looks like we're all a bit afraid to touch this one, Graeme. You are a formidable verbal sparring opponent.  

Oh, I don't really want to spar on this one. I don't even want to think it.

I was struck with a real  horror as I went through the Janes report. The fact that Israel has the bomb has been known for a long time. But when I saw the estimated numbers of them, the strangely long range, and the missile firing subs, I had a sinking feeling in my stomach. As a defensive weapon for the region, it made no sense at all. Ten short range missiles would more than do the job.

I really don't understand what's going on. We are, they tell us, fighting a war against terror. There's no such thing. That's like fighting a war against bullets or a war against wearing uniforms. Terror is not a person. It's method of fighting. It's the "war on t error" that is causing terrorism.

So why are we getting into all these wars? Oil, yes. But that can't be the whole story. Why is Israel so powerful in the formation of US policy? What is the US - Israel relationship all about?

Now, Russia has announced that any US support for an attack on Iran would be "unacceptable"" In diplomatic language, that means Russia will attack - somebody. Why?  Does Israel see a large nuclear stockpile as a means of gradually switching its alliances from the US if the US continues its decline?

I see a US in a state of national hysteria as well as economic decline - which cannot fail to have an effect on us. I see a welter of international relationship all out of kilter. There are huge changes take place - I can see that much. What I can't see is what the various players are aiming at.

I don't want to spar. I just want to find out that what I'm thinking can not be happening.

 .It is certainly thought provoking.

A friend who has been active in the niddle east peace movement said to follow the money. Israel's population of seven million or so cannot possibly afford all that weaponry. So if you a flow of aid money given by the US - on condition it is to be spent to buy American weaponry. It is, in effect, a subsidy to the US arms industry.

That has some truth to it. But the subs come from a German shipyard. (Of course, who knows how might own the German shipyard).

Whatever it might be, there can be no doubt that Israel's seven plus million people have greater destructive power per person than any nation in history. And it has the capacity to strike anywhere.

This is an accomplishment far beyond Israel's economic or technical possibilities. Where did alll the help come from? Where did the uranium come from? The chemicals and tiny life forms for poisons? What was the motive of the donors? What are the motives of Israel? They certainly cannot be defence.

Israel has never cared about the law.  It's has been running rough shod through it since it's inception.  It doesn't suprise me in the least that they would also join in the sink about anyone possibly even thinking of developing weapons either.

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

I'm certainly not surprised at Israel ignoring the law. What causes me to wonder is the enormous "assestance" for a nation of seven million to get the money, expertise and supplies to do that. Was it more than one nation? If not, was it the US that xupplied Israel with technical skills and equipment and enriched uranium to build such a huge arsenal? And whoever it was - what was the motive?

Money cannot be the whole story.

 I wonder if 'Dubbya' knows anything about this?  

Living in a reality where you fear for your existence does strange things to a person's or to  nation's psyche.  ANd that is where ISrael has been since 1948  True some political personages both in and outside Israel make a habit of making sure nobody forgets that but it is based in a reality.

Not that this excuses going over the top in the name of protection. But it does explain it.  ANd it can not be forgotten in the process of trying to find a solution.

quite so, though I would say the origins of the fear and of the israeli contempt for world opinion predate 1948. Through the 1930s into the 40s, and even after 1945, most of the world, including the US and Canada, would not lift a finger to help Jews in Europe.  Every Jewish child learns that truth from the earliest possible age. It left the Jews disdainful of world opinion, and determined to look after themselves, and only themselves. The whole nature of Judaism changed into the brural style of the current Israeli government.

As a result, Jewish terrorists were active in Palestine even during and after the second world war with attacks on both Palestinians and British. The early leaders of an independent Israel were ex-terrorists.

European Jews, denied entry for several years to Canada or the US, swarmed into Palestine illegally, defying British warships and troops to do it. The idea that the UN then created the state of Israel is pure myth. The UN made the first step to doing so with a vote by the general assembly. But there was no possibility the council would ever approve it. (Nor would it matter. The UN had no legal right to give anybody's land to anybody else.) So Israel delcared independence unilaterally.

To the arabs, these Jews were simply part of the same Europeans who had been bombing, gassing, invading, setting up puppet rulers, and taking resources for over half a century. In fact, the arabs were right. And the new invaders promptly pushed the Palestinians aside.

