Pages: 1 2

 

2010-04-09 04:31:40
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6391|eXtreme to the maX
Israeli PM Netanyahu pulls out of US nuclear summit

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has cancelled a visit to the US where he was to attend a summit on nuclear security, Israeli officials say.
Mr Netanyahu made the decision after learning that Egypt and Turkey intended to raise the issue of Israel's presumed nuclear arsenal, the officials said.

Mr Obama is due to host dozens of world leaders at the two-day conference, which begins in Washington on Monday.
Israel has never confirmed or denied that it possesses atomic weapons.
Israel's Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor will take Netanyahu's place in the nuclear summit, Israeli radio said.

More than 40 countries are expected at the meeting, which will focus on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to militant groups.

According to Israeli officials, Turkey and Egypt are planning to call on Israel to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
"These states intend to exploit the occasion in order to slam Israel," said a senior Israeli source.
"The prime minister expressed his displeasure over these intentions, and he will therefore not be travelling to the summit."
Mr Netanyahu has said his main priority is dealing with Iran's supposed intention to develop both warheads and long-range missiles capable of hitting Israel.

Along with India, Pakistan and North Korea, Israel is one of just four states that have not signed up to the NPT, which has 189 signatories.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8610595.stm

So how should this be dealt with if one or two players won't play the game?
Israel wants Iran slammed, but not themselves.
Fuck Israel
2010-04-09 04:34:00
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land
Israel's regular double standards. Not surprising.
2010-04-09 07:10:31
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6508|Escea

Here we go again.
2010-04-09 07:20:19
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6438|what

Sounds like they took there bat and ball and went home.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-04-09 07:36:11
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6907|London, England
That will always be the main thing when it comes to Iran and nukes. The fact that Israel have them and nobody cares
2010-04-09 08:15:57
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85
The question is not who has nukes. If they're just sitting there nobody cares. What matters is whether or not they are going to be used.
2010-04-09 08:23:30
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7061|Moscow, Russia

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The question is not who has nukes. If they're just sitting there nobody cares. What matters is whether or not they are going to be used.
yep. the only thing left to do is develop some sorta reliable way of determining who's going to use their nukes. may i suggest you a good fortune-teller?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-04-09 08:46:00
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

Shahter wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The question is not who has nukes. If they're just sitting there nobody cares. What matters is whether or not they are going to be used.
yep. the only thing left to do is develop some sorta reliable way of determining who's going to use their nukes. may i suggest you a good fortune-teller?
Obviously no one can say for sure.

It's hypocritical yes, but who is really going to say that Iran has a lower likelihood of actually using a nuke than Israel?

If people were concerned about keeping any nukes from going off period, people would be paying a lot more attention to India/Pakistan.
2010-04-09 10:11:19
rammunition
Fully Loaded
+143|6147

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The question is not who has nukes. If they're just sitting there nobody cares. What matters is whether or not they are going to be used.
Iran hasn't attacked a nation in aggression in so many decades I have lost count, whilst Israel has done so only days ago. I know who I would trust with nukes.
2010-04-09 10:11:49
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5545|foggy bottom
you lost count huh
Tu Stultus Es
2010-04-09 10:22:42
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6508|Escea

rammunition wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The question is not who has nukes. If they're just sitting there nobody cares. What matters is whether or not they are going to be used.
Iran hasn't attacked a nation in aggression in so many decades I have lost count, whilst Israel has done so only days ago. I know who I would trust with nukes.
The country that's had them for almost forty-years despite engaging in large wars threatening its very existence, and never used them, or the country whose government actively supports terrorist organisations, suppresses its own people, and is led by a religious whackjob and his windcheater wearing sidekick.

Yeah I think I know which I'd rather trust too.
2010-04-09 10:26:41
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

rammunition wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The question is not who has nukes. If they're just sitting there nobody cares. What matters is whether or not they are going to be used.
Iran hasn't attacked a nation in aggression in so many decades I have lost count, whilst Israel has done so only days ago. I know who I would trust with nukes.
directly or indirectly?

why does having a nuke equate to trust?
2010-04-09 10:36:28
mikkel
Member
+383|6887

M.O.A.B wrote:

rammunition wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The question is not who has nukes. If they're just sitting there nobody cares. What matters is whether or not they are going to be used.
Iran hasn't attacked a nation in aggression in so many decades I have lost count, whilst Israel has done so only days ago. I know who I would trust with nukes.
The country that's had them for almost forty-years despite engaging in large wars threatening its very existence, and never used them, or the country whose government actively supports terrorist organisations, suppresses its own people, and is led by a religious whackjob and his windcheater wearing sidekick.

