[Logic]

'Scrap nuclear arms' Israel urged


What will happen? Nothing, I guess.

Discuss!

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Logic:
What will happen? Nothing, I guess.

You sir, are correct.

[petehammer]

How dare you talk about Israel!

Anti-semites!

Ok, now that's out of the way. Continue.

[davesimondotcom]

Yes, doubtful it will happen.

Dear Isreal,

We really don't like you. We never have. We'd like to run you into the ocean and never have to deal with you again. So please, pretty please, voluntarily disarm so we can destroy you easily.

Sincerely,

Hamas
Syria
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Etc.

[Logic]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Yes, doubtful it will happen.

Dear Isreal,

We really don't like you. We never have. We'd like to run you into the ocean and never have to deal with you again. So please, pretty please, voluntarily disarm so we can destroy you easily.

Sincerely,

Hamas
Syria
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Etc.

Did you read the article? It is important to understand who said what if one wants to take part in a debate, correct?

Now, try again.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Yes, doubtful it will happen.....

Don't make me have to send one of my lil'babynukes over there! Now read the damn article!

[davesimondotcom]

I read the article. And yes, I realize it's the totally unbiased UN and Mohamed ElBaradei who said it.

That doesn't change the fact that Israel would lose it's biggest deterrent if it scrapped it's nukes.

Where is ElBaradei saying that maybe Hamas should stop strapping bombs to frustrated youths in order to kill civilians might just be an "incentive to peace" as well?

But, I need to keep in mind that it's the Israelis fault... nobody else could be to blame. It is not a two sided thing...

[theolein]

Here We Go Again™ Time to grab some popcorn and a beer, pull up a chair and watch the flames begin on MacNN's favourite show, The Israelis and Arabs Show™

[Logic]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I read the article. And yes, I realize it's the totally unbiased UN and Mohamed ElBaradei who said it.

That doesn't change the fact that Israel would lose it's biggest deterrent if it scrapped it's nukes.

Where is ElBaradei saying that maybe Hamas should stop strapping bombs to frustrated youths in order to kill civilians might just be an "incentive to peace" as well?

But, I need to keep in mind that it's the Israelis fault... nobody else could be to blame. It is not a two sided thing...

The UN has said on several occasions that both parties need to do their part. But El Baradei is handling "nucular" weapons only, and his job is to make sure other nations in the area don't build up their "nucular" arsenal. The Israeli warmachine is powerful enough to handle all threats from their neighbors and don't need nuclear weapons. The other nations on the other hand feel like they need to develop nuclear weapons because on nation(I would say aggressive nation) has the Bomb. IIRC all other nations in that area have signed the treaty except Israel. Do you really think he is asking Israel for the impossible? Do you think that if Israel scraps it nuclear arsenal the other nations in the area will be able to "push them into the sea"? Do you think that Israel needs the A-Bomb to protect itself against terrorists? WHy do they need the Bomb? And why should they be allowed to have the Bomb but not Iran, Egypt or Syria? Please elaborate.

[Logic]

Originally posted by theolein:
Here We Go Again™ Time to grab some popcorn and a beer, pull up a chair and watch the flames begin on MacNN's favourite show, The Israelis and Arabs Show™

Are you siding with the Israelis?

[theolein]

Originally posted by Logic:
Are you siding with the Israelis?

No, I think I'm siding with the little red guy in my sig, a specialist in flammable products and services.

[Logic]

Originally posted by theolein:
No, I think I'm siding with the little red guy in my sig, a specialist in flammable products and services.

OK!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

This is one of those issues the Israel 'naysayers' if you will, are dead right about.

Israel does need to defend itself of course- conventionally.

Having nuclear arms however, is insane. A nuclear threat should exist (if it exists at all) to COUNTER another nuclear threat. Therefore Israel having nukes is INVITING everyone else in the region (including some of the most unstable nutcase regimes in the world) to arm themselves with nukes as well.

A superpower like the US having nukes is one thing- we've had our arsenal since 1945 and it's doubtful we'll ever put that genie back in the bottle.

Israel on the other hand upsets the balance of nuclear power in the Middle East by having such weapons.

The deterrence argument makes no sense in this case- if Israel is attacked it's likely to be in conventional form and possibly by some terrorist group. So they’d fire nukes off in response to a conventional threat? Or attack terrorists with them? Either option would be heavy handed to say the least, and probably start WWIII.

If Israel was threatened by another nation with a nuke (highly unlikely with Saddam out of the picture) the US would back them up with our own arsenal.

Having one themselves is just plain brain-dead- they hold all the nuke cards without having them 'on site' anyway, and officially having them invites everyone else to join the nuke party as well. Completely stupid.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
This is one of those issues the Israel 'naysayers' if you will, are dead right about.

Israel does need to defend itself of course- conventionally.

Having nuclear arms however, is insane. A nuclear threat should exist (if it exists at all) to COUNTER another nuclear threat. Therefore Israel having nukes is INVITING everyone else in the region (including some of the most unstable nutcase regimes in the world) to arm themselves with nukes as well.

