BF2S Forums Nuclear Proliferation in the ME

M.O.A.B wrote:

mikkel wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

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.

What, you think that politically and strategically, nuclear weapons are inert and meaningless unless brought to attention? You don't have a nuclear deterrent just to have a nuclear deterrent. You're posturing simply by virtue of having one.

Pubic wrote:

Israel isn't bringing a gun to a fist fight, its keeping a gun under it's pillow in case someone breaks into it's house and tries to kill it while it's sleeping.

At the same time trying to prevent anyone else owning a generator.

Israel upped the ante in the ME, if they expect Iran and other nations to abide by the NPT and do what the UN tells them they should try playing the game.

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Israel isn't bringing a gun to a fist fight, its keeping a gun under it's pillow in case someone breaks into it's house and tries to kill it while it's sleeping.

At the same time trying to prevent anyone else owning a generator.

Israel upped the ante in the ME, if they expect Iran and other nations to abide by the NPT and do what the UN tells them they should try playing the game.

Why would Iran need Nuclear Powerplants when they're sitting on a huge oil deposit? And I doubt they want to be Eco-Friendly either.

I still think ALL nations should join and abide the NPT.

Because they know the oil deposit is going to run out and it makes more sense to sell their oil and buy uranium than to burn oil for electricity.
More so in the coming decades as the oil price skyrockets and transportation has no alternatives.

I don't want to see a nuclear-armed Iran, but the Israelis are going to have to stop being total douchebags to prevent that - which I can't see happening.
Russia and China aren't too bothered, its only US pressure which is persuading them to support sanctions, the US is losing patience rapidly so we're in for interesting times ahead.

Anyone care to place a bet on Israel being there in 10, 20, 50 years?

Or a Russian or Chinese company?

And we'll let UN inspectors and the IAEA search every square inch of Israel looking for WMD.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Israel isn't bringing a gun to a fist fight, its keeping a gun under it's pillow in case someone breaks into it's house and tries to kill it while it's sleeping.

At the same time trying to prevent anyone else owning a generator.

Israel upped the ante in the ME, if they expect Iran and other nations to abide by the NPT and do what the UN tells them they should try playing the game.

A bunch of their neighboursThe entire ME has tried to eradicate them numerous times.  Not only that, but three of the countries which have had a go at them are known to have had nuclear weapons programmes at some point - Iraq (81), Libya (03), and Syria (07).

mikkel wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Israel isn't bringing a gun to a fist fight, its keeping a gun under it's pillow in case someone breaks into it's house and tries to kill it while it's sleeping.

That's a pretty comprehensively terrible analogy, for pretty obvious reasons.

See above.

Last edited by Pubic (2010-04-13 12:59:40)

Who is more likely to start a nuclear war, given nuclear weapons - Israel, or any other country in the ME?