http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061212/D8LVAPKG1.html




I have never understood why Israel has never just said they had nukes. Is it because they do not want UN inspections?

I found this very disturbing:

so we support israel, which everyone knows has nuclear weapons, in their decades-long public denial of having them?

cough, cough **double standard** cough, cough

i think this will be the upsetting issue of the day for me.

I really don't see this as a double standard.

And anyone that gives up nuclear secrets to another country, hell, any kind of classified material, is a traitor and should be in jail - especially in a democracy like Israel where their national security is constantly at risk. There are other ways of handling situations like that.

How is it NOT a double standard? Please explain...

Well a couple things. First of all I don't know all the facts so, this is only for what it's worth.

It is possible to support a country but not support each of their individual policies. IE we support Israel but do not support their stance on nuclear weapons.

Also I assume you are referring to Iran by saying it's a double standard. Iran is not the same as Israel because we are not allied with them and don't have friendly relations with them. As far as I know, no countries that do not already possess nukes are allowed to get them now - I was under the impression that the US and the UN oppose that. So if Israel has had nukes for decades, before we started disarming them, they are no different than the other countries that have had the same, except that they refuse to confirm or deny it (which would be the part that we don't support).

Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Israel did not sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Then why can't they admit they have nuclear weapons?

We've been through this before.

If the most hated nation on earth admits that it has nuclear weapons, then all of those nations who hate it, especially those that surround it on all sides, will feel justified in breaking their non-proliferation commitments and arming themselves. Israel isn't stupid. They know that the ABSOLUTE WORST THING that could happen to them is to have hostile Arab states with nuclear weapons, so anything they can do to prevent that from happeneing is a smart move on their part.

Whether acquiring nukes in teh first place was smart to that end is another matter to debate.

Good answer PD.

The theory behind nukes is deterence. If Israel admits to having them, the nations it's unfriendly with would justify getting nukes to deter Israel.

Israel is relatively unfriendly to it's neighbors as well. Some of that hatred is well-deserved.

Well, but Israel as any other country that is strongly tied to the world's economy, would only use them in veeery extreme conditions.

btw...everybody know that when como to physics, the jewish people kicks ass, of course Israel would have some nukes.

Are you kidding? How sure of this are you? How extreme do conditions have to be to obliterate the entire world?

That's the problem with the Israel argument, Israel is never, ever the aggressor for some people. It is always under dire threat when it has incredible military power, an arsenal of nukes, wealth, and unrecognizable legitimacy with quite a new nations.

I agree that sometimes Israel is the agressor, but they arent crazy to use nuclear weapons that would cause a big economical crisis that wouldnt help them at all.

I'm less concerned about an Israeli first strike than an American first strike. Seriously.

So....

If Israel having nukes doesn't deter it's unfriendly neighbors from using them, is there really a justification for Israel to have them?

exactly, which is why i go back to my double standard thing. if everyone (including israel's hostile neighbors) knew they had nukes even though they didn't publicly admit it, yet iran is still pursuing nuclear technology (not necessarily weapons, see below), does it matter? since the u.s. is such an advocate for israel, isn't it enough that we have nukes and that if anyone nuked israel we would blow them off the map?

regarding iran, what proof do we have that they are pursuing nuclear technology for weapons and not energy like they say they are? i am not familiar with all of the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so if any nuclear technology is against this treaty, then please correct me.

i am by no means a fan of iranian policy, but if you are a follower of the iraqi study group, you know we (we being the u.s.) should play nice with them.

slightly off-topic, has anyone read/heard about jimmy carter's new book about the israeli/palestinian situation? he was on the news hour with jim lehrer a few weeks ago and i was really surprised by a lot of the stuff he said. the message i got out of it is that israel (and the united states) have done almost nothing the last six years to support the peace process there and the israeli's continue to occupy palestinian land (i.e. the west bank). he also discussed the israeli hostage situation. apparently, when the palestinians took the soldier they immediately told israel they would exchange the soldier for the release of some of their women and children that were being held in israeli prisons. needless to say, i will be reading this book once i get through the remainder of the 9/11 commission report (i'm a little behind the times, i know).

Weird question.

What makes you raise this hypothetical? Do you believe that Israel's enemies are not deterred?

I must be missing something here because the rest of your post had nothing to do with a double standard. Do you know what a double standard means?

The justification to "have" them is that they already do have them because they got them decades ago. Whatever justification they had back then may or may not have been valid, but that has nothing to do with whether or not they are serving a purpose as being deterrents now.

As far as I'm concerned the only two questions that matter right now are:

Should Israel admit to having nukes?
and
Should Israel eliminate their own nuclear armaments, and if so, what justification is there for doing that?

The point is, they have them now, and whether or not they are justified makes no difference. Do you think every country with nukes should constantly analyze their reason for having something they got 50 years ago and if they find there to be no current justification they have to disarm them? That makes no sense.