A superpower like the US having nukes is one thing- we've had our arsenal since 1945 and it's doubtful we'll ever put that genie back in the bottle.

Israel on the other hand upsets the balance of nuclear power in the Middle East by having such weapons.

The deterrence argument makes no sense in this case- if Israel is attacked it's likely to be in conventional form and possibly by some terrorist group. So they’d fire nukes off in response to a conventional threat? Or attack terrorists with them? Either option would be heavy handed to say the least, and probably start WWIII.

If Israel was threatened by another nation with a nuke (highly unlikely with Saddam out of the picture) the US would back them up with our own arsenal.

Having one themselves is just plain brain-dead- they hold all the nuke cards without having them 'on site' anyway, and officially having them invites everyone else to join the nuke party as well. Completely stupid.

Damn. These rare moments of solidarity are really nice. We should do it more often!



I hereby declare *SMACKDOWN*
Can I get an "amen" ?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
This is one of those issues the Israel 'naysayers' if you will, are dead right about.

Israel does need to defend itself of course- conventionally.

Having nuclear arms however, is insane. A nuclear threat should exist (if it exists at all) to COUNTER another nuclear threat. Therefore Israel having nukes is INVITING everyone else in the region (including some of the most unstable nutcase regimes in the world) to arm themselves with nukes as well.

A superpower like the US having nukes is one thing- we've had our arsenal since 1945 and it's doubtful we'll ever put that genie back in the bottle.

Israel on the other hand upsets the balance of nuclear power in the Middle East by having such weapons.

The deterrence argument makes no sense in this case- if Israel is attacked it's likely to be in conventional form and possibly by some terrorist group. So they’d fire nukes off in response to a conventional threat? Or attack terrorists with them? Either option would be heavy handed to say the least, and probably start WWIII.

If Israel was threatened by another nation with a nuke (highly unlikely with Saddam out of the picture) the US would back them up with our own arsenal.

Having one themselves is just plain brain-dead- they hold all the nuke cards without having them 'on site' anyway, and officially having them invites everyone else to join the nuke party as well. Completely stupid.

I have my doubts about the utility of nuclear deterrance -- especially against terrorist threats. However, I'm not sure that the logic of what you are saying plays out. I can see how it could be argued that getting nuclear weapons now woudn't do Israel much, or any good, but how are things improved if they get them?

For example, you say that it is OK for the US to have them because we have had them since 1945 with no bad consequences yet. Well, Israel has had nukes since some time in the late 1960s. They seem to be responsible with nukes too.

You say that Israel's nukes encourages it's neighbors to get nukes. Do you really think that they would forswear them if Israel didn't have nukes? Why wouldn't they take this as an opportunity to get them anyway, and thus to nullify Israel's conventional advantage? Why would israel take that risk? In all probablity, the worst you get with nukes is a MAD situation, which can be quite stable. At the worst if they disarm, they are vulnerable to blackmail.

I really doubt also that Israel would ever be put in a position of relying on the US for its very survival. We have sided against them in 1956, and in 1972 Nixon cut off arms. In 1967 we treated their victory as a problem. I'm not saying that those were wrong things to do. I'm just saying that Israel would have reasons not to let its very survival depend on ANYONE's promise to help them.

Israel is under no obligation to disarm. Its neighbors signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So they would be violating their obligations if they acquired nukes. Israel did not sign it, so it isn't violating anything by not declaring itself openly to be a nuclear power. They are probably better off, and certainly no worse off, doing just what they are doing.

Maybe one day this logic will change. I'd like to think so. But I doubt that will happen until the political landscape in the Middle East changes quite a bit.

Edit: Sorry, T_F to bring the love fest to an end. I just don't think this is realistic. You have to look at it from Israel's perspective - whch I think would be very cautious.

[eklipse]

I generally agree with Crash - there simply is no threat in the region that warrants a nuclear deterrent.

In a broader, more general, sense though, any country having nuclear weapons is just as brain-dead as Israel having them as it only invites everyone else to 'join the nuke party' - it also leaves the door open for other countries to say: 'well, if they have them - why can't we?' And then where does that leave you to deny them that right?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
This is one of those issues the Israel 'naysayers' if you will, are dead right about.

Israel does need to defend itself of course- conventionally.

Having nuclear arms however, is insane. A nuclear threat should exist (if it exists at all) to COUNTER another nuclear threat. Therefore Israel having nukes is INVITING everyone else in the region (including some of the most unstable nutcase regimes in the world) to arm themselves with nukes as well.

A superpower like the US having nukes is one thing- we've had our arsenal since 1945 and it's doubtful we'll ever put that genie back in the bottle.

Israel on the other hand upsets the balance of nuclear power in the Middle East by having such weapons.

The deterrence argument makes no sense in this case- if Israel is attacked it's likely to be in conventional form and possibly by some terrorist group. So they’d fire nukes off in response to a conventional threat? Or attack terrorists with them? Either option would be heavy handed to say the least, and probably start WWIII.

If Israel was threatened by another nation with a nuke (highly unlikely with Saddam out of the picture) the US would back them up with our own arsenal.

Having one themselves is just plain brain-dead- they hold all the nuke cards without having them 'on site' anyway, and officially having them invites everyone else to join the nuke party as well. Completely stupid.

well said.

[thunderous_funker]

Is MAD an even remotely rational or reasonable expection of a nuclear arms race in the mid-east?

Wouldn't such intimate georaphy basically make a nuke a bluff that no one is afraid to call because its virtually unusable without ****ing yourself over?

Would any nuke harmless enough for such intimate spaces be measurably more effective deterrant than the conventional alternative?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Is MAD an even remotely rational or reasonable expection of a nuclear arms race in the mid-east?

Wouldn't such intimate georaphy basically make a nuke a bluff that no one is afraid to call because its virtually unusable without ****ing yourself over?

Would any nuke harmless enough for such intimate spaces be measurably more effective deterrant than the conventional alternative?

That misses the point utterly. MAD is Mutually Assured Destruction.

Savor the implications of each of those words. Survivability in a nuclear exchange doesn't come into it. If an exchange is survivable by either side, it's not MAD. That's why MAD proponents were so against missile defense. The only option then becomes for neither side to ever use nukes, or do anything that might provoke the other side into using them,

I don't know anyone who likes this. But it does have a certain logic. It's based entirely on rational interests, and not even a tiny bit on trust.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That misses the point utterly. MAD is Mutually Assured Destruction.

Savor the implications of each of those words. Survivability in a nuclear exchange doesn't come into it. If an exchange is survivable by either side, it's not MAD. That's why MAD proponents were so against missile defense. The only option then becomes for neither side to ever use nukes, or do anything that might provoke the other side into using them,

I don't know anyone who likes this. But it does have a certain logic. It's based entirely on rational interests, and not even a tiny bit on trust.

So Israel's potential nuclear suicide is an effective deterrent to its enemies?

Again, what the US and USSR were willing to die for differs quite fundmanetally.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So Israel's potential nuclear suicide is an effective deterrent to its enemies?

Again, what the US and USSR were willing to die for differs quite fundmanetally.

MAD is a structural mechanism. It has nothing to do with ideology (or morality, obviously).

Do a google search on Bernard Brodie. He was an interesting and thought-provoking guy even if his logic was not for the faint hearted.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
MAD is a structural mechanism. It has nothing to do with ideology (or morality, obviously).

What exactly is a 'structural mechanism'?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I don't really understand your position on this one Simey.

"Mutually Assured Destruction" ONLY exists and 'balances' itself if the destruction threat is *drumroll* MUTUAL!

Your enemies HAVE to be armed with nukes too to have the other side of the coin.

If you're going to use a 'MAD' strategy, you're all but begging your enemy to arm themselves. What else can they do?

It seems to me akin to sitting in my house with a cannon pointed over at yours, and calling out "MAD"- then somehow expecting that you'll not go get a cannon yourself to counter my threat. (and achive what I'm calling for to begin with) Why they hell wouldn't you?

Personally, I'm not making any judgement call on Isreal being 'trusted' with nukes- just that officially having them (haven't they traditionally denied having them?) all but guarantees everyone else in the region seeking them too.

It'd be nice if we could dump our own nukes as well- but I'm a realist- I believe that since the weapons exist, it's a near impossibility that the US itself could totally disarm and expect everyone else will as well. I don't see the US or any other major power doing so realistically. Our own MAD strategy with the Soviets was an unfortunate outcome of both nations having the things, and no possibility that either side would just give them up.

It's an insane enough policy for the super-powers to have. But to go creating 'mini-MADS' all over the world, is total madness.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I don't really understand your position on this one Simey.

"Mutually Assured Destruction" ONLY exists and 'balances' itself if the destruction threat is *drumroll* MUTUAL!

Your enemies HAVE to be armed with nukes too to have the other side of the coin.

I'm putting this from Israel's POV. There are three scenarios that I think Israel will consider. They are best, acceptable, and unacceptable. Then there is yours, which I think would be unthinkable:

1. If they are the only nuclear power in the region, they are obviously more powerful than anyone else. That's the situation now.

2. If their nuclear edge is matched, then the worst that can happen in terms of the balance of power is that they lose their edge, and enter strategic parity. However, it is a strategic parity that still allows them to deter both a conventional or a nuclear attack.

That's one of the features of MAD. Everyone in a MAD situation fears anything that might tip you over into a nuclear exchange. While Wohlstetter and others postulated graduated deterrance, nobody ever had much confidence that nuclear war could be contained. Therefore it discourages conventional war as well as nuclear attack.

3. Another scenario is the possibility that Israel disarms and her opponents still go ahead and get nukes. Why wouldn't they? It would reverse the advantage that Israel currently has.

Your solution: disarmament by Israel and restraint by her neighbors requires a degree of trust that I don't think exists. Therefore, I think that Israel will act rationally, and keep its nukes. I'm not saying what Israel should do from out perspective. I'm saying what Israel will do from its perspective.


Eklipse: by structural mechanism I mean that MAD works as a theory because of its structure. It doesn't require any political element. MAD is basically game theory.

[Lerkfish]

MAD only works if all parties have the same risk/benefit ideology, and if the countries are relatively remote from each other, so that an all out strike against A would not necessarily result in fallout wiping out B as well.
Between US/USSR, both sides were more alike in risk/benefit ideology than you might think.
As Sting once sang "The russians love their children, too...." And their geography was sufficiently remote.

The problem with developing a MAD scheme in the middle east, is that all parties do NOT have the same risk/benefit ideology, and they live right up on top of each other.

If Isreal's nukes cause a WMD race in the region, you might have a situation where Isreal would blink, knowing that the resulting fallout would also poison themselves, and on the opposite end, another country might NOT blink, being willing to annihilate BOTH countries, and let god sort 'em out. Or vice versa, with Isreal not willing to blink, etc.

MAD is an interesting idea, when the opponents are roughly matched, both in firepower, and cultural views concerning hostages. when the opponents are not in alignment, a MAD concept might be more destabilizing than a deterrent.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
This is one of those issues the Israel 'naysayers' if you will, are dead right about.

Israel does need to defend itself of course- conventionally.

Having nuclear arms however, is insane. A nuclear threat should exist (if it exists at all) to COUNTER another nuclear threat. Therefore Israel having nukes is INVITING everyone else in the region (including some of the most unstable nutcase regimes in the world) to arm themselves with nukes as well.

A superpower like the US having nukes is one thing- we've had our arsenal since 1945 and it's doubtful we'll ever put that genie back in the bottle.

Israel on the other hand upsets the balance of nuclear power in the Middle East by having such weapons.

The deterrence argument makes no sense in this case- if Israel is attacked it's likely to be in conventional form and possibly by some terrorist group. So they’d fire nukes off in response to a conventional threat? Or attack terrorists with them? Either option would be heavy handed to say the least, and probably start WWIII.

If Israel was threatened by another nation with a nuke (highly unlikely with Saddam out of the picture) the US would back them up with our own arsenal.

Having one themselves is just plain brain-dead- they hold all the nuke cards without having them 'on site' anyway, and officially having them invites everyone else to join the nuke party as well. Completely stupid.

Yup.
Plus the fact that nuclear arms won't do any good if Israel wants to spare its own citizens. The gamma radiation the precipitation of radioactive material won't be stopped by the wall.

Israel can still rely on the US arsenal, but a dismantlement (i. e. admission that they have ‘the bomb') would be a further push to peace without sacrificing any security.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I don't really understand your position on this one Simey.

"Mutually Assured Destruction" ONLY exists and 'balances' itself if the destruction threat is *drumroll* MUTUAL!

Your enemies HAVE to be armed with nukes too to have the other side of the coin.

If you're going to use a 'MAD' strategy, you're all but begging your enemy to arm themselves. What else can they do?

It seems to me akin to sitting in my house with a cannon pointed over at yours, and calling out "MAD"- then somehow expecting that you'll not go get a cannon yourself to counter my threat. (and achive what I'm calling for to begin with) Why they hell wouldn't you?

Personally, I'm not making any judgement call on Isreal being 'trusted' with nukes- just that officially having them (haven't they traditionally denied having them?) all but guarantees everyone else in the region seeking them too.

It'd be nice if we could dump our own nukes as well- but I'm a realist- I believe that since the weapons exist, it's a near impossibility that the US itself could totally disarm and expect everyone else will as well. I don't see the US or any other major power doing so realistically. Our own MAD strategy with the Soviets was an unfortunate outcome of both nations having the things, and no possibility that either side would just give them up.

It's an insane enough policy for the super-powers to have. But to go creating 'mini-MADS' all over the world, is total madness.

Bingo.
Thanx for writing that down, so I don't have to do it myself. There is no second side yet, no MAD scenario.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm putting this from Israel's POV. There are three scenarios that I think Israel will consider. They are best, acceptable, and unacceptable. Then there is yours, which I think would be unthinkable:

1. If they are the only nuclear power in the region, they are obviously more powerful than anyone else. That's the situation now.

2. If their nuclear edge is matched, then the worst that can happen in terms of the balance of power is that they lose their edge, and enter strategic parity. However, it is a strategic parity that still allows them to deter both a conventional or a nuclear attack.

That's one of the features of MAD. Everyone in a MAD situation fears anything that might tip you over into a nuclear exchange. While Wohlstetter and others postulated graduated deterrance, nobody ever had much confidence that nuclear war could be contained. Therefore it discourages conventional war as well as nuclear attack.

3. Another scenario is the possibility that Israel disarms and her opponents still go ahead and get nukes. Why wouldn't they? It would reverse the advantage that Israel currently has.

Your solution: disarmament by Israel and restraint by her neighbors requires a degree of trust that I don't think exists. Therefore, I think that Israel will act rationally, and keep its nukes. I'm not saying what Israel should do from out perspective. I'm saying what Israel will do from its perspective.


Eklipse: by structural mechanism I mean that MAD works as a theory because of its structure. It doesn't require any political element. MAD is basically game theory.

Your argument implies that the conventional forces of Israel's neighbors are capable of putting Israel in danger. We know that this isn't the case, especially when the US (and possibly other countries) help out.

I don't see how any of the neighboring countries would want to get into a conventional war with Israel, it would seal their fate. Rather, these countries choose similar tactics as they did in Iraq: either terrorism or guerrilla warfare. In both cases nukes are pretty useless (as well as a conventional army).

Thus your MAD scenario simply doesn't apply here, taking political realities into account.

[Shaddim]

What's the point in this? Israel's had nukes for over 30 years... it's not like they've gotten them in the last few months. Sounds to me like some of the "usual suspects" are trying to rake up BS and pressure Israel into a less defensible position. So what if the US has nukes. The US is only an ally, and we sure as hell aren't going to use nukes to defend Israel (or anyone else for that matter).

Since they're the ones who are outnumbered 500 to 1 over there, I don't blame them for refusing to give in on this issue. What's France, GB, Russia, etc. going to do? Flip them off while sitting behind their own ICBM arsenals? Yeah, that would look really sincere.

FWIW, I don't think Israel should have ever been given the oppertunity to gain such a stockpile, but the genie's already out of the bottle and no amount of wishing is going to force it back in.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
What's the point in this? Israel's had nukes for over 30 years... it's not like they've gotten them in the last few months. Sounds to me like some of the "usual suspects" are trying to rake up BS and pressure Israel into a less defensible position. So what if the US has nukes. The US is only an ally, and we sure as hell aren't going to use nukes to defend Israel (or anyone else for that matter).

Since they're the ones who are outnumbered 500 to 1 over there, I don't blame them for refusing to give in on this issue. What's France, GB, Russia, etc. going to do? Flip them off while sitting behind their own ICBM arsenals? Yeah, that would look really sincere.

FWIW, I don't think Israel should have ever been given the oppertunity to gain such a stockpile, but the genie's already out of the bottle and no amount of wishing is going to force it back in.

What do you mean by less defensible? I think the situation would be far more dangerous if its neighbors acquire nuclear parity.

Keeping them only encourages surrounding countries to get it, not only to prevent Israeli missile attacks, but also to avoid another Iraq scenario.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
[B]MAD only works if all parties have the same risk/benefit ideology, and if the countries are relatively remote from each other.. (snip)

The matter of distance is a good point. I think there's another factor with distance of the involved parties. The line between what is deterrence and what is outright provocation.

Example: The Soviets and US with missiles oceans apart from each other was mutual deterrence.

The Soviets putting missiles 40 miles off the US coast in Cuba crossed the line to outright provocation.

Likewise, I believe Israel already has deterrence by having the US a staunch ally. The same way Taiwan doesn’t need to directly nuclear arm itself against China. (That situation too, would be complete madness.)

Israel having nukes 'on site' is little different to me than Cuba having them. It’s not a matter of ‘trustworthiness’ of the nations in question; it’s a matter of their proximity to their enemies, and by having nukes they resemble my example of shoving a cannon out my window aimed at my neighbor, and expecting that won’t provoke him.

I fail to see how we can bitch about Cuba having missiles 40 miles off our coast or pretend we'd ever stand for such, and then not expect others in the M.E. not to feel provoked by Israel having nukes aimed at them.

So Israel has had nukes since the 60's. Did I just imagine it, or has this always been 'unofficial'? I didn't think Israel outright admitted it had nukes, even though most know they do. It seems to me that a denial of such would mean they must recognize the provocative implications of having them. Maybe I imagined they denied it.

And yes, call it naive, but I believe they should scrap whatever nukes they have. Barring nuts like Saddam, I don't believe all others in the M.E. would take that as an excuse to arm themselves, any more than exists now- in fact as stated, I believe MORE reason exists now.

Personally, I'm hardly someone that wants Israel to 'disarm' itself in the conventional sense, and lie down and be pushed into the sea. As stated, I think Isreal already counters a nuke threat from the US, and no one is suggesting they should disarm conventionally.

Saddest thing is, by developing and deploying nukes to begin with, they opened a nasty can of worms on themselves.

[tie]

I don't think Israel can rely on the US for deterrence. US interests in the region are topped by oil. If there were a catastrophic terrorist attack against Israel sponsored, say, by Saudi Arabia, the US would invade Afghanistan . Seriously, I think terrorism might be a very significant threat, and the US response would possibly be unsatisfactory to Israel.

But is a nuclear deterrent even necessary? Now that Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have all been secured? (What, they haven't?!) Israel could disarm itself and rearm within a few months if it felt the need. Then again, Syria (which is harboring top members of Saddam's government) could be buying uranium from Niger right now and itself have a secret nuke within months.

