Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on April 25, 2008, 06:01:11 PM
-
Does anyone else believe that if Israel and the US had turned over their surveillance to the UN rather than acting Syria would still be in the nuke business?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352553,00.html
-
Yes.
The UN no longer has viable teeth. They would have talked circles around the issue for years until Syria had completed their program and possibly even begun to crank out nukes.
-
get bitten by the snake, or bite its head off before it strikes?
-
Let me just play Devil's advocate for a moment: Doesn't Syria have the right to develop nuclear technology like Israel did? Considering the turbulent relationship between Israel and Syria over the years, aren't Syria justified in developing nukes since Israel already has them? They have a right to defend themselves.
-
Let me just play Devil's advocate for a moment: Doesn't Syria have the right to develop nuclear technology like Israel did?
no they do not. I beleive there are various treaties that prohibit this.
-
Yeah but Israel has never stated that Syria and all muslims around the world should be wiped from the face of the earth. Syria, Iran, and most of the other nut job countries over there have declared that about Israel and the Jewish people. Also Syria has attacked Israel with full scale military operations several times, and got their butts handed to them every time.
Syria has no need for nukes and if they had them do you think they wouldn't use them, or sell them to terrorists to use in Israel, the US, or any number of countries in Europe?
-
Yeah but Israel has never stated that Syria and all muslims around the world should be wiped from the face of the earth.
Would you kindly quote a Syrian official stating that?
-
Let me just play Devil's advocate for a moment: Doesn't Syria have the right to develop nuclear technology like Israel did? Considering the turbulent relationship between Israel and Syria over the years, aren't Syria justified in developing nukes since Israel already has them? They have a right to defend themselves.
Putting nukes or nuclear technology in the hands of the Syrians will only further agravate a ticklish situation. The more likely scenario would be Israel needing to defend itself against a nuclear attack rather than vice-versa.
Mark
-
no they do not. I beleive there are various treaties that prohibit this.
Those are UN treaties, NPT in particular. I thought the UN was irrelevant these days? And in any case Syria can just leave the treaty like North Korea did in 2003.
-
Would you kindly quote a Syrian official stating that?
How about puppets of the Syrian government, like Iran or Hammas. WOuld that suffice your request?
-
Putting nukes or nuclear technology in the hands of the Syrians will only further agravate a ticklish situation. The more likely scenario would be Israel needing to defend itself against a nuclear attack rather than vice-versa.
Mark
I think the Syrians see things differently, and they are probably not much interested in what you think is "likely".
-
How about puppets of the Syrian government, like Iran or Hammas. WOuld that suffice your request?
Iran a puppet of the Syrian government? :lol
And the answer to your question is: No.
-
Doesn't Syria have the right to develop nuclear technology like Israel did? Considering the turbulent relationship between Israel and Syria over the years, aren't Syria justified in developing nukes since Israel already has them? They have a right to defend themselves.
First, do a little research on history. Harold Wilson was prime minister. The sale of plutonium was made despite a warning from British intelligence that it might what they called a "material contribution to the Israeli weapons program" back then.
Under Wilson, Britain also sold Israel tons of chemicals used to make boosted atom bombs 20 times more powerful than Hiroshima or even Hydrogen Bombs.
In Harold Macmillan's time the UK supplied uranium 235 and the heavy water which allowed Israel to start up its nuclear weapons production plant at Dimona - heavy water which British intelligence estimated would allow Israel to make "six nuclear weapons a year".
The US did NOT agree to this. Just as we do not agree with any brown skin religious nutjob....er, middle eastern country today having such a weapon.
-
Iran a puppet of the Syrian government? :lol
And the answer to your question is: No.
How about Syria doing the dirty work of Iran? Acceptable or unreasonable?
-
Let's get down to it Lumpy.
A middle eastern country already has nukes. Happens to be Israel. Israel just happens to cooperate with most Western countries.
Should any additional countries in the middle east have nukes "just because" someone else has them? Or should that door that was opened briefly (and unfortunately) be closed?
Seriously, do you think these other countries would use the nukes strictly as a political tool as the US, China, Russia, France, and UK have? Or do you think they might just get a bit hasty and use one if pushed. Lets call it "Nuke Rage based on Religious grounds"....I believe the latter myself.
-
Would you kindly quote a Syrian official stating that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGcOVlshoOo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGcOVlshoOo)
Take the time to watch this and take your pick.
-
First, do a little research on history. Harold Wilson was prime minister. The sale of plutonium was made despite a warning from British intelligence that it might what they called a "material contribution to the Israeli weapons program" back then.
Under Wilson, Britain also sold Israel tons of chemicals used to make boosted atom bombs 20 times more powerful than Hiroshima or even Hydrogen Bombs.
In Harold Macmillan's time the UK supplied uranium 235 and the heavy water which allowed Israel to start up its nuclear weapons production plant at Dimona - heavy water which British intelligence estimated would allow Israel to make "six nuclear weapons a year".
The US did NOT agree to this. Just as we do not agree with any brown skin religious nutjob....er, middle eastern country today having such a weapon.
That's good, but you didn't invade or even threaten to invade Israel. You actually continued to fund Israel's military.
-
That's good, but you didn't invade or even threaten to invade Israel. You actually continued to fund Israel's military.
Only after they'd been attack in '47, '67, and '72.
Incidently, Hornet just owned you with that youtube vid.. Enjoy.
-
How about Syria doing the dirty work of Iran? Acceptable or unreasonable?
Care to give an example?
-
I think the Syrians see things differently, and they are probably not much interested in what you think is "likely".
Am I to assume that you speak for the Syrians? Are you Syrian? What do you know of what Syrians think? How do you know this?
What I feel is "likely" has every bit as much weight as what you "think" the Syrians are interested in because like me, you really don't know.
Mark
-
Let's get down to it Lumpy.
A middle eastern country already has nukes. Happens to be Israel. Israel just happens to cooperate with most Western countries.
Should any additional countries in the middle east have nukes "just because" someone else has them? Or should that door that was opened briefly (and unfortunately) be closed?
Seriously, do you think these other countries would use the nukes strictly as a political tool as the US, China, Russia, France, and UK have? Or do you think they might just get a bit hasty and use one if pushed. Lets call it "Nuke Rage based on Religious grounds"....I believe the latter myself.
An Islamic country already has nukes. No "Nuke Rage based on Religious grounds" yet.
-
An Islamic country already has nukes.
Care to give an example?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGcOVlshoOo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGcOVlshoOo)
Take the time to watch this and take your pick.
While I haven't yet watched the whole thing ... tel me did a Syrian official actually say that "Israel and all Jews around the world should be wiped from the face of the earth"?
-
Care to give an example?
Pakistan my friend.
-
Care to give an example?
Pakistan.
-
Am I to assume that you speak for the Syrians? Are you Syrian? What do you know of what Syrians think? How do you know this?
What I feel is "likely" has every bit as much weight as what you "think" the Syrians are interested in because like me, you really don't know.
