Why can Israel have nukes but Iran and other nations can't? Isn't a nuke the best defence against a country wishing to nuke you? Seriously, people are speaking about using mini-nukes or conventional nukes on Iran because they may have...nukes. My question is:
Why is it ok for Israel to have and threaten to use nuclear weapons but Iran and other nations can't develop their own?

How many countries has the leader of Israel threatened to "push into the sea"?

Israel can have nukes because they are a civilized Western Society.

Why is it ok for Israel to have and threaten to use nuclear weapons but Iran and other nations can't develop their own?
Israel is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iran is a signatory.
Article II of that treaty states that non-weapons states (like Iran) agree not to develop or purchase elements of nuclear weapons.



Is that clear enough?

Why is it ok for Israel to have and threaten to use nuclear weapons but Iran and other nations can't develop their own?

As carlito said, Israel is not party to the NPT. They've probably had nuclear weapons for over 30 years, and I'm not aware of them ever "threatening to use" them. In fact, their official policy is that Israel "will not introduce nuclear weapons to the region." I've sometimes joked that "introduce" should be read in the Scarface sense: "Say hello to my l'il frien'!" But it's hard to imagine Israel blackmailing a neighbor with the threat of a nuclear attack. It's a little easier to imagine with the guys running Iran.

Why the unhealthy obession about Israel? There are two other states that didn't sign the NPT and they have set off nuclear weapons and have ICBMs. And a third that did sign the NPR, violated it and withdrew and they too have set off a nuclear devise. Neither India, Pakistan, or North Korea seem to ever be the subject, only Israel.

And on top of that Israel has not detonated any nuclear devices, nor have they stated that they possess any, just the opposite.

So whenever the subject comes on, which is the first country to be compared?

This obession with one country is most telling.

I would rather no nation but the US have them, but if that is not possible, I'd rather Israel have them than Iran. Others have made the treaty arguments above.

I still am truly amazed (and it is a testament to our national character) that in 1945, oh, about Sept, that the US didn't state that any nation that developed nuclear weapons technology would be immediately obliterated. To have the greatest weapon in the history of warfare and not issue such a declaration shows remarkable self-restraint.

I can hardly imagine Peter the Great acting in a similar manner....

Though I generally agree with Loreng- India and Pakistan have nukes, and we don't seem to be ganging up on them much, NK is really a rogue state, but Pakistan is a very, very troubling and unstable state to be having nukes- I am much more afraid of a nuke getting loose from India or Pakistan than Isreal.

That being said- a big if IF we treated Pakistan, India and Isreal with some equity here, and the world community (not just the US, pretty much all of Europe and the US and Russia, perhaps china) agreed to an economic blockade if they dont' renounce them, I am all for it.

The possiblity of Israel having nukes doesn't stabliize the ME, and I doubt if it even protects Israel either in the end.

But that is all speculation.

Israel never signed the NPT, and Iran did, and accepted the economic incentives that go along with it. Iran broke a treaty in this particular case, Israel did not.

That is, in fact, very clear.

I would hardly call it an obsession. Israel is the reason the US, far and away the most influential state on the issue of arms control, has little credibility on the matter of nuclear inspection. All India, Pakistan, North Korea or Iran have to do is to point to the first state that refused inspections and they are morally off the hook. Big brother puts Israel in a special category and so that category increases and there isn't much we can do about it other than offer massive incentives as in the present case of N. Korea. In the case of Israel what should be incentives turns out to be more of an Israeli lobby engineered tribute so we get little out of it, in fact we end up with negative consequences by subsidizing and protecting Israel's absolute nuclear autonomy and thereby encouraging nuclear proliferation in response.

Frankly I would think those who honestly support Israel would get on board and get behind world wide inspection of all nuclear states and thereby lighten the security concerns and xenophobia driving much of the desire to become a nuclear state. But the Likudist xenophobes in Israel and on this board seem to think that Israel must enjoy an exceptionalist position to have a future. I think that is bad thinking.

Why is it ok for Israel to have [...] nuclear weapons but Iran and other nations can't develop their own?
Oh, probably because Iran is signatory to the NPT and Israel never was. All Iran has to do is withdraw from the NPT, as is any signatory's right to do, and stop enjoying the economic benefits that go with it and I'll stop caring about Iranian nukes.

NorK, btw, withdrew from the NPT on January 10, 2003. Aside from blowing up a plutonium bomb for attention, unlike our good, smart friend Israel, NorK hasn't sold its technology as far as I know. Recently NorK's artificial crisis has been successfully averted and the administration has reverted to Clinton's Agreed Framework.

International Freedom With U.S. Stamp Of Approval: 1

Asian Dr. Evils In Bug-Eyed Glasses: 0

Huzzah!