The early zionists had wanted a homeland, but had not advocated Palestine. That came later. And western Europe played a role in the change. At some poinit, certainly by the mid 60s, some western countries, notably the US,  had changed their policies toward Israel. Israel got the bomb by 1967, almost certainly with US help. Why?

The US probably saw Israel as a secure base from which to control the region. And it is largely US aid that had made it possible to expand Israel's stockpile of modern weaponry.

None of this is done out of friendship. In international affairs, there are no friends, only convenient relationships. Internationally, it's a world of harlots and pimps.

So exactly what is the US  using Israel for?

And why is Israel able to exert such influence over US and Canadian political life? And exactly what is Israel getting out of this relationship? Obviously, whatever it expects to get goes far beyond defence.

 A lot of important questions there Graeme.  Don't have all the answers, that's for sure.  And I probably have just as many questions as you do --- all boiling down to "Where is this all going?"

Think you and I have agreed that the U.S. is in a rapid decline - and I don't think anyone really expected that to happen to the extent that it is happening.  As this decline continues, the rest of the world, I think, is trying to think 10-20-30 years out about who is going to be the top dog.  Russia?  China?  Belize?

So while Israel has exploited beyond reason its relationship with the States, through AIPAC pumped millions into practically owning the U.S. Congress - it now has to consider a future where its previous protectorate (The U.S.), has become not much more than a limp noodle.  Israel will want to be a bigger fish in the pond.

The U.S. just can't continue on the way it is going.  It's debt is cataclysmic.  And so the saying goes, looting the treasury is the last thing the king does before high tailing it out of town.

America has shown its true colours.  For no good reason started two wars that will not end just to keep the military industrial complex greased and continue the manipulation of oil.  Brought the country to near bankruptcy, and when no one was looking, the robber barons made off with the rest.

Israel has to see that...   and has to be considering a world post-U.S.-superpower.

ps - pre-Balfour, Baron Rothschild considered buying Uganda for use as a Jewish homeland, how different a world it would be if had!

I'm afraid we may be in for a lively summer. Things may be very difficult domestically in both Britain and the US.

It's hard to predict where China is going. It all depends on whether the leadership can maintain its hold. I'm not sure it can. And any speedy political change in China would be dangerous to it.

EVerywhere you look there is dangerous economic and political disarray. It will be good times for demagogues.

Israel is completely surrounded by countries that want to wipe it out of existence and kill all the Israeli people. They should be armed to the teeth. I LOVE that they have nukes and if Iran for example gets close to having them I'm glad that there's at least two countries (U.S. and Israel) who can use extreme force in ending that threat, up to and including nuking their nuclear facilities before a bomb can be completed.

a) there is no evidence that Iran is working on a bomb. The only claims of such are coming out of Israel and the US.

b)It a neighbour attacked Israel, and Isael fired even a small number of its missiles, the whole region would be blasted and poisoned - including Israel.

c) It Israel has some 300 bombs and Iran were to get a bomb, or ever seveal - that would mean any nuclear war would obliterate Iran. Countries that have tiny stockpiles don't go looking for nuclear wars. It's the ones with big stockpiles who are the worry.

d) Iran has not said it wasn't to kill all Israelis. That was a misreadiing of a speech that translators corrected years ago. The American press has completely ignored the correctin.

e) The only middle east people facing obliteration are the Palestinnians of Gaza. And it is not the Iranians who are threatening them.

f) If Israel were to launch such an attack, it would have implications for both Russis and China - and likely India and Pakistan, all nuclear powers. Nobody can even guess the outcome of that.

g. The US can, indeed, use extreme force - as in South Vietnam, and AFghanistan. It has, to say the least, been countereffective. The use of Nuclear force by the US would almost certainly set off a war that would destroy all of us.

h) take a look at the history of Iran. In 1950, it was a democracy, and moving to a secular society. The government was overthrown by the US, Britain, and France as a favour to their oil companies. Iran was put under a brutal dictator, the shah. That's what drove iranians back to Islam, and the current government.

The defeat of Iran would make Israel far the dominant power in the region. But it can't destroy Iran on its own. Thus the stories about Iran the nuclear threat. Obama clearly does not believe it, but it under severe pressure from a congress leavinly controlled by Israeli lobbyists.