Mark
Absolutely, but unlike my opponents in this thread I'm not threatening or advocating attacking another nation based on my ignorance.
-
Incidently, Hornet just owned you with that youtube vid.. Enjoy.
Hardly. I asked for a specific example, he delivered something else.
-
Pakistan my friend.
I always thought Pakistan was Hindu. I looked it up and they are 96% Muslim, so I was wrong.
-
While I haven't yet watched the whole thing ... tel me did a Syrian official actually say that "Israel and all Jews around the world should be wiped from the face of the earth"?
Are you denying that radical Islam wants to rid the earth of the Jews?
You said an example, not words that were identical. Watch it through to the end (I did a few months ago). You'll find it in there.
-
Are you denying that radical Islam wants to rid the earth of the Jews?
Not at all. I'm asking if the government of Syria has expressed such wishes as you have claimed. In case you don't know, the Syrian government is secular, much like Hussain's Iraq was secular. Syria is not like Iran at all.
-
I always thought Pakistan was Hindu. I looked it up and they are 96% Muslim, so I was wrong.
Pakistan used to be part of India, but seceded after the British left due to the very fact you posted. And btw. any country with -stan at the end of its name is Islamic.
-
Not at all. I'm asking if the government of Syria has expressed such wishes as you have claimed. In case you don't know, the Syrian government is secular, much like Hussain's Iraq was secular. Syria is not like Iran at all.
Let me ask it another way.
What do you think the result of Syria becoming nuclear would be?
Enlighten me.
-
I have no idea. If I had to venture a guess ... not much if anything. They might dare to speak up more often.
What do you think will happen?
-
I have no idea. If I had to venture a guess ... not much if anything. They might dare to speak up more often.
What do you think will happen?
lumpy listen to someone who lives in the region, the moment syria has nuclear capability, the already tenative semi stability that exsists will fall apart, and trust me israel knows when and where they will reach a production scale uranium enrichment process, hense the little "airspace penatration" last summer. And yes i will find you a speach of syrian official saying the demise of israel is soon etc when i have a little more time.
-
You said an example, not words that were identical.
Check again.
Would you kindly quote a Syrian official stating that?
-
lumpy listen to someone who lives in the region, the moment syria has nuclear capability, the already tenative semi stability that exsists will fall apart, and trust me israel knows when and where they will reach a production scale uranium enrichment process, hense the little "airspace penatration" last summer. And yes i will find you a speach of
Sounds very aggressive of you. Sounds like Syria needs the weapons to discourage further "airspace penatration".
-
First, do a little research on history. Harold Wilson was prime minister. The sale of plutonium was made despite a warning from British intelligence that it might what they called a "material contribution to the Israeli weapons program" back then.
Under Wilson, Britain also sold Israel tons of chemicals used to make boosted atom bombs 20 times more powerful than Hiroshima or even Hydrogen Bombs.
In Harold Macmillan's time the UK supplied uranium 235 and the heavy water which allowed Israel to start up its nuclear weapons production plant at Dimona - heavy water which British intelligence estimated would allow Israel to make "six nuclear weapons a year".
The US did NOT agree to this. Just as we do not agree with any brown skin religious nutjob....er, middle eastern country today having such a weapon.
Hey Rip, read this:http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/)
It mentions' very little about Britain, but says that actually France helped Isreal build the bomb.
And if you read down in this one:http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/03/00_steinbach_israeli-wmd.htm (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/03/00_steinbach_israeli-wmd.htm)
It looks like we had some hand in it, too.
-
Hey Rip, read this:http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/)
It mentions' very little about Britain, but says that actually France helped Israel build the bomb.
correct, till the embargo.
Lumpy your watching through window so you feel comfortable with making dumb remarks like that. Israel took out Iraq's reactor and now Syria's imagine 2 country's who have clearly labeled their disdain for this country and their intent to erase a state the size of Rhode island of the map possessing nuclear power. If someone aims a gun at you and your up against a wall, would you die quietly or protect yourself, hell its even in the bible....
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGcOVlshoOo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGcOVlshoOo)
Take the time to watch this and take your pick.
Watching that vid makes me think much more of Syrian, Didn't see any thing that makes me think it is any different then 99% of the other rising industrial countries out there. Some internal problems not not a lot of hate
-
correct, till the embargo.
Lumpy your watching through window so you feel comfortable with making dumb remarks like that. Israel took out Iraq's reactor and now Syria's imagine 2 country's who have clearly labeled their disdain for this country and their intent to erase a state the size of Rhode island of the map possessing nuclear power. If someone aims a gun at you and your up against a wall, would you die quietly or protect yourself, hell its even in the bible....
Oh I understand your reasons for not wanting your neighbours to have these weapons ... but not being Israeli I also understand that the Syrians want them. After all their neighbour has them and is behaving very aggressively towards them, even invading their airspace from time to time.
I would want nukes if I was a neighbour of Israel.
-
I think the Syrians see things differently, and they are probably not much interested in what you think is "likely".
Amazingly enough, I could give a fig what you think as well.
-
I have no idea. If I had to venture a guess ... not much if anything. They might dare to speak up more often.
What do you think will happen?
Well, this isn't a science experience in 12th grade, nor should it be treated like one. The Nuclear weapon train needs to be stopped, not perpetuated, not accepted. Just stopped.
-
Amazingly enough, I could give a fig what you think as well.
:aok
-
Well, this isn't a science experience in 12th grade, nor should it be treated like one. The Nuclear weapon train needs to be stopped, not perpetuated, not accepted. Just stopped.
Heh. Interrestingly we have completely opposite views on that. Since it is impossible to stop the "train" and to remove all nukes already in the world ... especially if nobody trusts anybody and particularly not the UN. I think every country should have nukes and a common understanding that the first country to use them would be totally eradicated by the others. MAD ... it's the only way.
However I do understand that some people do not want to give up their monopoly on "super-power" weapons.
-
Except we weren't the ones who invaded the other 3 times and attack with other means multiple times, i think that has no comparison to a defensive strike on a single target.... Your inability to analyze the situation is beyond me.
-
Oh I understand your reasons for not wanting your neighbours to have these weapons ... but not being Israeli I also understand that the Syrians want them. After all their neighbour has them and is behaving very aggressively towards them, even invading their airspace from time to time.
I would want nukes if I was a neighbour of Israel.
If you consider Isreal to be the agressor you need to get your head checked.
First off Isreal has been invaded by Arab countries multiple times and that includes Syria.
Why should Isreal not be hostile towards a nation that supllies a NGO with weapons that are then used against Isreal?
Heh. Interrestingly we have completely opposite views on that. Since it is impossible to stop the "train" and to remove all nukes already in the world ... especially if nobody trusts anybody and particularly not the UN. I think every country should have nukes and a common understanding that the first country to use them would be totally eradicated by the others. MAD ... it's the only way.
However I do understand that some people do not want to give up their monopoly on "super-power" weapons.
