Israel, Iran, Syria

[RedRalph]

Given the new furore over Syrians supposed nuclear reactor which Israel illegally attacked,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7366658.stm

the suspicions some countruies have about Iran and the well known fact that Israel already has nuclear weapons (for some reason this is not a problem, they are a special case), if it was possible to enforce it to be 100% sure it was in place, would you support the idea of Israel and all its Arab enemies agreeing to rid the ME of nuclear arms if, hypothetically, it could be ensured that no side would subsequently develop them?

Or would you rather the status quo where Israel has them, the rest will probably try to develop them in future etc?

 

[brennan]

Yes. Nukes are too dangerous and illegally indiscriminate.

 

[Winner]

Given the new furore over Syrians supposed nuclear reactor which Israel illegally attacked,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7366658.stm

the suspicions some countruies have about Iran and the well known fact that Israel already has nuclear weapons (for some reason this is not a problem, they are a special case),

Uh, let me see:

they're democratic - yes
they're responsible - yes
they never threatened to destroy any other nation - yes
they need nukes to secure their own existence - yes

Conclusion is, it's not a problem.

if it was possible to enforce it to be 100% sure it was in place, would you support the idea of Israel and all its Arab enemies agreeing to rid the ME of nuclear arms if, hypothetically, it could be ensured that no side would subsequently develop them?

No, Israel must have them.

Or would you rather the status quo where Israel has them, the rest will probably try to develop them in future etc?

Sounds better than the first case.

You see, you don't understand the situation. Israel isn't equal to Arabs in terms of population, land and potential power. Their existence is contantly being threated by other countries. Arabs would love to see Israel in ruins and Jews slaughtered, that's the popular sentiment in most Arab countries, no matter how much BBC tries to cover it.

In this situation, you can't treat both parties as equals. Arab concessions must be proportionate to their 'size'.

Hypothetical example (based on real historical facts): during Cold War, Soviets offered a deal to the West: Western Block and Eastern bloc will each reduce the number of main battle tanks by 8,000.

Number of Western main battle tanks: 10,000
Number of Eastern main battle tanks: 30,000
-> 1:3 ratio

Numbers after the proposed reductions:
Western MBTs: 2,000
Eastern MBTs: 22,000
-> 1:11 ratio

See where I am heading with this? What appears as equal reduction at first glance is in fact giving one side a huge advantage over the other.

Israel simply can't afford anything like this. If it wants to survive, it must keep an edge over the Arabs.

 

[Gecko1]

don't trust the Israelis with nukes either. They also can't be bombing anyone they want indiscriminately. Hell, with their (Israel's) system of justice Iran should bomb Israeli airbases, to protect themselves from harm.

 

[Winner]

don't trust the Israelis with nukes either. They also can't be bombing anyone they want indiscriminately. Hell, with their (Israel's) system of justice Iran should bomb Israeli airbases, to protect themselves from harm.

If you were in Israel's place, I bet you'd be saying "we need nukes to protect ourselves".

 

[Gecko1]

If you were in Israel's place, I bet you'd be saying "we need nukes to protect ourselves".

No I wouldn't, I would support Israel bombing confirmed nuclear weapons plants if they didn't have nukes. Israel can kick the entire Arab world's ass in a week, they already did it. They don't need nukes to drive the point home.

 

[Winner]

No I wouldn't, I would support Israel bombing confirmed nuclear weapons plants if they didn't have nukes. Israel can kick the entire Arab world's ass in a week, they already did it. They don't need nukes to drive the point home.

They can - now. But in case you haven't noticed, there are hundreds of millions of Arabs and just few millions of Jews. Should they lose their quality edge they have over the Arabs, they're dead.

Nukes are "weapons of last resort" for them. That's their sole purpose, to be used only if all hope is lost. This should discourage Arabs from trying to exterminate them.

 

[Gecko1]

They can - now. But in case you haven't noticed, there are hundreds of millions of Arabs and just few millions of Jews. Should they lose their quality edge they have over the Arabs, they're dead.

Nukes are "weapons of last resort" for them. That's their sole purpose, to be used only if all hope is lost. This should discourage Arabs from trying to exterminate them.

Ok, so the Israelis are suicidal. So if an insane Iran decided to attack Israel one day and Israel lost they would nuke themselves all the way back to Jerusalem?

 

[Sidhe]

Giving one side nukes and not the other is stupid quite frankly. What was the point of MAD if no one's going to take it seriously.

 

[Winner]

Ok, so the Israelis are suicidal. So if an insane Iran decided to attack Israel one day and Israel lost they would nuke themselves all the way back to Jerusalem?

Exactly.

Which is why Iran won't attack.

 

[Gecko1]

Exactly.

Which is why Iran won't attack.

I'm pretty sure Iran would infer that the Israelis are not insane enough to actually use nuclea weapons.

 

[Winner]

Giving one side nukes and not the other is stupid quite frankly. What was the point of MAD if no one's going to take it seriously.

MAD isn't something you should actively see, it's only the best you can have in a situation when two hostile powers have rougly equal nuclear arsenals.

The best possible situation is when the good sides have nukes and the bad side doesn't

 

[Winner]

I'm pretty sure Iran would infer that the Israelis are not insane enough to actually use nuclea weapons.

Soviets didn't.

Israelis would have nothing to lose in case they'd be conventionally defeated. They know what happened the last time they were at mercy of people who hated them - 6 millions of them died in extermination camps.

That's why they carved "never again" on their first nuclear bomb.

 

[Sidhe]

MAD isn't something you should actively see, it's only the best you can have in a situation when two hostile powers have rougly equal nuclear arsenals.

The best possible situation is when the good sides have nukes and the bad side doesn't

Israel good. That's like saying Fatah are good or Iran, that's not been true since Sharon got into power and before when he committed war crimes in all but name.

 

[Winner]

Israel good. That's like saying Fatah are good or Iran, that's not been true since Sharon got into power and before when he committed war crimes in all but name.

Yeah, Israel is the "good" side in the Middle East, like the US was the "good" side in the Cold war.

 

[Godwynn]

Why can't people see that both Israel and numerous Arab nations are belligerents?

 

[Sidhe]

Yeah, Israel is the "good" side in the Middle East, like the US was the "good" side in the Cold war.

Nah both idiots in the cold war.

You have a totally Westcentric attitude to politics.

West=white hats
Non West=black hats

What a crock to put it mildly.

Why can't people see that both Israel and numerous Arab nations are belligerents?

Because they are brainwashed by Fox "News": we report: you don't think?

 

[Winner]

Nah both idiots in the cold war.

You have a totally Westcentric attitude to politics.

West=white hats
Non West=black hats

What a crock to put it mildly.

No, I am just being reasonable, unlike you

 

[Sidhe]

No, I am just being reasonable, unlike you

What impartial is unreasonable, care to say why?

 

[Sharwood]

I never thought I'd say this, but I almost completely agree with Winner on this. While I don't hold a torch for Israel, they have the right to defend themselves from their enemies, and nuclear weapons are a part of that. They may not need them to ensure their survival, but having nukes is the WMD version of taking some condoms with you on a date: better to have them and not need them, than need them and not have them.