The US oil companies have always wanted to get control back of Iranian oil That makes China nervous because ti depends heavily on Iranian oil

Israel has a large and fast growing minority who want to kill all arabs. They don't get quoted in the American press. II suggest you look up an Israeli newpaper called Al Ha'aretz. That minority is a strong infuence on Nethanyahu.

If anybody uses extreme force, we're all done for. So try to temper your LOVE for any country that has nuclear weapons.

You make an excellant point regarding the provisionment of weapons to countries by the west. From what I understand the US, the Russians, the Swedes, and China are the number one exporters of weapons.  Not just to the Middle East but to Africa as well.

Is there not some way we change the focus from the issues in Africa and the Middle East to the issues involving the producers of these weapons?

War and weapons are the major source of the US debt. They're also a major source of business income and employment. The weapons industry is all that's holding California from sliiding under the oceam.

 I feel very sad for people who think arming themselves to the teeth is a good idea.  What a warped view of the world.  Yes, let's all sit back and think about how bombing the shit out of people has led to good things, and how it is the best demonstration of God's love for all of us.

True enough Granton.  There is also the other inconvenient fact that using a nuke on someone else means you are using it on yourself and your descendants.  We all live downwind and downstream of ourselves.  Pollution and/or  nuclear fallout lands on us all eventually.

As I look at a world packed with crises -economic, military, moral, social - all coming to a boiling point, I'm aftraid we are entering a summer with more news than we really want.

The worst part of it is that nuclear bombs are tactically useless.

Use them and you will turn the whole world against you and will probably bomb you back to the stone age in response.

The diameter of a bomb's destructive area doubles when the force (kilotons) is squared. The military advantages are limited, they mostly work on densely populated areas. Killing civilians only enrages an army - who are usually camped away from built up areas.

Nuclear bombs are really paper tigers in the long run.

That's why the US has been talking up the idea of "tactical" nukes for decades. They can now make them small enough to be conained in a rocket only six inches in diameter. The idea is to make them viable battlefield weapons. However, They are still so powerful that the idea of battlefield us is, as you say, pretty impractical.

Well, they could. But given the range of mortars, it might be hard to find volunteers for the mortar brigade.

The last time I heard of "Battlefield Nukes" it was a taboo subject with the Canadian NATO forces in Germany in 1972, when I was there. This was when almost half of the conventional arms in the world were pointed at each other across the East/West German border.

The Canadian CF105 fighters were armed with "tactical nukes"

In case of an invasion, nothing was getting across that no man's land alive.

Nowadays, conventional arms can achieve the same ends with less controversy.

Most of what you said ranges from iffy to crap but this stands out. This statement would be true IF the leaders of the countries having small amounts of nukes are sane and reasonable. Tell me does Adminijad (sic) strike you as sane and reasonable? I expect that major countries like China and Russia will not start a nuclear war because they're too close to the top of the food chain, they have too much to lose. It will start from some tin pot dictator, probably from a theocracy or perhaps a megalomaniac in a banana republic. Someone who is full of ego and empty on good sense and who had just barely gotten enough power to be trouble.

 theocracy?  full of ego?  empty on good sense?  enough power to be trouble?  yeah, that sounds like a country I could name.  same one as the title of this thread?

An I'm sure if you were an Iranian you would feel perfectly secure that Israel and the US have no aggressive feelings toward you - and therefore would find it reasonable that Israel should have 300 nukes (but for what?)

Israel has been attacked by arab countries. Yes. That was forty years ago. Since then, it has attacked more than been attacked,and has held Palestinians in vile conditions, while stealing more of the little land left to them. It has also begun ethnic cleansing itself of Palestinian Israelis.

I know the image of the Iranians as crazy, and therefore not to be trusted to get even one bomb. So why isn't the world nearly so worried about North Korea which is undoubtedly crazy,and already has five or so? Why the passion for Iran?

And you think a nuclear weapon would be used on by somebody who is crazy? So you think President Truman was crazy? He was the only person who ever used nukes in war. However, it was also advocated by Nixon and by hysterical Hillary. And the Israeli leadership has several times spoken publicly of using its nukes.

The reality is that the only person likely to use nukes is one who has a large arsenal, and so can retaliate against any response. And, presumaly, it would do so as a last resort.

So look at what's happening. The US is in serious economic and military decline The only weapon it has to guarantee a victory is the nuclear arsenal. Israel depends on the US for its survival. And its ally is rapidly going down the tubes. If anybody first uses mukes, it is likely to be a hail mary by either Israel or the US.

Meanwhile, the US,  Britaiin and France used to control the oil of Iran. Back in 1950, Iran had a democracy, largely a secular one, whose leader wanted a larger share of the oil profits becaue foreigners were making billions out of it while Iranians were living in poverty. So the US,britain and france overthrew the elected elector leader, and installed a torturing butcher, the shah. That's when Iranians retreated into islam, and elected a government heavily tied (like the government sof the US and Israel) to religious fundamentalism. And they took control of their own oil

So, let's see now;. Why would some people in the US want to go towar with Iran?

Meanwhile, Israel dominates every country in the region, except Iran. Now, why would Israel want to bomb Iran, and bring American domance back to it?

And why do UN inspectors say regularly they do not believe Iran is developing a bomb? And why don't the US news media ever report that?

And if Iran is a threat to world peace, why are Russia and China not alarmed? Aren't they part of the world?

A question for Judd.

I knew the Americans had a tactical nuke small enough to fit an eight inch shell. They gave up on it because such a big gun it was too cumbersome for anything but a siege. I had assumed they must have been able to make one for an air portable missile, but didn't know they had - and I'm even more surprised to hear that Canadian aircraft were arned with them.

Were they down to the size of WW2 rockets? five inches or so?

The Iranian president has sufficed to say that Israel will be "wiped off the map" and probably has the backup of the Mullahs, mujadeens, the terrorist cells, the PLA(palestinians) and is considered a hot spot for resources and they do indeed have military might. 

Front line is a good program and keeps with what is current in that crisis. Not CNN which is american propaganda.

Interesting how it is considered to be the centre of Intrigue in the "last days" in biblical prophecy. Once it became an established state most of the middle eastern conflict revolved around it.

I heard North Korea was more a threat with the stockpiling of nukes, they pay homage to their president like hes a god himself.

I also heard and watched that China is the next global powerhouse economically.l

The Iranian president did not say that. He was quoted as having said that in the American and Canadian news media. Some, very few, later admitted that is not what he said.

I can also think of a great many world leaders who have threatened nuclear war or who have urged. it. The names of Richard Nixon and Hilary Clinton spring to mind. As well, Israeli leaders have several times threatened to "bomb arab countries into the stone age", a quotation they picked up from an American air force general who promised to do that to Cambodia, and did kill half a million innocent people.

Actually, the only country that has ever used nuclear bombs is the US.

Boy. gotta watch them there Iranians.

I don't know how big they were, but they would fit under the wings.

You will go to any lenght to try and slander Israel and to provide cover for enemies won't you. I was just on the thread about "fundys" and those characteristics certainly apply to you. The facts mean nothing to you. If you hear something bad about Israel it has to be true, no matter what the source is. If you hear something bad about her enemies, it can't possible be true. Oh Adminijad is such a sweet guy, he'd never hurt a fly. Grow up. He's a foaming at the mouth radical that wants to annihilate Isreal and has said so REPEATEDLY.

The only thing wrong with the idea of bombing Iran and a few other countries in the region back to the stone age is that they're practically in the stone age to begin with. Israel needs the threat of overwhelming power to hold these monsters at bay and it's possible even that won't be enough. Second best would be a quick obliteration of anybody who tries anything. That's dicey for several reasons but if Israel does become involved in a war I think a quick one is better than a long one.

Be honest Greame, the entire purpose of this thread is to commit slander. That seems to be your main pasttime.

You embarrass yourself by your display of ignorance....

And just so know, slander is when you say something that is untrue, libel is when you write it down.

good name calling. Not much that I would call information.

I have been called an anti-semite, usually by people - and I suspect Jon71 is one of them - who doesn't know what a semite is, and hasn't the faintest idea of the national origins of the majority of the population of Israel.

Tell you what I am, Jon. I'm an anti-Zionist. I wasn't at first. I became one as I realized that Zionism was destroying Judaism -exactly as Islamic terrorism is destroying Islam.

But it's okay. You can call me names. I don't give a damn.