You are making the assumption that these nations fear annihilation. These nations are full of the same people who make suicide attacks against others, and beleive they go to heaven for doing so. What makes you think they will change this view if they had nukes?
-
Heh. Interrestingly we have completely opposite views on that. Since it is impossible to stop the "train" and to remove all nukes already in the world ... especially if nobody trusts anybody and particularly not the UN. I think every country should have nukes and a common understanding that the first country to use them would be totally eradicated by the others. MAD ... it's the only way.
However I do understand that some people do not want to give up their monopoly on "super-power" weapons.
Testifying before a House International Relations Subcommittee Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton described Syria as posing a dual threat to the United States in the form of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. In regard to terrorism, Syria is alleged to be a sponsor of organizations the United States considers terrorist, including Hizbollah of Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad of Palestine. Although Bolton admits that there are no specific ties linking Syria to any of these organizations, he insists that there are strong indicators—particularly Syria’s assistance to anti-coalition forces in Iraq. As for the threat of WMD Bolton testified that Syria had the most advanced chemical weapons capabilities in the Arab world and is “without question, among the states, those most aggressively seeking to acquire or develop WMD and the means of delivery.”[28]
In the area of nuclear energy, according to Bolton, Syria has an effective research and development program and has attempted to get dual usage technology from the International Atomic Energy Agency and is working with China and Russia on developing a civilian nuclear energy program. Additionally, even though Syria is a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it has yet sign to sign the Additional Protocol NPT. Similarly Syria has declined to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and still has not ratified the Biological Weapons Convention it signed in 1972. Finally, Bolton testified that Syria has an advanced conventional weapons program and hundreds of short and long range missiles equipped with chemical warheads.
Good luck with your science experiment. It might cost you an Israel city, a U.S. city, or perhaps the flow of oil which will essentially cut off your supply of food, but good luck with that experiement either way.
-
Except we weren't the ones who invaded the other 3 times and attack with other means multiple times, i think that has no comparison to a defensive strike on a single target.... Your inability to analyze the situation is beyond me.
This is your sterotype typical liberal opinion in the U.S. It's also a reason why they won't be a political factor once the baby boomer gen and their offspring die off (primarily due to the fact that baby boomer's offspring that are liberals are predominently DINKS, duel income, no kids.....thankfully....)
-
Except we weren't the ones who invaded the other 3 times and attack with other means multiple times, i think that has no comparison to a defensive strike on a single target.... Your inability to analyze the situation is beyond me.
Remember I'm an advocate for the Devil here, and you're assuming that I agree that Israel had any right to be created in the first place, let alone to continue to exist. Well ... I do, but I have to play the role to the fullest.
-
Good luck with your science experiment. It might cost you an Israel city, a U.S. city, or perhaps the flow of oil which will essentially cut off your supply of food, but good luck with that experiement either way.
Your paranoia aside, why would it cut off my supply of food? I have eaten Israeli grown potatoes, but other than that?
-
I have no idea. If I had to venture a guess ... not much if anything. They might dare to speak up more often.
What do you think will happen?
I think they will surreptitiously provide nukes to Hamas or a similar Islamic extremist group. I think that group will then use a nuke on either the US or Israel.
Because it will all be done in the deep shadows, your premise
that every country should have nukes and a common understanding that the first country to use them would be totally eradicated by the others. MAD ... it's the only way
completely falls apart. There will be no retaliation because there will be no incontrovertible evidence that the <cough> civilized countries will accept as proof of who supplied the weapon.
There will just be a dead city with a lot of dead people, with more to follow.
-
Oh, BTW, the intel should have been immediately handed over to the UN IAEA investigators who could then have demanded prompt action from the Security Council to keep Syria from proceeding with their planned development of nukes.
After all, it's a tried and true method. Look how well it has worked with Iran.
-
I think they will surreptitiously provide nukes to Hamas or a similar Islamic extremist group. I think that group will then use a nuke on either the US or Israel.
Because it will all be done in the deep shadows, your premise
completely falls apart. There will be no retaliation because there will be no incontrovertible evidence that the <cough> civilized countries will accept as proof of who supplied the weapon.
There will just be a dead city with a lot of dead people, with more to follow.
I think you argument is flawed ... It's not like the most powerful nation on Earth needed "incontrovertible evidence" to invade Iraq. And why would the secular government of Syria take such a risk?
-
I think you argument is flawed ... It's not like the most powerful nation on Earth needed "incontrovertible evidence" to invade Iraq. And why would the secular government of Syria take such a risk?
Because they have before and are up until now unharmed, and Syria's government is a long way from secular.
-
I think you argument is flawed ... It's not like the most powerful nation on Earth needed "incontrovertible evidence" to invade Iraq. And why would the secular government of Syria take such a risk?
Invading Iraq is an inconsequential minor operation in comparison to incinerating Syria with the resultant radioactive cloud drifting across more than half of the Mideast.
I seriously doubt any nation, with the exception of NK, that currently has nukes would use one without incontrovertible evidence that garnered the support of most of the other nuclear powers. One could expect China and Russia to oppose the use of nukes even if 5 major US cities were smokin' holes.
Syria, not a secular government as you posit, might take such a risk if they convinced themselves they could hide their fingerprints well enough to avoid any sort of proof.
I'm sure Evenhaim will oblige you if you wish to argue that Syria's government is truly secular.
-
Because they have before and are up until now unharmed, and Syria's government is a long way from secular.
Syria has given nukes to terrorists before? I must have missed that. :lol
-
Syria has given nukes to terrorists before? I must have missed that. :lol
I was answering why the would try to harass a powerful nation in reference to the usa....
-
I seriously doubt any nation, with the exception of NK, that currently has nukes would use one without incontrovertible evidence that garnered the support of most of the other nuclear powers. One could expect China and Russia to oppose the use of nukes even if 5 major US cities were smokin' holes.
Well if the opinions of the US patrons of this forum is any indication I have no doubt that the US would be nuking nations quite liberally if US cities were attacked. Even if the identity of the attacker was not certain.
I'm sure Evenhaim will oblige you if you wish to argue that Syria's government is truly secular.
If I want to ask someone about Syria I think I'll ask anyone but an Israeli. Doing otherwise would be like asking an American about Canada or Mexico.
-
I was answering why the would try to harass a powerful nation in reference to the usa....
Harassing with nukes? I think nuking the USA is somewhat beyond the scope of harassment.
However if you believe Syria would give nukes to terrorists, why in your opinion haven't they already given terrorists chemical or biological weapons? Or do you believe that they have done that?
-
Harassing with nukes? I think nuking the USA is somewhat beyond the scope of harassment.
However if you believe Syria would give nukes to terrorists, why in your opinion haven't they already given terrorists chemical or biological weapons? Or do you believe that they have done that?
You simply have to ask yourself what Syria has provided to the killers of Women and Children.
How much has syria paid to the suicide bomber's families who bombed Public Transportation Busses?
-
Harassing with nukes? I think nuking the USA is somewhat beyond the scope of harassment.