Firstly, Israel developed nuclear weapons in secret over thirty years ago, with the help of South Africa. Frankly the US wasn't thrilled about Israel being a nuclear state at the time, but they seem to have shown the capability to own them responsibly, what with no use or threats of use in 30 years of ownership. In fact, states that have nukes and have NOT threatened to use them at one point or another includes the UK, France and Israel, thats it. All the other nuclear powers have at one point or another used them as dimplomatic/ sabre-rattling tools.

Your comment about Israel 'threatening to use' nukes is a complete fabrication, the state has never even oficially admitted it HAS nukes, let alone threatened to use them.

Thus, since the premise of this threat is at least partly based on a complete fabrication, I invite TruthMarch to rephrase the question in a manner more in touch with reality.

It is simply absurd to give a country a special moral buy on nukes because they haven't publicly on the record threatened to nuke anybody. Getting nuclear bombs is a statement of your intention to unleash nuclear weapons if you feel your interests are sufficiently threatened. In the case of Israel they developed nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the nonnuclear states in the ME and of course want to retain a monopoly.

Off the record you can find plenty of discussions about Israel's threat to use nuclear weapons. If this were offered for official consumption would it really make that much difference? Here is one example. And of course it shouldn't be any surprise that Israel is talking about using bunker busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. I mean that's the reason you acquire nukes - right?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242249,00.html

I most certainly gave Israel a 'special moral buy' because they have not threatened people, I was just pointing out that in the world of political brinksmanship Israel has actually been better than most in their use of nukes as an open club. They 'have a buy' because they have nukes and have had them for thirty years and have demonstrated great responsibility in that ownership.


Thus morally equating the long-time ownership of nukes by Israel with potential nuclear ownership by Iran is absurd.

You were making a broader statement than simply Iran. And no power has used nukes since 1945 so what makes Israel's restraint so special? And do you in fact think Israel should not have to be inspected because you think it has some sort of superior record? And how should other nuclear nations or potential nuclear nations look at the matter of Israel's exceptionalism when applying international standards to nuclear powers? And as I showed with my link there is one example where Israel does threaten to nuke another country and there are others.

It seems you have a lot on your plate to clean up.

Yes, no power has used a nuke except the United States, thus to date all proven nuclear powers (except the US?) have shown a certain degree of intelligence and restraint in their deployment. I am not even CLOSE to applying 'exceptionalism' to Israel, I am in fact treating it EXACTLY the same as every other proven nuclear power. period. Has anybody 'inspected' China, France, India, Pakistan? Did anyone 'inspect' South Africa? You seem to be implying that Israel should be treated differently, which is odd as that is exactly what you are trying to accuse me of.

Israel has been a nuclear power for 30 years, they obtained nukes in secret, having them for years before the world's major intelligence agencies were able to confirm it, and as I said much of the world was quite unhappy at the time. So please, as you seem eager to be contrary, please explain to me how the situation with Israel and Iran have any parallels.

Do you see anything in the behaviour of the Iranian leaders which was not present in israel, and might give the world pause? Anything at all?

I'll give you a clue.

"Our dear Imam ordered that the occupying regime in Al-Qods be wiped off the face of the earth. This was a very wise statement. The issue of Palestine is not one on which we could make a piecemeal compromise… This would mean our defeat. " President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

God willing, it will pave the way for the annihilation of the Zionist regime and it will be a downhill route.


Reality check, I have been no friend of Israel on these forums, and think many of their actions have been abominable. But to try and pretend any equivalnecy between Israel's ownership of atomic weapons and Iran's quest for them is just silly. Truth,arch has tried to label them as equivalent, one as justifying the other, as if there were no other factors to consider. You appear to be agreeing with him, as far as I can tell. Hard to say as you have not expressed an opinion or argument of your own, just attacked others.

In the meantime I would try and restrain the cute little jabs about 'cleaning up people's plates' until your own is in order. Such comment inevitably lead to a reduction of tone and diminuation of debate in favour of more personal attacks. You are hardly new here Dingo, I would have thought you would know that by now.

From Iran's standpoint there is a logic since they have been threatened and the record is that powerful countries don't go to war with nuclear armed nations. Also Israel is next door and has hostile relations with Iran which might incline Iran to want to achieve parity. Personally I hope they don't and pragmatically I don't think it would be in their best interests. They also appear to have elected a nutcase religious leader who makes widely aggressive statements towards Israel and for that matter the US and Britain which could lead to a pre-emptive strike if they got close to getting a nuke. Some have said he has been misinterpreted but I guess the feeling is why take the chance.