I don't see the argument that not having nukes helps Israel, by not motivating proliferation. Officially or not, Israel has had them for a long time, without everyone else getting them. Israel is betting on the status quo surviving for a bit longer, and is probably right.

I can't see Israel choosing to disarm unless there are significant political reforms all around it. The situation at the moment is too volatile, and Israel disarming would not do much to defuse it. The tensions are political, economic, religious, but not so much nuclear.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by tie:
Seriously, I think terrorism might be a very significant threat, and the US response would possibly be unsatisfactory to Israel.

Terrorism shouldn't even be part of the nuclear equation.

Is there anyone who thinks a terrorist group is going to be deterred by "Mutually Assured Destruction" at the scale of nukes?

As we saw on 9/11- 'MAD' is actually part of a terrorist's entire modus operandi! As long as they achieve PART 1- the destruction of their enemy, they are willing to suffer PART 2- their own. That a whole bunch of innocents on both sides may die as part of this doesn't seem to be very high on a terrorists 'oh no please not that!' list either.

Terrorists and nuts like Saddam are going to try and get their hands on whatever weapons they can -nuclear or otherwise- anyway, whether Israel has them or not. I would hope the nuclear question in the M.E. would be based on nations that are actually capable of some level of ration and diplomacy, not complete wild cards like terrorists.

But is a nuclear deterrent even necessary?

That’s the whole question in a nutshell. Just what the hell is Israel’s nuclear 'deterrent' supposed to actually ‘deter’ other than the surrounding nations arming themselves to PROVIDE something to deter?

It’s like a crazy self-fulfilling prophecy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

That’s the whole question in a nutshell. Just what the hell is Israel’s nuclear 'deterrent' supposed to actually ‘deter’ other than the surrounding nations arming themselves to PROVIDE something to deter?

It’s like a crazy self-fulfilling prophecy.

Crash: I'm sorry, but you seem to have ignored 2/3 of my posts. I outlined 3 scenarios from Israel's POV. You have taken the middle one (MAD), and blurred it with the top one (the position today). I'll summarize:

1. Today: One-sided nuclear deterrance against conventional attack, with Israel on top (not MAD, unilateral deterrance).

2. Possible future: Mutual deterrance against conventional or nuclear attack (MAD).

3. Possible future: One-sided deterrance against Israel being able to defend itself conventionally, because Isreal disarmed and its neighbors went ahead and got nukes (not MAD, unilateral deterrance).

You seem to assume that #3 wouldn't happen if Israel disarmed. You assume that if Israel were to disarm its neighbors would not develop nuclear arms. Why would you assume that? Given the fact tht Israel has been attacked three times and that many of its neighbors and virtually all of their populations don't even accept its right to exist, is it really rational for Israel to take that gamble and risk scenario #3?

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Crash: I'm sorry, but you seem to have ignored 2/3 of my posts. I outlined 3 scenarios from Israel's POV. You have taken the middle one (MAD), and blurred it with the top one (the position today). I'll summarize:

1. Today: One-sided nuclear deterrance against conventional attack, with Israel on top (not MAD, unilateral deterrance).

2. Possible future: Mutual deterrance against conventional or nuclear attack (MAD).

3. Possible future: One-sided deterrance against Israel being able to defend itself conventionally, because Isreal disarmed and its neighbors went ahead and got nukes (not MAD, unilateral deterrance).

You seem to assume that #3 wouldn't happen if Israel disarmed. You assume that if Israel were to disarm its neighbors would not develop nuclear arms. Why would you assume that? Given the fact tht Israel has been attacked three times and that many of its neighbors and virtually all of their populations don't even accept its right to exist, is it really rational for Israel to take that gamble and risk scenario #3?

See my post above.

A conventional attack is not likely, rather a continuation of terrorist attacks or alternatively guerrilla warfare. Nuclear deterrence won't help against those two (see 9/11 and Iraq).

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Terrorism shouldn't even be part of the nuclear equation.

Is there anyone who thinks a terrorist group is going to be deterred by "Mutually Assured Destruction" at the scale of nukes?

As we saw on 9/11- 'MAD' is actually part of a terrorist's entire modus operandi! As long as they achieve PART 1- the destruction of their enemy, they are willing to suffer PART 2- their own. That a whole bunch of innocents on both sides may die as part of this doesn't seem to be very high on a terrorists 'oh no please not that!' list either.

Terrorists and nuts like Saddam are going to try and get their hands on whatever weapons they can -nuclear or otherwise- anyway, whether Israel has them or not. I would hope the nuclear question in the M.E. would be based on nations that are actually capable of some level of ration and diplomacy, not complete wild cards like terrorists.




That’s the whole question in a nutshell. Just what the hell is Israel’s nuclear 'deterrent' supposed to actually ‘deter’ other than the surrounding nations arming themselves to PROVIDE something to deter?

It’s like a crazy self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is an excellent argument and the same one I use for why regime changing countries is ineffective against terror -- pre-emptively invading a country is akin to a nuke as far as how much irrevocable impact it has on the country. It is like swatting fleas with an elephant gun: Totally disproportionate and therefore ineffective.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
What do you mean by less defensible? I think the situation would be far more dangerous if its neighbors acquire nuclear parity.