However if you believe Syria would give nukes to terrorists, why in your opinion haven't they already given terrorists chemical or biological weapons? Or do you believe that they have done that?
neither of us can know whether or not they have now can we, but its been proven that Syria supplied some of the missiles used in the most recent Lebanon war, one attack on an Israeli ship left pieces of a Chinese made-Syrian marked uav embedded in the ships hull...
Whats to stop them from taking it to the next level in the supply and demand terrorist market.
Or lets take your "devils advocate" view: Why would the proven #2 funder and supporter of hezbollah(only 2nd to Iran) give hezbollah more advanced weaponry then the usual delivery, what would be their motivation to give their puppet organization groups nukes?
Thinking helps before opening one's mouth...
-
I'm not a big fan of Israel, for the fact they are a country based on a single faith occuping land that is the nexus point of many religions from around the globe. The land should be international land and belong to no one...
That said, I'd sooner trust Israel with nuclear weapons, bioweapons, and any other 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' before I'd trust Syria with a slingshot. History has shown the true aggressor time and time again.
-
neither of us can know whether or not they have now can we...
Well we can find out if they have used such weapons can't we? I think a terrorist attack on Israel using chemical or biological weapons would feature quite prominently in western media ... so I guess that there have been no such attacks. And since it is the general consensus here that Syria supported Hezbollah are fanatics that wouldn't hesitate to use such weapons I must conclude that Syria indeed have not supplied them with such weapons. Further more since it is then a matter of fact that Syria already has refrained from supplying WMD to terrorists I must conclude that there is no reason to think they would do so if they had nukes.
Yes ... it does help to think. :)
-
Well we can find out if they have used such weapons can't we? I think a terrorist attack on Israel using chemical or biological weapons would feature quite prominently in western media ... so I guess that there have been no such attacks. And since it is the general consensus here that Syria supported Hezbollah are fanatics that wouldn't hesitate to use such weapons I must conclude that Syria indeed have not supplied them with such weapons. Further more I must conclude that since it is then a matter of fact that Syria already has refrained from supplying WMD to terrorists I must conclude that there is no reason to think they would do so if they had nukes.
Yes ... it does help to think. :)
ever think they might not posses the dirty weapons or wmds yet?...
-
ever think they might not posses the dirty weapons or wmds yet?...
No, I'm quite convinced they do.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/cw.htm
-
If Israel and the US were to act based on world opinion of what is fair or just everyone would have nukes and the countdown to doomsday clock would likely have already wound down. Fortunately there are still those here and there who keep their own council of what is in their own best interest and act accordingly. Let Syria have nukes? Hell no, even if the devil's advocate thinks it only fair.
-
You simply have to ask yourself what Syria has provided to the killers of Women and Children.
How much has syria paid to the suicide bomber's families who bombed Public Transportation Busses?
Probably not as much as the Saudis
I'm not a big fan of Israel, for the fact they are a country based on a single faith occuping land that is the nexus point of many religions from around the globe. The land should be international land and belong to no one...
That said, I'd sooner trust Israel with nuclear weapons, bioweapons, and any other 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' before I'd trust Syria with a slingshot. History has shown the true aggressor time and time again.
I actually read it 3-2 against Isreal for invasions...but I wouldn't let any of them have nuclear weapons...but considering the India and Pakistan (Pakistan also supports terrorism) have nukes and a similar love of each other - meh, whats the difference...
Tronsky
-
I actually read it 3-2 against Isreal for invasions
Tronsky
At least one of those invasions on the Isreali's part was provoked. I forget which year it was, but Isreal invaded, IIRC, Lebanon, because Lebanon was supporting PLO, and PLO had just attempted to assasinate an Isreali diplomat.
-
crack me up sideways... lumpy really leaves some lumps.
of course the real question is... if the holocaust occurred in europe why is there a present day warsaw memorial ghetto in palastine.
-
If Israel and the US were to act based on world opinion of what is fair or just everyone would have nukes and the countdown to doomsday clock would likely have already wound down. Fortunately there are still those here and there who keep their own council of what is in their own best interest and act accordingly. Let Syria have nukes? Hell no, even if the devil's advocate thinks it only fair.
Of course, but then you would have to act alone or with a small coalition of like-minded. Your track record for such operations isn't exactly stellar, and is getting worse every day.
-
crack me up sideways... lumpy really leaves some lumps.
of course the real question is... if the holocaust occurred in europe why is there a present day warsaw memorial ghetto in palastine.
:huh
-
At least one of those invasions on the Isreali's part was provoked. I forget which year it was, but Isreal invaded, IIRC, Lebanon, because Lebanon was supporting PLO, and PLO had just attempted to assasinate an Isreali diplomat.
Heh, "provoked" by PLO assassination attempt. How many times have the Israelis tried (and often succeeded in) assassinating people?
-
Heh, "provoked" by PLO assassination attempt. How many times have the Israelis tried (and often succeeded in) assassinating people?
Would you care to provide an example? (a legitimate one, not some speculation, or some claim by some 3rd world Islamic hellhole)
-
Would you care to provide an example? (a legitimate one, not some speculation, or some claim by some 3rd world Islamic hellhole)
This is where I must step in, I wasnt around for the first lebanon war, and I still disagree with what happend there, just like most americans and vietnam. Israel does target heads of terrorist organisitions and high ranking members of hamas, and we usually get the job done. But look at it this way, 1 missle from an apache just killed the man who planed the bombing of a civilian bus station that killed hundreds, that put an end to his career, or how about the planners of last years passover eve bombings, or the cafe bombings, or the bus bombings, or the plane hijackings, or the soldier kidnappings....
-
Would you care to provide an example? (a legitimate one, not some speculation, or some claim by some 3rd world Islamic hellhole)
Take your pick. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1258187.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/25/israel
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/november02/0211015.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1182590.stm
Btw. didn't you see Spielberg's film "Munich"? By all rights several European nations should invade Israel after being "provoked" by Israeli assassinations. ;)
-
Take your pick. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1258187.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/25/israel
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/november02/0211015.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1182590.stm
Btw. didn't you see Spielberg's film "Munich"? By all rights several European nations should invade Israel after being "provoked" by Israeli assassinations. ;)
That film was grossly erronious in its depictions and timelines, there are actually several articles on how spielberg squezed meaningless details for dramatic effect. I remember in one scene the daughter of one of the munich planners answers the phone before the bomb goes off, funny thing is that man had no children go figure. Plus why would european nations invade israel, all of those killed where palestinian migrants...
-
Were they not citizens of those European countries they were assassinated in?
-
Were they not citizens of those European countries they were assassinated in?
I dont believe so...residents:yes citezens:unsure
-
A quick search reveals that:
Dr. Basil Al Kubaissi was a Canadian citizen.
Ahmed Bouchiki, an innocent waiter believed to be Ali Hassan Salameh was a Norwegian citizen.
Norway should invade Israel!!! Well ... at least according to C(Sea)Bass. ;)
-
A quick search reveals that:
Dr. Basil Al Kubaissi was a Canadian citizen.
Ahmed Bouchiki, an innocent waiter believed to be Ali Hassan Salameh was a Norwegian citizen.
Norway should invade Israel!!! Well ... at least according to C(Sea)Bass. ;)
man dont you sleep :D I dont neccisarly agree with cbass on that point either, but hey not every operation could be good or else id be dead considering i was 150 meters from a bus when it blew up eh?
-
Many Israeli citizen hold dual citizenships, one of their homeland and another in Israel.
Just to confirm, Dr. Basil Al Kubaissi was one of those number.
I've worked with several people that have relocated to Israel and do the same.
-
Hmmmm....
Isreal assisinates (or at least tried to) members of a terrorist group that is a direct threat to the safety and security of their nation.
PLO assasinates a diplomat to the UK because they don't like the UK's support of Isreal.
I see a distinct difference between the two.
(I personally feel there are better ways to do things than assinations, but then again I'm not the one who has to worry about suicide bombers every time I leave my home)
-
Many Israeli citizen hold dual citizenships, one of their homeland and another in Israel.
Just to confirm, Dr. Basil Al Kubaissi was one of those number.
I've worked with several people that have relocated to Israel and do the same.
yep, Israel has a law called the law of return, which offers all jews immediate and unconditional citizenship, I know there are several asylum programs too, and many followers of christianity live in settlements in northern Israel as well.
-
man dont you sleep :D I dont neccisarly agree with cbass on that point either, but hey not every operation could be good or else id be dead considering i was 150 meters from a bus when it blew up eh?
Sleep is for the weak! ;)
Naw, I understand why Israel do what they do. Sometimes I think you go too far and are only making things worse for yourselves, but hey ... it's your country. However I don't particularly like you sending agents to kill restaurant waiters in Lillehammer though.
-
yep, Israel has a law called the law of return, which offers all jews immediate and unconditional citizenship
Stupid question, how does one prove he/she is Jewish?
-
Secret handshake.
-
you must prove your anscestory, ie your grandmother was jewish, you need only be part jew. Or have been a recent convert with documentation, but hey there are many holes in the system and now we have tens of thousands of non jewish russian immigrants, and illegal thai and phillipino.
-
"Those who are eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return are immediately granted citizenship. Controversy has arisen as to whether all those claiming citizenship rights under the Law of Return should be registered as "Jewish" citizens for census purposes. Jewish status is traditionally granted according to the halakhic definition of being Jewish-- if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish as well or if you convert to Judaism (though conversions to Reform and Conservative Judaism streams are generally not recognized by many people in Israel). However, any Jew regardless of affiliation may return and claim citizenship in Israel.
Originally, the Law of Return was restricted to Jews only. A 1970 amendment, however, stated that, "The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law...are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew" (Law of Return)."
-
Sleep is for the weak! ;)
Naw, I understand why Israel do what they do. Sometimes I think you go too far and are only making things worse for yourselves, but hey ... it's your country. However I don't particularly like you sending agents to kill restaurant waiters in Lillehammer though.
Im not here to change your view only to present mine ;)
-
Ditto ;)
-
Well, My great grandfather once saw someone who shook hands with a Jew, Can I come in now?
:t
-
Well we can find out if they have used such weapons can't we? I think a terrorist attack on Israel using chemical or biological weapons would feature quite prominently in western media ... so I guess that there have been no such attacks. And since it is the general consensus here that Syria supported Hezbollah are fanatics that wouldn't hesitate to use such weapons I must conclude that Syria indeed have not supplied them with such weapons. Further more since it is then a matter of fact that Syria already has refrained from supplying WMD to terrorists I must conclude that there is no reason to think they would do so if they had nukes.
Yes ... it does help to think. :)
It's possible, Lumpy. Being as that most fingers' will point to Syria if some Islamic-oriented NGO get's ahold of an atomic weapon, and uses it somewhere. However, what hasn't been said in this thread, is what happens' now, even after the Syrian reactor was bombed, if a nuke turns' up, and is used? Who gets' the blame then? North Korea? Pakistan? China? Russia? All of them have A-bombs, and they are not so closely aligned with the U.S. that it would make them cry to see one used either on us, or one of our allies. The North Koreans' and the russians' might sell one simply for the money, Pakistan could "lose" one simply because someone in their gov't. or armed forces' is strongly sympathetic to the Islamic cause, and China might sell one hoping it will cause us trouble (They cause enough of it economically.)
Now, the Isreali bombing of the Syrian site, if it set's the syrian weapons' program back, could at least help keep the number of possible sources' of such a weapon down. However, if it actually was a peaceful program, such actions' do give the Syrians' cause to actually develop Atomic weapons. And they will, given what would actually be provacative actions.
Freez, did your gov't. first take the evidence of the reactor being built to the Syrians, and ask them what it's purpose was for? Did they ask if they could verify that it was actually a power generating facility? Or did they think it definetely was a weapons' plant, and rather than give away the advantage of suprise, bombed it ASAP?
-
Of course, but then you would have to act alone or with a small coalition of like-minded. Your track record for such operations isn't exactly stellar, and is getting worse every day.
Some will lead, some follow, and some oppose. It's always been this way and always will be.
-
Let me just play Devil's advocate for a moment: Doesn't Syria have the right to develop nuclear technology like Israel did? Considering the turbulent relationship between Israel and Syria over the years, aren't Syria justified in developing nukes since Israel already has them? They have a right to defend themselves.
If the UN,the USA,or Isreal don't stop the Syrians,Iran,etc, Israel will be hit with a nuke!It's just that simple.
IronDog
-
Agreed irondog.
125% it realy is that simple.
-
If the UN,the USA,or Isreal don't stop the Syrians,Iran,etc, Israel will be hit with a nuke!It's just that simple.
IronDog
Perhaps. But just one won't destroy Isreal's retaliatory capability, Even if it hit's something major like Tel Aviv. Unless some Arab state has managed to SECRETLY amass enough of an arsenal to hit all of the major targets' in Isreal, Just popping one will get the offender obliterated. Now, a terrorist group, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Queda, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc. might get ahold of one or two, but I don't see them getting enough to destroy all of Isreal. However, how can you justify a retaliatory strike against, say, Damascus, when you still aren't sure who set one off, even if it's a major city? A ballistic missile can be back-tracked on radar, you can see where it came from. Most terrorism scenario's have the weapon smuggled in, hidden in the target, and then set off.(BTW, a Thermonuclear explosion makes' it hard to collect evidence as to whodunnit.) Now, if a Syrian gov't. official was to claim it, then yeah, hammer them into radioactive glass. However, I doubt they would, if they couldn't follow up with more weapons. Methink's that for that reason, they would steer well clear of even GIVING a terrorist org. any sort of WMD. The consequences for their nation, and possibly the arab world as a whole, would be too severe.