Moral equivalency or lack of it is an odd way to put the case Vermillion. Pragmatically I don't think its a good move for Iran to get nukes. But in the world of self-defense, which is the closest point I can get to the matter of armed moral equivalency, Iran has just as much right to nukes as Israel. By the way, there are some pretty important nutcases in Israel who employ correspondingly similar aggressive talk. I recall one threatening to nuke Europe. Talk about who is seriously trying to make the region into a nuclear free zone and then we can talk about moral differences. I'll give the moral edge to the serious peace makers.

As to anyone feeling that TruthMarch should correct what he said about Israel threatening to use nukes, the record is on TruthMarch's side. Why this should be surprising to anyone is beyond me. What is the point of having nukes if you don't advertise their deterrent value from time to time.

I have already posted one example which shows an understandable concern by Israel for its survival but they are talking pre-emptive strike.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242249,00.html


This is from an Islamic paper apparently getting its information from the Israeli paper Haaretz
http://www.bangla2000.com/mboard/vbulletin.asp?ID=1779



http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/ir-nuke.html


http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm


For clarity here is a wikepedia discussion of the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty)
For the record 189 countries are signatories to that treaty, including The US, Britain, France, Russia and China. 4 are not which include Pakistan India North Korea and Israel. Israel is the earliest nonsigner of the quartet. Great precedent and hardly my ideal of responsible nuclear state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-P...feration_Treaty

It's not okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. It's not okay for Iran to try and obtain nuclear weapons. There is no "moral" case to be made for the usage of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are immoral and they are only used to enforced a balance of terror: "you drop a bomb on me and I will drop a bomb on you."

No nation--including this one---should have nuclear weapons.

The obvious answer to this question is that Israel, which next to U.S. as governed by the Bush administration is perhaps the greatest threat to world peace, is immune to substantive U.S. criticism though the power of the Israeli lobby in Congress.

It is rankest of hypocrisies that Iranian nuclear capability, which lies far in the future, is held to be a danger to world peace; while Israel's undoubted present nuclear capability, some of which is submarine-borne and so is capable of striking anywhere in the world, is completely ignored. And it is not as if these weapons might not be used in some sort of foreseeable death-spasm of the Zionist entity.

It is noteworthy that the instrument by which Israel aquired this capability was the apartheid regime in South Africa, a government, and a philosophy of government, to which that of Israel bears a striking affinity.



I respectfully disagree. Radical Islam is not a bunch of crazy men running around with AK-47s; it is a political movement with definite objectives. Among these objectives is the reconstitution of the government of Palestine.

From the the viewpoint of a radical Islamist, of course the government of Israel is to be "wiped off the face of the earth." That is vivid rhetoric, but it signifies only militant opposition to a Zionist state in Palestine, not a determination to strike Tel Aviv with a nuclear attack. You can hardly expect anyone who is a radical Islamist to declare anything other than four-square hostility to Israel, particularly in public pronouncements for domestic political consumption. One equally understands that no government of Israel can proclaim anything other than total hostility toward radical Islam.

The problem is to explain why the United States should be so unremittingly hostile to the one, and so uncritically protective of the other. (I remark in passing that this is precisely why were attacked on 9/11.) The United States has very little interest, I opine, in the future government of Palestine (I include the parts constituting the "legitimate" territories of Israel as well as its undoubtedly illegitimate territories), other than it be conducive to regional peace.

I submit that a very substantial reconstitution of Israel, essentially to dismantle the Zionist state and substitute some sort of internationally administered free zone that would accomodate both Zionists and Arabs, is much more likely to result in longterm regional peace than current arrangements. Necessary to this would be to recognize the property rights of the 700,000 Palestianians who were illegally driven out of Israel in the original, 1948 hostilities. That is a topic for another thread, of course, but it shows that "wiping the government of Israel off the face of the earth" is not necessarily a bad thing.

By your quoted words, you implicitly assume the validity of the current U.S. stance toward the Middle East, or at any rate, something very closely resembling it. The question for debate, on the other hand, implicity calls that stance into question. So it is hardly useful just to repeat here the same tired old U.S. position. Or at least if you do repeat it, you might want to take into account that to defend this policy, not some fundamental U.S. interest, is why we are at war with radical Islam.

Finally we should note that not only Israel, but every country that has acquired nuclear weapons, has refrained from their use. There are obvious reasons for this, and they would apply just as much to a nuclear Iran as they presently do to a nuclear Pakistan or Israel. This is not to say that nuclear weapons are not a threat to world peace. Once assumes that Pakistan would, in extremis, use nuclear weapons to defend its national survival in a potential war with India; one equally assumes that Israel would do so in a potential war with its neighbors. Personally I consider the latter to me more likely, over the next 100 years, than the former. It is not as if Israel has been particularly conservative in its applications of military force over the past 30 years or so, which is the impression created in your words here.

But I do assume that the principal motive of Iran's trying to acquire nuclear weapons is to immunize itself against U.S. aggression, not to strike Israel, something that would almost certainly cause its destruction.

Wow - unnamed 'military sources' !!! Strike up the band, it's official as all get out

The fact is Israel did not threaten anybody, nor has it. It has never been the agressor, it has only reacted to attacks, usually after several thousand. Those are the facts.

Vladimir


Not exactly. There has never been a government by any Arab movement there to reconstitute. It does have definite objectives. One of which is genocide.

From the Hamas Charter


Article Six


Article Thirteen


PLO Covenant
Article 2


Article 9


Article 10




Pure speculation and fantasy.

More of the same racist innuendo. Israel has not a single law that bears any resemblance to any of the apartheid laws, nor the philosophy. But Iran and every Arab country do have those traits and even have laws that make the South African apartheid laws pale in comparision.

Which countries ban immigration by religion? Which countries ban land ownship based upon religion? Which countries impose the death penalty of conversion from the sole legal religion in a country? And so on.

So who stands accused?

Again Israel did not sign the NPR along with India and Pakistan. None of those countries are subject to international inspection. To the claim of there is any refusal to allow such inspections is inane since that provision is part of the treaty they DIDN'T sign. Israel is the only non-signatory that has stated that they do not have nuclear weapons.

Speculation does not prove a thing and to continue to rail against Israel alone is proof of racism.

Why is it ok for Israel to have and threaten to use nuclear weapons but Iran and other nations can't develop their own?

Who said its ok? Where is the UN resolution that states its 'ok' for Israel to have nukes and not Iran? This question is fit for a kindergarten! Why can't Johnny play with the red car too?

First of all. You can't stop Irsael from having uclear weaponry. Its already happened. Its a 'done deal'.

Also, Israel never signed any treaty promising not to acquire nuclear weapons, and Iran did so by what right can you deny Israel the right to build nuclear weapons to protect itself?

Also, Israel does not threaten me, so I don't care if they have nukes. The Islamic Rebulic of Iran on the other hand is a serious threat to regional stability. These fanatics weilding nuclear weaponry is akin to a mad man weilding a hand gun about whilst distant onlookers point out that a rational man also owns a hand gun. Big deal. Its not the hand gun thats the problem, but the idiot willing to pull the trigger.

You can call those "facts" if you like, but the interpretation of the motives of Israel's very numerous "reactions to attacks" is, I suggest, highly subjective. (Parenthetically, Israel was not attacked in 1967, nor was it before several other of its military excursions). What is fact about Israeli operations is that with minor exceptions, they always increase the territory under Israeli control.

There is scant dispute that Israel is greedy for land, and that the mailed fist has been its principal means of gaining it. You can call that "defense" if you like. I call it aggression.



You misunderstand what I mean by "Palestine." I mean all of what is Palestine, not only the parts "legitimately" possessed by Israel. So when I speak of reconstituting Palestine's government, I mean a new government for all of Palestine. All this was, I think, evident in my post.

It is counterfactual to claim that genocide is a political aim of the Palestinians, or of radical Islam. Of course, some elements of these movements are fully intent on killing Jews, but that is as part of a war for what they perceive as the liberation of Palestine. There are, unfortunately, some radical Islamists who have confounded their hatred of Zionism with one for Jews, but even most of these are not genocidal. One could just as readily say that genocide is a purpose of the Israel occupation of the West Bank. But that too would be a metaphor, not the truth.

What we have in Palestine is a struggle for land. That struggle necessitates, in the minds of some, a war of terror against Israel. But the object of this war is not the extermination of the Jews.




These quotations add nothing to your case. Indeed as an atheist and an opponent of Zionism, I myself can embrace most of them. Those that are couched in Islamic rhetoric are, of course, the product of Islamist thinkers; you can hardly expect them to appeal to Confucius. In any case, is not the basis of Israel's claim to Palestine, in the minds of many Jews, a religous one?

It is not precisely correct, of course, to say that the only means of resisting Zionism is armed struggle. But in such tracts as these, we can allow for a little exaggeration.

I don't want to leave the impression that I admire all of Israel's enemies. But I think that Israel has all the enemies that it deserves.



No, the origin of the Israeli nuclear weapons program is fairly well understood, if not thoroughly documented.



Your opinion. I respectfully submit that very few rational human beings would willingly choose to be Arabs living in Israel; still fewer, in Palestine. Or let us ask the refugees of 1948, and their descendants, about Israel's degree of enlightenment on these questions.