Keeping them only encourages surrounding countries to get it, not only to prevent Israeli missile attacks, but also to avoid another Iraq scenario.

It's been 30 years, don't you think they would have done that by now if they could? It's not like they're waking up this morning saying, "OMG! Israel has NUKES! We completely forgot!"

[itai195]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
See my post above.

A conventional attack is not likely

That's a short term view... The impetus for a conventional attack has always been present, though perhaps such an attack is currently unlikely.

That said, an important reason why a conventional attack is not currently likely is because Israel's neighbors fear that even if they were victorious, Israel would still be capable of launching a last ditch nuclear attack. While Israel has such a nuclear deterrent, a conventional attack is unlikely and neighboring countries (eg Syria) have instead turned to support for terrorist groups. I think it's fair to say that if Israel had no such deterrent, we would be much more likely to see a conventional attack and that terrorism, though unacceptable, is probably preferable to years of open warfare. At least, that's what I would guess to be Israel's POV in this matter. I think Simey has it right, and that Israel is taking a rational, pragmatic view rather than an idealistic leap of faith.

What I would grant is that prospects for peace with the Palestinians would likely improve if the balance of power were more equal between the two sides. Unfortunately, I don't think that situation will ever happen because it ignores the very real threat to Israel posed by its neighbors. That's why I've said all along on this forum that a middle east peace plan has to be comprehensive -- with realistic security guarantees from Israel's neighbors and the Palestinians, creation of a Palestinian state and Israeli nuclear disarmament.

I'm not sure how one can take the indefensible position that a conventional attack is unlikely, when I see protesters even here in the US calling for "pushing the Jews into the sea." And it's by a remarkably ironic, and saddening, twist of logic that these people claim to support peace and justice.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
See my post above.

A conventional attack is not likely, rather a continuation of terrorist attacks or alternatively guerrilla warfare. Nuclear deterrence won't help against those two (see 9/11 and Iraq).

That's true, and I don't diasagree at all. However, you don't just defend aganst the likely danger and ignore the rest.

[macvillage.net]

Israel will scrap them.

After use.

I'd be willing to put a few dollars down that the time to Israel launching it's first Nuk will be < 1000 days from this post.

[saab95]

Originally posted by Logic:
'Scrap nuclear arms' Israel urged


What will happen? Nothing, I guess.

Discuss!

Most of the World Community would want to see Israel vanish into thin air.

The World community is the world's worst judges.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Israel will scrap them.

After use.

I'd be willing to put a few dollars down that the time to Israel launching it's first Nuk will be < 1000 days from this post.

Yeah, because you just KNOW how much they've been wanting to launch one... seeing as how they've NEVER had so many troubles in the M.E.. I mean heck, they've only had them ~36 years. You're right, they're quite a trigger-happy bunch.

I'll be looking for Israel to set off nukes about the same time Christ comes back on a Zeppelin or comet. Ok fellers, get yer bags packed!

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by saab95:
Most of the World Community would want to see Israel vanish into thin air.

The World community is the world's worst judges.

Sure.
What a convenient way to stop thinking by telling the others that the only thing they ever wanted is to eradicate Israel.

Your comment is such a useful input in this discussion.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Yes, doubtful it will happen.

Dear Isreal,

We really don't like you. We never have. We'd like to run you into the ocean and never have to deal with you again. So please, pretty please, voluntarily disarm so we can destroy you easily.

Sincerely,

Hamas
Syria
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Etc.

And that right there is hitting the nail on the head.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And that right there is hitting the nail on the head.

How so?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
This is an excellent argument and the same one I use for why regime changing countries is ineffective against terror --

I doubt very much it's the same reasoning- my example certainly has nothing to do with most of the world’s continual looking the other way on Saddam's actions.


The removal of Saddam Hussein from power will probably end up being one of the single most stabilizing actions in the Middle East in history.

Also neutralizing Iraq will be more reason than ever for Israel to take the initiative (hopefully, someday) and get rid of its nukes- when Saddam was in power and still hemming and hawing and bullcrapping the UN and everyone else about having WMDS himself- HE was a primary reason for Israel to itself remain WMD armed.

They could always claim a deterrent against Saddam's Iraq, and rightly so. Saddam did lob chemically-armed missiles at them for no other reason than a braindead anti-Israel 'strategy' during the Gulf War. There's no good reason to believe he wouldn't have lobbed whatever else he was able to acquire over time up to and including nukes.

Israel, if it ever WMD-disarmed, should demand thorough and regularly scheduled inspections of surrounding nations to insure (as much as possible) that they don't acquire nukes.

And should another Saddam type nutcase arise who won't play ball with that process to the letter of the required agreement- then yes Virginia, conventional military force might be required once again. (I know, I know, heaven forbid!)

I actually think Israel could buy itself quite a bit of leverage in such a process, by disarming nuclearly, and submitting to inspections itself.