That said, even one life lost in a terrorist act, is one too many. My point with the above, is that overreaction simply increases the body count, and thus the terrorist wins' again.
-
However, how can you justify a retaliatory strike against, say, Damascus, when you still aren't sure who set one off, even if it's a major city? A ballistic missile can be back-tracked on radar, you can see where it came from. Most terrorism scenario's have the weapon smuggled in, hidden in the target, and then set off.(BTW, a Thermonuclear explosion makes' it hard to collect evidence as to whodunnit.)
It's real EASY if someone in the government has the stones to put it all out on the table. Our policy should be this. Any country that is involved with nuclear programs not under UN inspections WILL have their capital cities destroyed by thermo nuclear devices in the event of a nuclear attack, i.e. North Korea, Syria, Iran right off the bat. If it is detiremined that the marterial used was obtained from anouther country, they're next.
By the way even after a thermo nuclear blast, with a few dust sized particals of radioactive material, you CAN determine exactly where the nuclear marterial came from. The ratio of nuclear isotopes vary from reactor to reactor where it was created. Nuclear scientists can even narrow it down to what part of the reactor it came from. I've had this conversation with my best friends brother who is a nuclear engineer with a Phd in nuclear pyhsics. He is a nuclear power plant manager in Ohio and he knows what he's talking about.
With terrorists you might not be able to find out who dunnit, but you can damn sure find out who provided it, and with stakes that big, that makes them just as guilty.
-
Perhaps. But just one won't destroy Isreal's retaliatory capability, Even if it hit's something major like Tel Aviv. Unless some Arab state has managed to SECRETLY amass enough of an arsenal to hit all of the major targets' in Isreal, Just popping one will get the offender obliterated. Now, a terrorist group, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Queda, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc. might get ahold of one or two, but I don't see them getting enough to destroy all of Isreal. However, how can you justify a retaliatory strike against, say, Damascus, when you still aren't sure who set one off, even if it's a major city? A ballistic missile can be back-tracked on radar, you can see where it came from. Most terrorism scenario's have the weapon smuggled in, hidden in the target, and then set off.(BTW, a Thermonuclear explosion makes' it hard to collect evidence as to whodunnit.) Now, if a Syrian gov't. official was to claim it, then yeah, hammer them into radioactive glass. However, I doubt they would, if they couldn't follow up with more weapons. Methink's that for that reason, they would steer well clear of even GIVING a terrorist org. any sort of WMD. The consequences for their nation, and possibly the arab world as a whole, would be too severe.
That said, even one life lost in a terrorist act, is one too many. My point with the above, is that overreaction simply increases the body count, and thus the terrorist wins' again.
Read up on the 12th Imam if you haven't. War and chaos is exactly what some of these muslims want and it's not just a few zealots.
-
Perhaps. But just one won't destroy Isreal's retaliatory capability, Even if it hit's something major like Tel Aviv. Unless some Arab state has managed to SECRETLY amass enough of an arsenal to hit all of the major targets' in Isreal, Just popping one will get the offender obliterated. Now, a terrorist group, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Queda, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc. might get ahold of one or two, but I don't see them getting enough to destroy all of Isreal. However, how can you justify a retaliatory strike against, say, Damascus, when you still aren't sure who set one off, even if it's a major city? A ballistic missile can be back-tracked on radar, you can see where it came from. Most terrorism scenario's have the weapon smuggled in, hidden in the target, and then set off.(BTW, a Thermonuclear explosion makes' it hard to collect evidence as to whodunnit.) Now, if a Syrian gov't. official was to claim it, then yeah, hammer them into radioactive glass. However, I doubt they would, if they couldn't follow up with more weapons. Methink's that for that reason, they would steer well clear of even GIVING a terrorist org. any sort of WMD. The consequences for their nation, and possibly the arab world as a whole, would be too severe.
That said, even one life lost in a terrorist act, is one too many. My point with the above, is that overreaction simply increases the body count, and thus the terrorist wins' again.
The problem the terrorists will have with this is the same problem most criminals have. They just can't shut up about it.
Besides it's not much of a statement to the rest of the Islamic whackjobs and the World at large if they don't pop up and say "Look at what we did for the glory of Allah!" now is it?
-
Damascus, (Syria) is one of the longest continually-inhabited cities on the planet but the Bible is talking about the total destruction like never before , in the near future,
Isaiah 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from [being] a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
Jeremiah 49:23 Concerning Damascus. Hamath is confounded, and Arpad: for they have heard evil tidings: they are fainthearted; [there is] sorrow on the sea; it cannot be quiet.
Jeremiah 49:24 Damascus is waxed feeble, [and] turneth herself to flee, and fear hath seized on [her]: anguish and sorrows have taken her, as a woman in travail.
Jeremiah 49:27 And I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus, and it shall consume the palaces of Benhadad.
Amos 1:5 I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden: and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir, saith the LORD.
-
Read up on the 12th Imam if you haven't. War and chaos is exactly what some of these muslims want and it's not just a few zealots.
The problem the terrorists will have with this is the same problem most criminals have. They just can't shut up about it.
Besides it's not much of a statement to the rest of the Islamic whackjobs and the World at large if they don't pop up and say "Look at what we did for the glory of Allah!" now is it?
True, and true. However, unlike a subway bomb, Airline Hijacking, or most of your other mainstream terrorist acts, popping a nuke would have such a different reaction, that you could figure on most terrorist orgs., even the really hardcore ones, thinking twice about claiming responsibility. For an example, look at the aftermath of 9/11; that act brought about (dire) consequences for the Islamic cause. Whereas they had two countries' with aligned gov'ts. (At least in Afghanistan; Saddam was kinda hard to figure out, on the religous side) After Sept. 11th, They witnessed that giving the U.S. and other Western Nations' the pretext, would cost them some soil. I can't say for sure what a U.S. reaction to a bomb going off in Tel Aviv would be...I don't think it would be the same as say, detonating a fission device in some major American Metropolitan city. In the case of Tel Aviv, our reaction might be something like aid to Isreal, maybe some direct military help. That one kinda depends' on factors' as yet unseen. In the case of a direct attack on U.S. soil, Our current administration might treat that as the same as a first strike protocol, as soon as the source was pinpointed. As Hornet earlier said, that nation, even if they only gave support, materials, whatever...Might see the largest application of Nuclear arms' on this planet to date. I think that this kind of scenario is what makes even nations like Syria police themselves; They were building a reactor, possibly to make weapons' for their own military, But they would be insane to give them to an extremist group, and I highly suspect they know this. The Soviets' could have given Nuclear weapons to several countries' during the cold war, but they didn't, and I believe for the same reasons' I stated above.
I don't for a moment believe that such nations' won't continue to sponsor terrorists. I just don't think that they will let slip with a(n) atomic device so easily...even a muslim one. Not without a big enough arsenal to ensure a MAD doctrine, which would deter any kind of large scale attack.
-
First, do a little research on history. Harold Wilson was prime minister. The sale of plutonium was made despite a warning from British intelligence that it might what they called a "material contribution to the Israeli weapons program" back then.