I further submit that Israel is a state constituted on racial (or choose the term you like for Jewish identity) principles. What, is the Star of David not on its flag? Finally, just look at Israeli conduct in the occupied territories, which looks more like a series of pogroms than a policy for government. I declare that the Germans ruled the Generalgouvernement with as much fairness as Israel rules the West Bank. Hitler may not have won World War II, but it appears that the Israelis think he did.

Finally, bad human rights conduct among Israel's neighbors hardly excuses Israel's bad human rights conduct. Really, the frequency with which Zionism's defenders try to deflect criticism from Israel in this way is past endurance.




I am not railing against Israel; I am declaring the view, widely shared in this world and certainly in the Arab world, that it is an aggressive, racist state and a threat to world peace; and that its very real nuclear weapons are every bit as dangerous as Iran's mere attempts to obtain the same. That Israel is not signatory to the anti-proliferation treaty hardly helps your case.

I am also saying that the government of Palestine (including the parts of it claimed by Israel) is of no real importance to the United States, so long as it is conducive to regional and world peace; and that it is the U.S.'s longstanding and singleminded support of Israel that is chiefly responsible for 9/11 and its current war with radical Islam, which is not its natural enemy. No one has to join in my personal detestation of Israel, which I have not belabored here, to agree with that. One simply as to observe certain enduring realities in the Middle East.

Why is it ok for Israel to have and threaten to use nuclear weapons but Iran and other nations can't develop their own?


Eh. I can't really answer this question. I'm with nighttimer on this one. It shouldn't be okay for any nation to have nukes.

The bigger question is why would we support or continue to support nations that develop nukes? Well, primarily, I think it's because we can't lead by example in that regard.

In terms of Iran having nukes, I share the concern about the current government of Iran possessing the ability. Israel has had them for some time and has not used them. And, as much as I disagree with the Israeli government and its policy in the region, considering the restraint shown in the last 30 years, I'm willing to wager that they aren't really going to use them anytime soon. I can't really say that about places like N. Korea and Iran. I don't think I can say that about Pakistan and India for that matter. The who gets to have them and who doesn't seems, as it always does, to come down to politics and diplomacy... who is willing to stand up and say, "Screw you, we're doing it." In terms of the United States, it also comes down to does the US believe that a particular country will use them against the US - however short-sighted that belief may be. Nobody believes India is going to launch a nuclear attack on the US - Pakistan... maybe... but not the US. And, I think the same holds true for Pakistan in reverse. But, though the world expresses disappointment -ooh, disappointment... a strong preventative , the world seems to be fine with that. But N. Korea... guys a bit nuts and could hit us, so... no nukes for him. Iran... could act on its desire to wipe out Israel, or might decide to hit other targets of US interest... or possibly hit the US itself... no... no nukes for them either.

It's all pretty ridiculous, if you ask me.

As disastrous as it would be if somebody launched a nuclear attack on the United States, I think you underrestimate the cost to this country of a nuclear exchange anywhere on this planet.

Second, I am surprised you accept Israel's "restraint" as opposed to Pakistan's, India's or anyone else's. The face is, no one has resorted to nuclear arms, and for very well-understood reasons. These arms will be used only when national survival is at stake. Can you envision no possible future scenario when Israel's national survival will be at stake, at least in the minds of its leaders?

Let's not forget, this is the country that launched the 1967 war on the pretext that its enemies were preparing to attack it.

As intractable as the Kashmir issue is, that of Israel is a whole lot more intractable, and being essentially a question of its own survival, it is obviously more vital to Israel than Kashmir is to Pakistan or India. That's why I think an eventual nuclear attack by Israel, "justified" by its supposed "imminent destruction," is well within the realm of future possibility. On the other hand, I see no such threats to Iran's national existence, so I view with little concern Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear arms.

I seem to remember a nuclear testing show down match just a few years back between Pakistan and India. I'd hardly call that restraint. The message to each other was pretty clear to the entire world, resulting in sanctions for a time. Has Israel sent such a direct message to Iran? Any mushroom cloud demonstrations in Israeli sands?

I take your point, and I don't call that restraint either. I do maintain my view that in spite of posturing, nuclear weapons are unlikely to be employed by anyone unless national survival is perceived to be at stake. So the degree of alarm I have over anyone's possessing nuclear weapons corresponds to objective risk I perceive to their national survival in possible future scenarios. For Israel I think that is quite high; for Iran, low (unless you think the United States might gravely threaten Iran in spite of the latter's having nuclear weapons; I don't).

How far have you and Nightimer buried your heads in the sand? Technology marches on. There is no way to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. Willingly disarming is equivalent to bending over in the shower in prison.

As I have said many times on this board, in this life, it is all about power and control. Anyone who willingly surrenders power either distrusts himself very much, has a death wish, or has abandoned his obligations to those dependent upon him, or perhaps all of the above.

I would be interested in your "moral" argument against the use of nuclear weapons. The morality of their use derives from the morality of the war in which they are used, our recent flailing about in international law notwithstanding.

I do know poison gas was "outlawed" by treaty after WWI, and as far as I know, this mutual ban stood firm in WWII, but...no nation should ever be caught without the technology to counter one's enemies at a state of the art level, unless such nation's leadership wants to be remembered with the fondness we have for Neville "peace in our time" Chamberlin.

Dominant cultures have leading technology. Who wants to live in a submissive culture, doubly so if such submissiveness derives not from ineptitude but from a willing abandonment of leadership?

"Dominant cultures?" "Submissive cultures?" This reads, I must say, like a page out of Mein Kampf. The triumph of the will, and so forth, and so on. The importance of Leadership.

What is it like to live in a "dominant" culture as opposed to a "submissive" one, by the way? What are current, or past, examples of such cultures?

It actually sounds more like a page from John Norman's Gor books. He was a disappointing read. I got more out of "The Story of O". The bit about outlawing biological weapons but keeping them to counter one's enemy is a quaint conclusion too, since traditionally speaking, when biological agents have been put to use the military's inability to control agents once they're water- or air-borne is well documented. Our domination-oriented poster should spend less time ooing and ahhing at our global violence racket and spend more time studying the qualities he finds so fulfilling.

Dingo's argument about Israel being aggressive towards Iran has some merit, as posters who've pointed out that Iran has made threatening gestures towards Israel. But I blame the U.S. for this rhetoric, mostly. I'm not sure who started the tit-for-tat game over Iraq—the U.S.'s Axis of Evil speech, followed by intelligence programs aimed to destabilize Iran by hiring our own terrorists to carry operations in the NW region, etc., or Iranians venturing into Iraq with the IRI's knowledge—but it seems to me we've done more in four years to actively agitate Iran than Iran has done to agitate anyone.

I don't have my head buried in the sand, quick. Are you hiding yours under the covers hoping the bogeyman doesn't come get you?

I believe peace keeps the world safer than war does. I don't believe having a method to kill large numbers of human beings in a flash of light is a particularly sane thing to do.

And I don't believe nuclear weapons are an advance of technology. They merely represent a better way to destroy each other.

Your clumsy and inelegant metaphor about willingly disarming is equivalent to bending over in the shower in prison assumes that the result of bending over will be rape and disarming willingly will lead to an attack from an enemy country. Living in fear of both prison rape or a ICBM dropping through your roof is not living at all.

There is a reason why the term "mutally assured destruction" (or "MAD") was coined. It is sheer madness to want to kill people you don't even know in an act of mass murder.

I don't think there was a damn thing moral about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was the militarily expedient thing to do. Morality had zip to do with it.

I never said we should go back in time. I am saying only a fool thinks something that is so anti-life as nuclear weapons can preserve life.

That answer your question?

Except that, in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it did preserve life. The Japanese were going to defend every inch of their country to the death, costing hundreds and thousands of Japanese and American lives. To achieve unconditional surrender, more than a demonstration was needed - the actual bomb had to be dropped. Frankly, twice. And still more than a thousand Japanese officers committed suicide at the emperor's palace rather than accept the terms of surrender. Truman made a horrific decision, but indeed preserved life.

As for all of the moral arguments regarding Israel vis a vis Iran, none of them refute my original post, which notes that Iran is prohibited by treaty from gaining these weapons. Israel is not. If Iran pulls out of the treaty, and gives up the financial benefits accorded to them as signatory, that is a different story.

PS - glad to see the Public Enemy avatar is back.

Not really.

Nighttimer, I like you in that you don't pull punches. But, you have forgotten that thorughout all history man has fought wars. It is in our fallen character. This character will never change. Anyone who is not well prepared to win any war that can come his way is a fool. Period.

That answer your question?

For those of you question my "dominant" culture discussion, if you live in the US now, you live in what's left of one. If you lived in the US in 1946, you really lived in one. It means the only checks on your behavior are your own sense of moral propriety, not that someone else from outside can forceably impose its will on you. If you like being told what to do with little choice but to obey, well, move to Haiti.

This a misleading statement. It leads us to believe that as long as a country's signiture is on the dotted line the world is entitled to a continuous wave of obtstruction and can disrupt any and all activities until the dispute is resolved. Along this line of thinking the entire safeguards process is at the mercy of political apointment. IE what one country could get away with another country cannot with the defining line being how popular they are.

The consistancy and fairness of the institution is undermined with such ideas as the "additional safeguards ammendments", which have amounted to an endless series of demands based more on political posturing than IAEA data.

One of the main tenents of the treaty is that civilian enrichment could continue undeterred. This was one of the few perks of the treaty as well as access to parts suppliers. To call for a full on stop with questionable evidence is a violation in itself.


What benefits? This is a bizarre statement. I see more reason to scrap the treaty after the way Iran has been handled than to remain open to continual allegations designed to stifle any development. This is the reason why North Korea had nothing to do with the treaty. Same goes for the Israelis. This is called proliferation.

Shouldn't there have been an effort to shed light on these secretive programs? Shouldn't their privacy be taken away regardless of state interests? We need to add tangible consequences for countries who have produced real weapons under the veil of secrecy. I'm much more concerned with older members of the nuclear club than I am with new ones. The heckling is very much in the wrong spot.

The debate is going rather far afield at this point. But for what it's worth, it's a myth that dropping the bomb was necessary to bring about Japan's surrender. From wikipedia:

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

There are opinions on the other side, of course, but these are highly authoritative voices. Also according to wikipedia, Eisenhower said this:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

No, it is not a myth. It is the absolute fact. Post-facto observations from people aside, this is one of those issues that conspiracy theoriests love to have a field day with, but about which there is NO historical debate.

Japan was no about to surrender. It was NOT going to surrender even after both atomic bombs were dropped, the main mitigating factor being the discrediting of the Army faction following the destruction of the Kwangtung army by the Soviets. Without that having happened, surrender would have been a strict, absolute impossibility due to the ability of the Army faction to dissolve any cabinet which held opinions it did not agree with (A tactic they used several times during the war) Even following the Soviet invasion that there was a deadlock in cabinet on the issue of surrender, and only personal intervention by the Emperor allowed the nation to surrender. Following the intervention of the emperor, there were THREE seperate failed government and military coups to prevent the surrender from occurring, two of which only failed because of happenstance.

These is, as I say, no debate on the issue. If you wish to learn the history of the end of the Pacific war, I have a few books to suggest which may be better sourced than whatever conspiracy webpages are out there. Oh, I should add that I personally have worked extensively with the original cabinet minutes from the weeks when the possibility of surrender was discussed (as part of a team, I should add in all modesty), and published multiple times on the general topic...

Some light reading:
-Downfall, by Richard Frank (Most recent book to reevaluate the last year of the war, includes the detailed plans for coninued resistance into 1946)
-Rising Sun, by John Toland (Authoritative book, working out of japanese archives and interviewing the former Japanese cabinet ministers themselves. When all the surviving members of the cabinet state unequivocally that they were not about to surender, that is pretty hard to dispute)
-Japan at war, by Haruko Taya Cook (again from Japanese sources)
-Japan's Longest day, by the Pacific War research Society

I can list you two dozen others if you like.


Yes, I know, Gar Alperovitz wrote a book a few years back which disagrees. Sadly he was so crucified in the topic journals and historical reviews for flgrant misinterpretation (and in one case direct fabrication) of his historical facts he eventually issues a formal apology for it.


Sorry, but this one is not a debate, its not a controvercy, at least among anyone who actually knows anything about the topic. Yes, some laypeople disagree, but then some laypeople believe the US didn't land on the moon...

Here is some encouraging news about Iran's peaceful right to enrich uranium for energy purposes!



A Muslim isn't going to blow up a bomb to kill the Jews, because it would be suicide! That is soooooo believeable.

There isn't anything Iran can say that will convince you they don't want to blow Israel off the face of the earth. I don't trust them, but an Iranian bomb is no less irrational than helping India expand their nuclear capabilities.

Well, no, I trust them a bit actually. When they say "we want to wipe Israel off the map" I find this believeable.


I mean, if it's fair for Bush's critics to point out his religious influences and their dangers, it certainly behooves us to listen to the leader of Iran, who seems to believe that a clash of civilizations is at hand, bringing about the return of the 12th Imam. No?

We are far afield of the topic; this really belongs in the history section. Nevertheless:

I didn't assert that Japan was about to surrender, I quoted Nimitz, Leahy and Eisenhower to that effect. Perhaps they were mistaken, but I would have thought that a substantive rejoinder, rather than a sweeping and difficult-to-tackle assertion that there is absolutely no doubt upon this point among the high priests of history, would have been forthcoming. It is not as if I had asserted that there was no lunar landing, which analogy is highly insulting.

You should say something to the point, rather than suggesting that I improve my education and offering a proposed reading list. Really, that is insufferably condescending and pedantic. If the works in question have anything to say on this subject, you should quote salient passages from them. You leave the impression that they emphatically support your point, an impression that could only be dispelled by going to the library, doing considerable reading, and coming back with examples. Perhaps there are no such examples, but it is not really an acceptable form of argumentation to point at a pile of books and declare that they unambigously support your point. If these works have anything to say that supports you, the burden is on you to show it, not on me to demonstrate the contrary.

