Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: takeda on April 17, 2002, 10:01:27 AM
-
As things get worse and worse there, I donīt think this article misses much the point. If theres a country crazy enough to strike with a tactical nuke, I bet on Israel
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/17/13711/7924
-
Great so in the end the religious hotheads choose to make the doomsday tomorrow and start blasting..
It's great that there are nukes in the hands of people who blindly believe in a two thousand year old book that says the world is going to end. And I'm not just talking about Israel here..
-
The Appeal of deterrence policy is that it does not require any sort of transparency. You just have to make sure that the other side is aware of your thresholds. The article states as much "Of course, the deterrence/first-strike dichotomy is a very blunt one and cannot capture all of the different roles for which Israel might use their bombs. It is in their interest to appear more ready to nuke than they really are."
The article does question the "strategic" value of Neutron bombs, but when you're talking about the short distances between borders in the Middle east, these bombs are essential to any deterrence policy. What good would high Yeild bombs be against a close neighbor? If they know that you can't fire them without killing off your own population, they are less likely to be threatened by them.
I think that this is very important in understanding Israeli nuclear policy. It is my opinion, from studying nuclear doctrine at the undergrad level (by no means an expert opinion) that the only way Israel lights off a nuke is if A.) They are on the verge of losing a conventional ground war. or B.) They are hit with a Massive Chem/Bio attack.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by mrsid2
Great so in the end the religious hotheads choose to make the doomsday tomorrow and start blasting..
It's great that there are nukes in the hands of people who blindly believe in a two thousand year old book that says the world is going to end. And I'm not just talking about Israel here..
Doesn't that fit everyone except the Soviet Union [edit] and China?
-
I'm talking about fundamentalism here, not a normal religious tendency.
-
A former NATO chief once commented:
"Our policy agains the Soviets was simple. We will fight with conventional weapons until we are losing, then we will use tactical nukes until we are losing, then we blow up the world"
Scary eh?
-
Actually our policy was the same as theirs, fire your missles before the conventional war starts . The objective being to destroy their missles before they can destroy ours . The soviet goal was to kill the enemies military while they still sat in the motor stables and harbors. It was a misconception of the american public that a war with the USSR would culminate into nuke strikes . Soviets attributed this jokingly to american western films that traditionally culminated in a shoot out :)
-
Originally posted by Samm
Actually our policy was the same as theirs, fire your missles before the conventional war starts . The objective being to destroy their missles before they can destroy ours .
I'm not sure that I've ever seen anyone claim that either of the superpowers used a doctrine of 1st strike as a primary policy. Granted, both sides used the potential of a first strike to justify retaliatory weapons systems. In fact, it wasn't until a 1993 defense review that Moscow officially changed their doctrine to emphasise "first use" of nuclear weapons. The following articles address the change in Russian Nuclear posture. I'd be interested to see anything on US nuclear posture during the cold war. Unless we're talking about "unofficial" doctrine. But then it's all just speculation
-Sikboy
http://www.armscontrol.ru/start/nsc.htm (http://www.armscontrol.ru/start/nsc.htm)
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1998/so98/so98arkin.html (http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1998/so98/so98arkin.html)
-
Yeah I should've used the word attitude or posture or something instead of policy . My opinion is developed from books I've read written by defected gru agents etc. And that it makes sense tactically or strategically .
-
What, a Leftie is "scared"??? What's new about that???
BTW, if you are "scared" of the USA's or Israel's "nukes", good. That is the intent.
If you had any common sense though, you would be a little more frightened of Saddam Insane or some Osam Bin Laden clone with a "nuke" in his possession. But "Leftie" and "common sense" are two terms mutually exclusive of the other......
Keep wringing those hands........
Cabby
-
So macho "righties" are inmune to nukes or sumfing?
If we "lefties" weren't scared of such things and watching them , "righties" like you would have blown up everything by now. I bet you even hope youīll see a little nuke wiping some lesser race in your lifetime. What a waste of resources if it doesnīt happen, right?
Speaking of common sense in a thread about nukes fits you very well indeed. If that's your common sense, I hope we donīt get to see you do any stupid thing
-
Quote:
"If we "lefties" weren't scared of such things and watching them , "righties" like you would have blown up everything by now"
LOL!! That's hilarious, kid..........
Cabby
-
Only hilarious thing I see here is Gabby; True American Warrior
:D
PS: Are you real or just a comedienne?
-
^That's "Cabby" to you.........
"True American Warrior". Hmmmm, whatever that means, it sounds kinda neat. Much better than say, "True French Warrior"......