Another side note to this whole discussion- I’ve never seen any evidence -other than Saddam’s potential threat against Iraq- that have ever even come close to warranting a nuclear response. If Israel has had nukes since the 1960’s- they’ve already failed to ‘deter’ several conventional attacks.

So the conventional one-sided ‘MAD’ deterrent argument to me seems already deflated. I don’t see how you could have a one-sided ‘MAD’ anyway- that’s really just OSAD- One-Sided Assured Destruction, with the other side encouraged to ‘upgrade’ itself to ‘mutual’ status.

I understand the argument that Israel’s neighbors may acquire nukes anyway- so demand rigorous inspections. Yes, despite the miserable failure with Saddam’s regime of the inspection process (due to Saddam’s nature of non-compliance more than the process itself) I still believe an adhered to inspections process could work- but Israel would have to submit to it too. It seems to me a better plan than the situation now with fewer inspection requirments of the surrounding nations.

Even if some terrorist group acquired WMDs- I fail to see Israel being able to respond with their own WMDs- no matter what a terrorist is armed with, WMDs are not an anti-terror weapon, period. So some group manages to set off a nuke in Israel- as horrible as that prospect is- what do you do in response? Just fire nukes off at an entire nation, torching everything in order to get at the terrorists? I don’t personally see that ever being any kind of viable option in today’s world.

I still maintain, the only logical deterant in the ME situation, is having your enemies (at the national level) arm themselves in kind.

[thunderous_funker]

I think people are forgetting geography. Such proximity to your enemy makes the idea of a nuclear deterrent to a conventional attack a completely bogus bluff. Israel can't exacly lob a nuke at massing Syrian/Iranian/Egyptian forces on the Golan Heights and not basically kill itself.

This is why Saddam felt pretty comfortable lobbing SCUDS at Israel during the Gulf War without worrying too much about Israel retaliating with a nuke. Not to mention coalition forces on the ground.

There is also the matter of reaction and response times. The US/USSR parity was almost entirely based on the fact that we'd have plenty of time to detect a Soviet launch, do our own launch, and squirrel away the president, cabinet, Dr. Strangelove and the Rockettes before any of the shyt hit their intended fans. No such luxory in the middle east.

So Israel's nukes might deter Pakistan, but they're essentially useless against Syria or Iran. That is, of course, unless you consider your own suicide to be an effective deterrent.

Israel has no threat from conventional forces in the region. The only state that had any chance to challenge Israel militarily has recently undergone a rather radical change in management. Everybody else has long ago figured out that officially declaring war on Israel is a stupefyingly bad idea. And the imbalance has only increased since that last arab humiliation.

The only legitimate security issue for Israel is terrorism and guerilla warfare. Neither of which, as already pointed out, are deterred much by threat of force--conventional or nuclear. I suppose Israel could nuke Gaza, but for right now they seem to prefer living above ground.

And last but not least, Israel's enemies are not going to seriously pursue nuclear weapons as a challenge to Israel's military supremacy. They're going to develop chemical and biological weapons which offer considerably more bang for the buck. So rather than a mid-east arms race ending in some kind of strategic parity, it would probably escalate into something far more dangerous and less stable. Best to simply nip the arms race in the bud rather than vainly hope it developes into something we can manage. I don't believe it will.

As for the game theory behind MAD, it should be noted that the very smart man who essentially invented the idea was a very vocal advocate of launching nukes against Russia. According to his endless game theory on the subject, that was the only way to win. Let's be glad policy wasn't ultimately determined by game theory.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yeah, because you just KNOW how much they've been wanting to launch one... seeing as how they've NEVER had so many troubles in the M.E.. I mean heck, they've only had them ~36 years. You're right, they're quite a trigger-happy bunch.

I'll be looking for Israel to set off nukes about the same time Christ comes back on a Zeppelin or comet. Ok fellers, get yer bags packed!

Considering all the money Israel has put into learning from other nuclear disasters (Chernobal, Japan in WWII, etc.) for the hope of learning how to calculate fallout, and other side effects...

they run a serious potential.

Only now is the world getting close to being able to use percision nuclear weapons, and know what the consequences will be.

Note India and Pakistan have been doing the exact same thing.

As soon as they find the formula... it will happen.

I'm betting on brilliant scientists being able to figure it out. the foreign policy part was figured out long ago. It's just waiting for the science to catch up.

Unlike the US, which used Nukes, all 3 countries need to use them close to their borders. Hence the delays.

That's also why Chemical/Bio weapons research is very advanced in all 3 countries. A much easier to contain weapon (though still not that easy, particularly bio).

In situations like these 3 countries face... you don't build them just to show off... they are designed with particular targets already mapped and planned.

If Israel didn't plan to use them... they would have used scrapping them, as a method of getting Pakistan to do the same (and India).

Israel refuses to use them as a method to bring peace. Same with India and Pakistan.

More reason why they might as well just launch. Everyone there is eventually going to die in war anyway. The nuke's are a bit more humane for most. Less suffering, and everyone gets what they want.