I do also find it surprising that there is absolutely no debate among historians on this point, given for example the statements that I quoted. I admit to being a "layperson" in the study of history, but I have read that Japan was already sending messages indicating its willingness to give up. Also, some of the home islands had been invaded by the Soviets, and my understanding was that this gave the Japanese a very strong incentive to come to terms. I had thought that the facts were generally supportive of the lack of necessity of dropping the bomb. I have also read, by the way, that claims that invading Japan and conquering it Okinawa-fashion would not have cost "millions" of American lives, but considerably less, or the order of a couple of tens of thousands, according to authoritative miltary estimates. But I can't recall where I read that.

Religion in the hands of politicians is a tool that gives them and helps them maintain power. I'm sure evangelicals in Bush's stalwart 20 - 30% approval rating think he's genuine, but I don't. The IRI is just as "genuine" as Bush.

Threats aside, the U.S. and Western states can't claim to care about nuclear proliferation as long as they withhold funds from the IAEA for "helping" Iran gain access to nuclear weapons. Whatever you may feel about the IRI, international law is international law. We can't impose new restrictions after the fact. I'll take the IAEA's recommendation over our administration's predictions any day. At least they got it right in Iraq.

Actually yes, it is believable that the leaders of a country, irrespective of their religion or political persuasion, wouldn't launch a nuclear attack against another country knowing that the certain consequence were devastating retaliation. It is one thing for Iran's leaders to exploit the sacficial willingness of some jihadis toward certain tactical ends; it would be quite another for them to embark upon a course, not only of self-incineration, but of the incineration of most of the Middle East.

Suicide attacks are not an exhibition of insanity; they make sense under a given set of values and given tactical aims. Region-wide thermonuclear war does not make sense on similar, or even remotely analogous terms.

We will never be able to cope with Iran, or with radical Islam in general, so long as we regard it as mass insanity. Obviously it isn't, and to treat it as such is to doom U.S. Middle East policy itself to insanity. Our present course in the Middle East is, of course, essentially insane.

I have also read from some recently released docs that the Japanese were probably ready to surrender with certain conditions. We wanted unconditional surrender. I do not recall all of the give-and-take, but there is no question certain elements of the Japanese govt made certain peace inquiries through third parties. It is also well-acknowledged that the Japanese Army was much less inclined to surrender under any circusmtances than other parts of the governing apparatus, which was quite problematic.

Of course, this kind of post-facto hand-wringing annoys me no-end. Stratetic bombing was perfectly acceptable in WWII, even if started by the Germans. The US incendiary raid on Tokyo killed many more people than either A-bomb, for what it is worth. Our job was to end this war with the results we wanted at a minimum cost to ourselves. Aerial bombardment was a key tool to effect this result. In fact, if we had invaded Japan and suffered 1,000,000 casualties (the official estimate at the time) when we could have dropped the A-bomb, then I would have hoped Truman would have been shot by firing squad.

It all boils down to what Mr. Churchill said--he who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind. That is why we, the American citizenry, need to watch our govt so carefully, as we will live--and die--according to their decisions.

This discussion remains off topic, but I would like to rejoin your remarks.

On a certain level I am comfortable with my country's decision to use the atom bomb on Japan, and with the equally destructive firebombing of Tokyo. The Japanese had not surrendered yet and, to be blunt, they had in coming. They had it coming in spades.

On another level I think that, given that the war was obviously in its terminal stages, a sense of humanity should have intruded into these decisions, which were so massively destructive of civilian life and which tore at the fabric of civilization almost as much as the attempted extermination of the Jews did. So while I absolutely do not sympathize with modern Japanese complaints that they shouldn't have had this done to them, I also don't feel very happy with claims by modern Americans that our nation's having committed these atrocious acts -- and that is fully what they were -- is something we should be entirely happy about.

Just as the Japanese should reflect upon and criticise the wisdom of their nation's course in history, we should do the same regarding that of ours.

By the say, it was the prophet Hosea, not Winston Churchill, who said that about reaping the whirlwind. For they that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind. Hosea 8:7.

You seem to be doing brisk business in the strawman department here. Did you see someone posting here who was "entirely happy" about dropping 2 nukes on Japan? Or that didn't take the time to reflect upon and criticize our nation's course in history?

I highlighted the elements of your post that are "questionable", to put it lightly.

• Egypt was preparing to attack Israel, the only question was whether or not they were going to do so.
• Israel's national survival is at stake, not only "in the minds of its leaders", but also in the minds of the leaders of its enemies. Think that one over for a while.
• If there are no threats to Iran's national existence, then why would they need nuclear weapons?