A "Comedienne" is female, i'm male.......
Later, Comrade.......
Cabby
-
Israel would be insane to use a nuke, tactical or otherwize within 300 miles of their own borders.
They can and would use 'em on anything that looked hostile beyond the 300 mile radiation buffer. Lil PITA countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and even Egypt west of the canal are no doubt zeroed in targets.
Scenario.. Syria attacks, using all available weapons along with heavy armor supplied and suported by Iraq or Iran. No doubt, they will employ chemical weapons, or threaten to do so. The saudi's and the Egyptians make sympathetic noises in support of syria, palestine and iraq. Israel pounds the syrian attack to shreads with their superior army and airforce, while spitting off 2 nukes to slap down Tehran and Baghdad. Then they eyeball Cairo and the Saudis... "you wanna be next??" and they go on about mopping up the syrians and for good measure they occupy Jordan and Lebannon too... this all becoming the new 'buffer zone'. Palestine becomes a null issue.
We need not waste another dime on supporting israel with 14 fediddlein million per day in aid. They can (and probably will very shortly) whip everybodys bellybutton in that region.. including ours should we stick our nose in. Lets not forget the USS Liberty.. they have no compunctions about shedding american blood to insure their ultimate goal... total domination of the middle east. Think about THAT.
-
Father do you think they'll drop the bomb...
-
At no point in the recorded history of mankind have weapons been constructed to NOT be used.
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
A "Comedienne" is female, i'm male.......
Yeah I know.
Later, Comrade.......
Word "Comrade" has a communist sound in it (at least it has in here). If you would know me better you wouldn't use that word and my name in same sentence :D
-
Originally posted by mrsid2
Great so in the end the religious hotheads choose to make the doomsday tomorrow and start blasting..
It's great that there are nukes in the hands of people who blindly believe in a two thousand year old book that says the world is going to end. And I'm not just talking about Israel here..
I'd be much more concerned with nukes in the hands of people convinced there is no God.
-
I agree - if there is any country crazy enough to use nuclear weapons, Israel is it. I really dont see much of a difference between Israel and the fundamentalist Islamic states right now.
-
I agree - if there is any country crazy enough to use nuclear weapons, Israel is it.
Than explain me why haven`t they used them yet.
I really dont see much of a difference between Israel and the fundamentalist Islamic states right now.
You might just need to open your eyes than.
-
As some of the comments to the article point, those nukes are in fact "aimed" at the US:
"Give us conventional stuff enough to win by large any war or else we nuke all the oil producers within range and you have run yer big cars on potato alcohol."
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I agree - if there is any country crazy enough to use nuclear weapons, Israel is it. I really dont see much of a difference between Israel and the fundamentalist Islamic states right now.
i saw 1 of most funny paper today
1 Czech stunninghunk said (chief of goverment), that Russian`s supporting Palestine tesrrorist.....lol
so it could looks like, that US saviours supporting Israel in fight agains terrorist .. or Russian support poor repressed Palestinien`s in fight agains bad Israel inhibitors...
on the 1 side childrens carring bombs, on the other side tanks shoting unarmed people in their homes.... who is in the right ?
people killing people ... ahh those people deserve to be killed my dear son, go and do it..... bla bla bla bla... whats all that about ?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Israel pounds the syrian attack to shreads with their superior army and airforce, while spitting off 2 nukes to slap down Tehran and Baghdad. Then they eyeball Cairo and the Saudis... "you wanna be next?"
I think there is a real leap of logic here. Personally, I don't think that an attack by Syria alone would be enough to trigger a nuclear response. According to the article that sparked this discussion, Israel had a nuclear capability prior to the 1973 war. Yet they did not use them.
Originally posted by takeda
As some of the comments to the article point, those nukes are in fact "aimed" at the US:
"Give us conventional stuff enough to win by large any war or else we nuke all the oil producers within range and you have run yer big cars on potato alcohol."
That's a pretty provacative statement to say that they are "aimed" at the US. Steinbach's article isn't very compelling to me, because it takes effects and assigns them cause without considering other possible reasons. There isn't anything close to proof of causation in the article. Three isolated quotes (spanning from 1956-1987 btw) and all of a sudden the US is being blackmailed. I would propose that more than blackmail, common security interests dictate our military support for Israel. If it were indeed nuclear blackmail, I believe the Israelis could have prevented us from sending as much aid as we have to their Arab Neighbors. But since regional stability is our main goal, we turn the money hose on for anyone who will claim to be our friend.
-Sikboy