Under Wilson, Britain also sold Israel tons of chemicals used to make boosted atom bombs 20 times more powerful than Hiroshima or even Hydrogen Bombs.
In Harold Macmillan's time the UK supplied uranium 235 and the heavy water which allowed Israel to start up its nuclear weapons production plant at Dimona - heavy water which British intelligence estimated would allow Israel to make "six nuclear weapons a year".
The US did NOT agree to this. Just as we do not agree with any brown skin religious nutjob....er, middle eastern country today having such a weapon.
your prejudice is showing threw just a bit!
-
Oooh ... now we have people quoting scripture! :lol
-
Oooh ... now we have people quoting scripture! :lol
Thou shalt not be a tool
CBass 1:1
-
Good luck with your science experiment. It might cost you an Israel city, a U.S. city, or perhaps the flow of oil which will essentially cut off your supply of food, but good luck with that experiement either way.
Hey, Rip ... I'm still waiting for an explanation on how and why my supply of food will be cut off?
-
no oil = eventual logistical collapse = production and distribution issues = shortage of food
-
No oil from the middle east ...
Not a problem where I live. We are self sufficient in oil, and food for that matter (would have to eat a lot of fish though). We actually export both.
-
By the way even after a thermo nuclear blast, with a few dust sized particals of radioactive material, you CAN determine exactly where the nuclear marterial came from.
IIRC, you have to have samples to match the particles with the source. That is, you will have to have previous samples from the Syrian reactor on file to perform a match that would show it came from the Syrian reactor.
This article lays it out pretty well. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080216142207.htm
Pay attention to the parts that say things like:
Using radiochemistry techniques and access to proposed international databases that include actual samples of uranium and plutonium from around the world,
and
Convincing the nuclear states to share database information about their own uranium and plutonium may be difficult, May said.
-
Mmmm... okay...
Let the goverment hold the blinds over your eyes.
We knew the North Koreans were doing this crap in the late '80s.
To let this be NEW news just shows....
Yer sheep.
All together now... "Baaaaaaaaa..."
Mac
-
no oil = eventual logistical collapse = production and distribution issues = shortage of food
north america has enough oil (conventional and non-conventional ) to provide for ourselves for over 30 years, at around $50 a barrel. with south american and potentially massive offshore sources in the arctic...
-
north america has enough oil (conventional and non-conventional ) to provide for ourselves for over 30 years, at around $50 a barrel. with south american and potentially massive offshore sources in the arctic...
But they have enough fanatacism to last centuries...
-
IIRC, you have to have samples to match the particles with the source.
From what I remember, it's more about where the Uranium came from in the first place. Reactor samples would be the easiest way, but traditional detective work from the orgin of the Uranium would fill in the missing pieces.
Tracing bomb material to its source may be only the beginning of an investigation, rather than the end, as the authors acknowledge. Discovering that a terrorist explosive was made of uranium stolen from a specific site in Russia, for example, does not identify the terrorists, but it does provide a starting point, especially if there is suspicion that the bomb makers had inside help.
If you have the origin, you have a lead. And I'm sure after a post-Nuclear event the US or Britain or Russia would throw everything at establishing the trail to weaponisation. I'm also 100% sure that every help would be given to them to avoid incrimination. If, let's say, the trail lead to Syria or Iran, I think they wouldn't like to hinder the investigation. Anything other than complete and transparent cooperation would be causus belli in the eyes of the world.
The article makes the case for more resources for nuclear forensics. I'm surprised that this is an issue in the current climate.
-
north america has enough oil (conventional and non-conventional ) to provide for ourselves for over 30 years, at around $50 a barrel. with south american and potentially massive offshore sources in the arctic...
Yeah sure, if we all started car pooling in mini-coopers and cleaned out the horse barn. Cause everytime I fill up my full size pickup I feel like washing down 15 Prozacs with a thorazine milkshake.
-
As you should!
-
They point of "why shouldn't they be allowed to have them?" is answered by the Syrians who still insist Isreal bombed an empty building.
-
Let me ask it another way.
What do you think the result of Syria becoming nuclear would be?
Enlighten me.
Rip, you realize you are dealing with GSholz's shade account yet again, right?
-
From what I remember, it's more about where the Uranium came from in the first place. Reactor samples would be the easiest way, but traditional detective work from the orgin of the Uranium would fill in the missing pieces.
Take a plausible chain based on today's headlines. The NK's help the Syrians build weapons that then somehow work their way into the hands of Hamas.
NYC gets vaporized.
Do we have samples of NK enriched nuclear products? Where did the NK's get their feedstocks, Russia? (I don't know). Will we have markers that would identify the weapon as something the Syrians enhanced/purified from NK stocks?
Hamas sets it off and all we can conclude is that it is NK in origin and we strike NK, then Hamas laughs it rear off, right?
There's no way that a nuclear signature will unfailingly point you to the actual culprit.
-
Take a plausible chain based on today's headlines. The NK's help the Syrians build weapons that then somehow work their way into the hands of Hamas.
NYC gets vaporized.
Do we have samples of NK enriched nuclear products? Where did the NK's get their feedstocks, Russia? (I don't know). Will we have markers that would identify the weapon as something the Syrians enhanced/purified from NK stocks?
Hamas sets it off and all we can conclude is that it is NK in origin and we strike NK, then Hamas laughs it rear off, right?
There's no way that a nuclear signature will unfailingly point you to the actual culprit.
Good point, Toad. Although, it seems' to me that Hamas is more centralized on fighting Isreal, I'd bank on any Hamas Bomb going off in Tel Aviv...Also, what if the bomb merely passes through Hamas' hands, and goes to someone else? Like Al-Queada? That might make tracing the bomb's origins' even harder, wouldn't it? At least enough to delay any investigation. I'd think that Physicists' might find out where the Uranium came from BEFORE we knew who set it off. Unless, of course, as had previously been stated, the isotopes' from the parent reactor were not catalogued before detonation. I wonder how long this whole process would take, anyway? Any guesses?
-
There's no way that a nuclear signature will unfailingly point you to the actual culprit.
I agree. The same way regular forensic evidence will never 'unfailingly' point you to the actual culprit. You need to do the detective work in conjuction with the forensics to get the result.
-
I agree. The same way regular forensic evidence will never 'unfailingly' point you to the actual culprit. You need to do the detective work in conjuction with the forensics to get the result.
The scariest thing about the whole scenario. For example, you get a trace of what may be material that could link back to the bomb's parent reactor. However, you run said material through your analysis, and you can't turn up a match in known facility's. What then?
Or worse even, is traced back to a country that gave out material origanally for a peaceful purpose, but over time, it changed hands' more than once. Nuke the country that origanally had no bad intentions????
-
There will be no amount or quality of detective work done that would satisfy the non-injured nations of the world to the point that they would give aid and support to a nuclear reply by the injured nation.
Bank on that one.