 The problem with people who hold extremist views is that it promotes extremist views on the other side. Iranian president Ahmadinejad is admittedly a loose cannon but don't paint all Iranians with the same brush. Remember the protests that occurred in Iran last summer after the presidential elections. Ahmadinejad is not a very popular guy in Iran. The support he does have comes from the Iranians who think the Palestinians are getting a raw deal from Israel, especially over the settlements issue. Ironically it's the intransigence of Netanyahu and  his extremist allies that is helping to keep Ahmadinejad in power.

Oh, all the intrigue and mystery of Dan Brown....

It isn't all that intriguing or mysterious.

Isreal for years does not officially confirm nor deny nuclear weapons. Everyone knows they had/have the capability and they knew they had the weapons. Isreal said they did and then pretended they never said it and people pretended they didn't hear it.

All the hand-wringing of how they got them and from who and why questions...  Those are very easily answered and have been. There was a cold war and bomb fever....

Late 1950's France helped build the Dimona reactor, which is still the source of Israel's plutonium--its main nuclear weapon fuel. Norway supplied heavy water 1959 and US more in 1963 when it started operation.

France gave Israel design info and it is long suspected Isreal had a nuclear bomb even BEFORE the 1967 Six Day War.

The US inspected Dimona 1965-1969 and in 1968 the CIA told US President Johnson Isreal had a nuclear bomb. Isreal started limiting inspection and Nixon called the inspections off.

In 1974, Israeli President Ephraim Katzir said that "it has always been our intention to develop a nuclear potential ... We now have that potential."

In 1979, a US sattelite and other intelligence said Israel tested nuclear weapons on the southern coast of  Africa.

Where and how did they get the uranium? It has been widespread speculation for 50 years, since the 1960's, that uranium came from a nuclear materials plant in Pennsylvania.

In 1981, after Israeli planes destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor (also built by France),Moshe Dayan said: "We do have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, and if the Arabs are willing to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, then Israel should not be too late in having nuclear weapons, too."

We know what Mordecai Vanunu said about Dimona in 1986.

We know what "Les Deux Bombes" (1982) by French journalist Pierre Pean said. Official files say Dimona was built 2-3 times larger and was always to be capable of bomb quantities and that was the intent.

What is new?

Nothing.

What we do not like talking about is that ANY country with nuclear power can and likely does have nuclear weaponry. Sure, they promise they won't to get it, but then again....It is whether they have declared it or not.

Then the bigger, better, longer range, faster, smaller, more compact... kicks in.... computers, cell phones, cars.... nukes....

Keeping up with the Joneses

If you ask me, there are far more countries than the 8-9 declared and undeclared countries with nuclear weapons (they for some reason say Israel has not declared, but it seems Katzir made that declaration and it has been repeated)

We just act suprised.

I didn't realize the French involvement, that's very interesting the support from Europe.

And maybe I am just paying more attention to it now than I used to, but it sure seems to me that Israel is ramping the rhetoric and beating the war drums - when the rest of region would rather take a breather from killing women and children...  my 2 cents.

I never called you an anti-semite, primarily because I get the impression you enjoy that. This isn't the first time you've tried to claim that title when no one else used the term. I was saying you are anti-Israel. Not quite the same thing even if it's in the ballpark.

Anti-Israel is the same ballpark as being anti-semite? Hardly. The majority of Israelis are not semites. (The Palestinians who live in Israel are semites, though.)

I am not even anti-Israel. I'm anti the Israeli government and those people who support it.

I'm also anti the Harper conservatives and people who support them.

Oh, gee, there I go confessing to being anti-Canadian.

How do anti-Americans in the US vote, Democrat or Republican?

Jon, there are few points you have to understand. Think these through.

1. What would happen if Israel fired a nuclear warhead?

2. Believe it or not, many arabs think Israel doesn't like them, and might use nukes against them. Accordingly, they will all come to want nukes, too. Now, tiny Israel was able to get material and to build bombs over forty years ago. Arabs can do that, too. And if you bomb Iran that will surely raise the level of desire for nukes to shoot back with. Then you wil have several nuclear powers in the middle east. Then what?

3. At least one moslem nation already has nukes.There are many, many Pakistan scientists who are in the secrets. In those circumstances, is it wise to launch into what looks a lot like a war against Islam?