Yeah I think I know which I'd rather trust too.
Nuclear weapons are a measure of posture. They serve to inspire trust not in that they won't be used, but in that they will, should it be necessary. By posturing with a nuclear deterrent, Israel is bringing a gun to a fistfight, and one cannot seriously suggest it unreasonable for Israel's opponents to arm themselves accordingly. Would it be preferable if Iran chose sense over nuclear weapons? Yes. Is it unreasonable that they do not? No. Israel upped the ante on this one.

If one is worried about the actions and philosophies of a country and its leadership, then one should not encourage them to become even more dangerous.

Last edited by mikkel (2010-04-09 10:37:25)

2010-04-09 10:47:11
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6508|Escea

mikkel wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

rammunition wrote:


Iran hasn't attacked a nation in aggression in so many decades I have lost count, whilst Israel has done so only days ago. I know who I would trust with nukes.
The country that's had them for almost forty-years despite engaging in large wars threatening its very existence, and never used them, or the country whose government actively supports terrorist organisations, suppresses its own people, and is led by a religious whackjob and his windcheater wearing sidekick.

Yeah I think I know which I'd rather trust too.
Nuclear weapons are a measure of posture. They serve to inspire trust not in that they won't be used, but in that they will, should it be necessary. By posturing with a nuclear deterrent, Israel is bringing a gun to a fistfight, and one cannot seriously suggest it unreasonable for Israel's opponents to arm themselves accordingly. Would it be preferable if Iran chose sense over nuclear weapons? Yes. Is it unreasonable that they do not? No. Israel upped the ante on this one.

If one is worried about the actions and philosophies of a country and its leadership, then one should not encourage them to become even more dangerous.
Israel acquired its weapons during a time where every country in the ME was actively taking a bite at them. It is surrounded by potential enemies. Iran isn't. Israel maintains its arsenal as a last-ditch effort in the event of being totally overrun which, when you take into account how small the country is, isn't hard to imagine with a massive invading force. Iran is a far bigger country with a leadership that, unlike Israel, has little grounds to believe they are about to be blown apart by the entire region. Their major enemy in the region was Saddam, and he's gone.
2010-04-09 10:54:37
mikkel
Member
+383|6887

M.O.A.B wrote:

mikkel wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

The country that's had them for almost forty-years despite engaging in large wars threatening its very existence, and never used them, or the country whose government actively supports terrorist organisations, suppresses its own people, and is led by a religious whackjob and his windcheater wearing sidekick.

Yeah I think I know which I'd rather trust too.
Nuclear weapons are a measure of posture. They serve to inspire trust not in that they won't be used, but in that they will, should it be necessary. By posturing with a nuclear deterrent, Israel is bringing a gun to a fistfight, and one cannot seriously suggest it unreasonable for Israel's opponents to arm themselves accordingly. Would it be preferable if Iran chose sense over nuclear weapons? Yes. Is it unreasonable that they do not? No. Israel upped the ante on this one.

If one is worried about the actions and philosophies of a country and its leadership, then one should not encourage them to become even more dangerous.
Israel acquired its weapons during a time where every country in the ME was actively taking a bite at them. It is surrounded by potential enemies. Iran isn't. Israel maintains its arsenal as a last-ditch effort in the event of being totally overrun which, when you take into account how small the country is, isn't hard to imagine with a massive invading force. Iran is a far bigger country with a leadership that, unlike Israel, has little grounds to believe they are about to be blown apart by the entire region. Their major enemy in the region was Saddam, and he's gone.
All of that matters precisely not at all. Iran has made threats of aggression against Israel, and Israel has made threats of aggression against Iran. In case of a war, regardless of who started it, the only relevant issue to nuclear arsenals is who is in possession of them. Iran certainly cannot feel comfortable in the knowledge that they cannot win a war against an Israel armed with a nuclear deterrent without having a nuclear deterrent of their own. That's perfectly reasonable.

Last edited by mikkel (2010-04-09 10:55:54)

2010-04-09 12:02:33
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|6771|England

M.O.A.B wrote:

rammunition wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The question is not who has nukes. If they're just sitting there nobody cares. What matters is whether or not they are going to be used.
Iran hasn't attacked a nation in aggression in so many decades I have lost count, whilst Israel has done so only days ago. I know who I would trust with nukes.
The country that's had them for almost forty-years despite engaging in large wars threatening its very existence, and never used them, or the country whose government actively supports terrorist organisations, suppresses its own people, and is led by a religious whackjob and his windcheater wearing sidekick.   

What the US?
2010-04-09 13:11:20
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6815|Global Command
I can't see how Israel is upping the ante as they aren't saying 'we have nukes '. 

They are saying, maybe we do and maybe we don't.

Other nations sign treaties saying ' we won't go nuke ' and get caught trying to. They lie.