-
There will be no amount or quality of detective work done that would satisfy the non-injured nations of the world to the point that they would give aid and support to a nuclear reply by the injured nation.
Bank on that one.
Myself, I completely agree.
-
Guess we'd just have to nuke 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
-
to someone who suggested Syria has the right to nuclear weapons...
you need to understand something... we will deny Syria and Iran nuclear weapons. The reason for this is that we are already at war. Unfortunately, you seem not to recognize it.
-
Good point, Toad. Although, it seems' to me that Hamas is more centralized on fighting Isreal, I'd bank on any Hamas Bomb going off in Tel Aviv...Also, what if the bomb merely passes through Hamas' hands, and goes to someone else? Like Al-Queada? That might make tracing the bomb's origins' even harder, wouldn't it? At least enough to delay any investigation. I'd think that Physicists' might find out where the Uranium came from BEFORE we knew who set it off. Unless, of course, as had previously been stated, the isotopes' from the parent reactor were not catalogued before detonation. I wonder how long this whole process would take, anyway? Any guesses?
Hamas would never give away a nuke to al queda they are too power hungry....
-
to someone who suggested Syria has the right to nuclear weapons...
you need to understand something... we will deny Syria and Iran nuclear weapons. The reason for this is that we are already at war. Unfortunately, you seem not to recognize it.
Oh, you're right about that. I don't recognise the so called "war on terror" to be a real war in any sense of the word.
-
i say we just drop a nuke on the middle east so the war is over and we can get our oil back :D :rock
-BigBOBCH
-
You'd have to wear a rad-suit at the pump though. ;)
-
Hamas would never give away a nuke to al queda they are too power hungry....
But, would Hamas actually use one if they had one, themselves? I'd think they would not risk the undermining of their entire cause, because Isreali retaliation would cost them Lebanon itself, i'd think. That's why I posed it as going from Hamas to someone else. Maybe they'd trade it for something they really need, like other arms', or cash capital, etc.
I'd think that Hamas or Hezbollah actually has more to lose than Al-queada at this stage, With the situation in Gaza and Beirut.
-
But, would Hamas actually use one if they had one, themselves? I'd think they would not risk the undermining of their entire cause, because Isreali retaliation would cost them Lebanon itself, i'd think. That's why I posed it as going from Hamas to someone else. Maybe they'd trade it for something they really need, like other arms', or cash capital, etc.
I'd think that Hamas or Hezbollah actually has more to lose than Al-queada at this stage, With the situation in Gaza and Beirut.
Its never stopped them before, they blow up a bus, we take out the planner and all involved, they launch rockets at our towns we attack the launchers and stockpiles. Retaliation is not a concern of their's as long as they can say jihad and blow israelis up.
-
There will be no amount or quality of detective work done that would satisfy the non-injured nations of the world to the point that they would give aid and support to a nuclear reply by the injured nation.
Bank on that one.
No doubt, considering so many are saying 9/11 was carried out by the US Government.
-
Its never stopped them before, they blow up a bus, we take out the planner and all involved, they launch rockets at our towns we attack the launchers and stockpiles. Retaliation is not a concern of their's as long as they can say jihad and blow israelis up.
Yeah, but Freez, you have to admit that in the case of an Atomic weapon, If it didn't totally destroy Isreal's ability to strike back, which I think most would agree that one bomb wouldn't, They would have to know that not only would they take massive casualties to their military branches, but in a scenario such as this, could take massive civilian losses' as well. In the case of Hamas, which primarily calls' Lebanon home, they face the possibility of total obliteration-The destruction of their very way of life. Methinks' that even Hamas wouldn't risk that. Isreal would be greivously hurt, but Beirut and the rest of Lebanon would be no more...It would be an Isreali win, in the long run.
They are willing to risk the Bus bombings, rocket attacks, and everything else they've done, because up to now, that approach has been a 'limited' war, in the sense that repurcussions' have not been to the point where, for example, a Bus bomb or rocket attack triggers' an Isreali reprisal which kills' 50,000 civilians, or the total (and permanent) occupation of Lebanon. You guys' have only been acting as necessary, only crossing the border with set goals. And, leaving once those goals' are met. A Nuclear attack would grossly transcend all of those.
This story is interesting, as well.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080427/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_azerbaijan_nuclear_shipment;_ylt=AnciigVZnD5HmjYi5ZgDINtbbBAF (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080427/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_azerbaijan_nuclear_shipment;_ylt=AnciigVZnD5HmjYi5ZgDINtbbBAF)
Many would agree that Iran, and not Syria, would be the first suspect in letting a nuclear device "slip" into terrorist hands. But from the way this Yahoo! article reads, it looks' like Russia and the U.S. would be able to keep tabs' on their reactor.
-
I definatly see what your staying but lately the violence has been escalating, and hamas is starting to run out of options, the try to bomb we bomb back, anything they do will be returned, if and when they have nuclear ability they will attack a civilian population(gaurenteed) and ill try and be cautios with my words, but israel has its military backup and infrastructure in locations they will never find, and in holes they cant reach. They will never destroy the state completly. Israel will strike back and obliterate the attacker. But the thing is that they are most likely currently lacking a delivery system, unless its a very small thermonuclear weapon.
Trust me israel's eyes are watching closer than anyone.
-
I definatly see what your staying but lately the violence has been escalating, and hamas is starting to run out of options, the try to bomb we bomb back, anything they do will be returned, if and when they have nuclear ability they will attack a civilian population(gaurenteed) and ill try and be cautios with my words, but israel has its military backup and infrastructure in locations they will never find, and in holes they cant reach. They will never destroy the state completly. Israel will strike back and obliterate the attacker. But the thing is that they are most likely currently lacking a delivery system, unless its a very small thermonuclear weapon.
Trust me israel's eyes are watching closer than anyone.
I agree. I don't really think a terrorist weapon would be terribly big, anyway...It would have to be something they could smuggle into a country, and set off completely unawares, IMHO. For a terrorist org. to get ahold of a missle, launcher, guidance, warhead, etc. and get it to a place to launch it (They would need complicity from any host nation) would more than likely be almost completely impossible, before it was detected and destroyed. This kinda makes any possible terrorist weapon about the size of a tactical weapon (1-20 kts.) and as such, probably would not completely destroy a large city. That scenario, IMHO, is the one that would have the greatest chance of success, and would be the most attractive option for a terrorist group.
-
I agree. I don't really think a terrorist weapon would be terribly big, anyway...It would have to be something they could smuggle into a country, and set off completely unawares, IMHO. For a terrorist org. to get ahold of a missle, launcher, guidance, warhead, etc. and get it to a place to launch it (They would need complicity from any host nation) would more than likely be almost completely impossible, before it was detected and destroyed. This kinda makes any possible terrorist weapon about the size of a tactical weapon (1-20 kts.) and as such, probably would not completely destroy a large city. That scenario, IMHO, is the one that would have the greatest chance of success, and would be the most attractive option for a terrorist group.
yep