4. Saudi Arabia is now installing nuclear energy plants with equipment from Russia. Saudi Arabia is where ALL the 9/11 terrorists came from. Nuclear energy plants are the starting point for developing nuclear warheads.

StevieG

I googled the Wisconsin Project on nuclear arms control which is where I see you obtained most of the information for your last post. For readers who might be interested, this project bills itself as a non-profit, non partisan organization that operates in Washington DC under the auspices of the University of Wisconsin." Its purpose is to educate the public about weapons of mass destruction. There is info on nuclear bomb facts and sections called "Iran watch," and "Iraq watch." which is constantly being updated. A great website which I have bookmarked.   www.wisconsinproject.org

Ah, Beshpin. You have flashes of almost human intelligence. But you just can't hold the pace. Sad.

Try reading the F.A.S (Federation of American Scientists) article at  http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

or

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.html

The Wisconsin Project is another.... There is tons of "secrets" all over the place.

That is why I am shocked we act shocked.

The shock is not in learning about the existence of Israeli nukes. We've known that for a long time. The shock comes when you start thinking about the range of their missiles and the use of submarines to fire them. And you think of the number. That's when you realize that the notion that these weapons are final resort and purely defensive against local enemies makes no sense at all.

So what are they for?

or possibly for diplomatic muscle in Europe and Asia. US diplomatic muscle now rests entirely on its nuclear superiority. But the US is declining as a useful ally. Israel must realize that.

No, it won't aim at the US. There's no reason to. And there's also no reason for nukes against neighbours since destroying them would also mean destroying Israel. Nor would you need the subs for that.

300 nukes is a first strike arsenal, though. You got that part right.

In common usage people say "anti-semitic" to mean anti-Jewish. It doesn't matter what the original literal meaning of the word is, that is how 99% of people use it today. You like being part of the 1% who sticks to the original definition, which is fine to a point, but after a while it gets old. As for being anti-Israeli govt., and not anti-Israel, you're splitting a fine hair there. As for the U.S. I think anti-Americans vote Republican but I'm sure Republicans would say otherwise.

First, having nuclear weapons and using them are not the same thing. Mutually assured destruction (m.a.d.) may be a tenuous strategy but it's better than being defenseless. Also I don't want any other countries to have nukes, especially in the middle east. Pakistan has gone to war with India three times in the last century and now they both have nukes. That's troubling. Some Pakistanis are sympathetic to Al-Queda, Hamas and other terrorist groups. That's troubling. You're right about Saudi Arabia too. I don't want them to have nukes. Unfortunately that is MORE reason for Israel to keep a strong arsenal. I have no doubt that Israel would never fire first and hopefully the other heads of state with a nuclear option will know that retaliation would be extreme if they tried anything and that will deter them. There's no guarantee that will be the case, especially if a megalomaniac or theocratic extremist is in charge, but, it's still the best of poor options.

You're worried about theocratic extremists? How much do you know about religious trends in Israel? Partlicularly about the rapid rise of sects which closely resemble Islamic theogratic terrorism?

Forgive me for using words correctly. Ii think it's useful to use words that have a meaning, and  not just as swear words.

The fact that Isael has the nukes puts pressure on all its neighbours to get them, too. And they will get them. There are plenty of sources.

Any nuclear war in the middle east would be suicidal, quite true. You're heard of suicide bombers? There are fanatics on both sides.

who would israel retaliate against? Syria? It couldn't do so without destroying itself.

MAD will not work forever. Eventually, somebody will fire one, and the the lid comes off.

A country with a small arsenal is most unikely to start it, because it has no way of defying the retaliation. The one that starts it will be the one with a large arsenal, since it can hope its remaining missiles will be a deterrent to retaliation. 300 is a pretty large arsenal by wolrd standards.

With nuclear weapons around, mutual destruction is not the best of poor options. Anyone who would even suggest that is undoubyedly an extremist.

In any case, the world is full of megalomaniacs and theocratic extremists. Even in Israel.

I am very sure that the technology exists to map out every source of radiation on Earth wtih types and how much using satellite technology. If I can identify my car from space using Google, the government can read my licence plate from a satellite.

I would bet the government knows the location and type of every nuclear bomb on Earth.

I expect you're right.