Israel is saying " fuck you ". And they are perfectly justified in doing so, and in taking pre-emptive action against a nation saying " we are going to wipe Israel off the map and we are making weapons to do so. "

Iran, with her morality police and dis-armed population is not to be trusted with a dish towel.

We should facilitate the regime being swept away.







Sorry.
2010-04-09 14:35:29
mikkel
Member
+383|6887

ATG wrote:

I can't see how Israel is upping the ante as they aren't saying 'we have nukes '. 

They are saying, maybe we do and maybe we don't.
Yeah, that just doesn't work in the real world. The only reasonable assumption for the Iranian government is that Israel has nukes. When you introduce nuclear weapons into a conflict, then yes, you're upping the ante. No two ways about it.
2010-04-09 14:40:09
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6508|Escea

mikkel wrote:

ATG wrote:

I can't see how Israel is upping the ante as they aren't saying 'we have nukes '. 

They are saying, maybe we do and maybe we don't.
Yeah, that just doesn't work in the real world. The only reasonable assumption for the Iranian government is that Israel has nukes. When you introduce nuclear weapons into a conflict, then yes, you're upping the ante. No two ways about it.
Except Israel hasn't introduced nuclear weapons to this conflict, or any conflict.
2010-04-09 14:48:59
mikkel
Member
+383|6887

M.O.A.B wrote:

mikkel wrote:

ATG wrote:

I can't see how Israel is upping the ante as they aren't saying 'we have nukes '. 

They are saying, maybe we do and maybe we don't.
Yeah, that just doesn't work in the real world. The only reasonable assumption for the Iranian government is that Israel has nukes. When you introduce nuclear weapons into a conflict, then yes, you're upping the ante. No two ways about it.
Except Israel hasn't introduced nuclear weapons to this conflict, or any conflict.
In the same way that India hasn't introduced nuclear weapons to any conflict.
2010-04-09 14:51:52
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6508|Escea

mikkel wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

mikkel wrote:


Yeah, that just doesn't work in the real world. The only reasonable assumption for the Iranian government is that Israel has nukes. When you introduce nuclear weapons into a conflict, then yes, you're upping the ante. No two ways about it.
Except Israel hasn't introduced nuclear weapons to this conflict, or any conflict.
In the same way that India hasn't introduced nuclear weapons to any conflict.
So what, all sides having nukes is a good thing? More nukes is a good thing? Sounds a bit like a step back to me.
2010-04-09 14:54:09
mikkel
Member
+383|6887

M.O.A.B wrote:

mikkel wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:


Except Israel hasn't introduced nuclear weapons to this conflict, or any conflict.
In the same way that India hasn't introduced nuclear weapons to any conflict.
So what, all sides having nukes is a good thing? More nukes is a good thing? Sounds a bit like a step back to me.
I can't find even the most tenuous reasoning for you to make that conclusion.
2010-04-09 14:58:11
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6508|Escea

mikkel wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

mikkel wrote:


In the same way that India hasn't introduced nuclear weapons to any conflict.
So what, all sides having nukes is a good thing? More nukes is a good thing? Sounds a bit like a step back to me.
I can't find even the most tenuous reasoning for you to make that conclusion.
Your overall position comes across like so: Israel has nukes, so Iran should have them to level the playing field.
2010-04-09 15:50:39
mikkel
Member
+383|6887

M.O.A.B wrote:

mikkel wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:


So what, all sides having nukes is a good thing? More nukes is a good thing? Sounds a bit like a step back to me.
I can't find even the most tenuous reasoning for you to make that conclusion.
Your overall position comes across like so: Israel has nukes, so Iran should have them to level the playing field.

mikkel wrote:

.. by posturing with a nuclear deterrent, Israel is bringing a gun to a fistfight, and one cannot seriously suggest it unreasonable for Israel's opponents to arm themselves accordingly. Would it be preferable if Iran chose sense over nuclear weapons? Yes. Is it unreasonable that they do not? No. Israel upped the ante on this one.
2010-04-09 15:59:48
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6508|Escea

mikkel wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

mikkel wrote:


I can't find even the most tenuous reasoning for you to make that conclusion.
Your overall position comes across like so: Israel has nukes, so Iran should have them to level the playing field.

mikkel wrote:

.. by posturing with a nuclear deterrent, Israel is bringing a gun to a fistfight, and one cannot seriously suggest it unreasonable for Israel's opponents to arm themselves accordingly. Would it be preferable if Iran chose sense over nuclear weapons? Yes. Is it unreasonable that they do not? No. Israel upped the ante on this one.
I'm afraid I must have missed that moment in recent history when Israel was waving its nukes around.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard