabs have come to correct?

Its wonder more people arent as smart and thoughtful as you..

Go on then entertain us. Is there really war between egypt and israel thats been going on since the Camp David agreement? Thats what youre saying right?

 

Good posting, Creation.

Balance of power is what it's about, not nuclear exchanges.

We have seen this in Europe, India/Pakistan, and on the Korean peninsular. For 7 decades no-one has let off their big fireworks in anger.

The problem is that the US and Israel are rattling their sabres to prevent the Iranians from legitimately adding nuclear weapons to their arsenal to balance the Israeli threat.

If there is a nuclear war in the Middle East it will be down to the US and Israel. If it starts, where will it stop? Iran is backed by already-nuclear powers whether they have nuclear weapons of their own or not.

I would suggest that Israel and the US cut the crap and start working out a peace deal with the Palestinians.

And the Israelis would do well to remember that if any war gets nuclear, Israel would disappear off the map. It is a perfect target for nuclear missiles - small in area with a concentrated population.

 

agreed it would be interesting to see what happens, the US has one good ally in the Mid East that they can count on to protect Oil and thats Israel

if there was a fight for oil the other nuclear powers have a better relationship with the arab countries than the US

 

Interesting.

What has israel ever done to protect the US's oil interests?

Indeed after the 73 war there was instead an oil shock, by OPEC. What did israel do about that except to cause it?

Its fair to say that this line about israel is bunkum.

 

Just like I wouldn't have been opposed to Japan striking back after two of their biggest cities got demolished by our atomic bombs, I wouldn't be opposed to Iran striking back. But how would Iran possibly strike back if the intended nuke did the harm/devastation its capable of doing? Wouldn't the effect of being nuked render the targeted nation helpless?

Again, who would you pick as your choice to do the dirty work of annihilating Israel for nuking the rogue state of Iran? You've already eliminated America. I would think the other nuke nations would be applauding Israel for having taken out Iran. Isn't Iran one of those axis of evil nations that Bush termed so eloquently? I wouldn't have a problem if America or any other nuke nation were to take out North Korea as well. Love to get to the point where we wouldn't have to hear that term of axis of evil ever again.

That's so blatantly false that I'll have to do a little research and come back to you with some quotes. I do believe I already provided a link here where the Iranian midget threatened Israel and America in one breath, but I'll post some more for sure. I've even heard the midget threaten both Israel and America on at least two occasions.

 

Are you living on the same planet as us?

You are a great believe of propaganda, arn't you?. Tell me, what threat is North Korea? I never thought I would read the words "Bush" and "eloquent" together in the same sentence, unless you are being sarcastic, but obviously not.

 

Well, Iran is right now making sure that all its nuclear research programmes be they peaceful or defence related are built deep underground just as the israelis do. They also have a large number of mobile delivery systems. So I suspect theyve got plans in place for a strike back should the need arise. Just as we do even if our cities get turned into ash.

Its a good question, worthy of an answer. It would have to be China or Russia. No other countries could really be trusted to make that decision. The UK & France are far too pacifist at heart to really do it. And the US would only ever bomb Iran, never Israel. Hey maybe Pakistan or India would help out - yeah those last two, theyd be good candidates.
But indeed few nations would be applauding Israel, except of course the USA. This axis of evil thingy is just american nonsense stuff that seeks to relate the present day problems to World War 2.

Im not sure you really want to kill so many people in reality so Ill not respond to the last point.

Fair enough. Come back to us whenever you can.

Youve proabably read a few things from him that may chill the bone, but really its been in the context of an iranianb response to an attack on itself - a strikeback which youve already said youd support havent you?

 

Israel is not an oil producing nation nor does it control critical transportation routes the would affect the delivery of oil so how can it possibly "protect" oil supplies for the United States? If the US wanted nations that could protect our oil interests then having a nation like Iran that is an oil producing nation and sits on a key oil shipping route would make more sense although I don't advocate that.

I highly question why the United States would consider a tyrannical nation that violates the inalienable Rights of Individuals as well as violating UN Secutity Council resolutions that the US has supported as it doesn't make a lot of sense.

But that is neither here nor there when it comes to any nation using a nuclear weapon in an offensive capacity. That can't be allowed. I don't care if France used one there should be an immediate nuclear retalliation by the other four NPT authorized nuclear weapon nations. "Assured destruction" is the only threat that can protect mankind from any nation starting a nuclear war.

 

No Israel isn't an oil producer......but think of the game of Risk. Israel is smack dab in the middle of a strategically important area. But that isn't why Israel is an ally. We have many other options to protect transit routes and shipping lanes.

No, Israel is an ally in part because of it is an island of democracy and respect for life in an area dominated by death cult fundamentalists. It is a sparkling jewel consisting of world renowned universities, leading medical research facilities, an amazing number of Nobel recipients, a leader in desalination technologies, engineering, and other sciences. It is an amazing example of what is possible in a region steeped in 8th century disregard for life, ignorance of liberty, and no concept of freedom.

But that is a bit off topic. Israel will use it's nuclear capability if it has to. Simple as that. There is no nuclear nation who does not have the same policy.

 

Nuclear weapons cannot be used by any nation in an offensive manner and in prior posts I addressed this. Even the United States should face annihilation if it were to use nuclear weapons. This "assured destruction" of any nation that using a nuclear weapon has to be enforced by the five NPT authorized nuclear weapons nations.

Additionally all members of the NPT must, according to the NPT itself, take all measures necessary to ensure that any nation that doesn't have NPT authorization to possess nuclear weapons doesn't possess nuclear weapons. This has to be applied universally without political bias. We're doing that with N Korea but we're not doing that with India, Pakistan and Israel. All nations with nuclear weapons must be forced to comply with the NPT by the use of economic sanctions and no nation should be exempted from this.

Iran doesn't even have nuclear weapons and already severe sanctions are being imposed on Iran. Further economic sanctions are expected to be imposed by the UN Security Council but the use of military actions are not likely to be authorized and with good cause. The "military option" could almost ensure that Iran produces nuclear weapons in spite of the political rhetoric. Both current Sect of Defense Leon Penetta and his predecessor, Robert Gates, made this assessment related to the possible use of military force against Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-defense-chi...RzZWMDbWl0X3NoYXJlBHNsawNtYWlsBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3