 |
| |
|
|
Sonic
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
Dec 2001
time: 07:22
|
|
In my opinion everthing depends on situation... Several examples below:
1.Saddam declares jihad on Israel and encourages terrorists to destroy Israel, next day a "little" nuke from Iraq comes and hits Tel Aviv, wiping out the city and poisoning surroundings -- Israel should obviously nuke back
2.Saddam claims responsibility for a huge poisoned gas attack in Israel, which killed about 2000 people and injured for a life much more. Saddam also threatens more attacks to follow if Israel won't remove forces from West Banka and Gaza Strip in 24 hours and handle both territories to Iraq -- Israel should retalliate with conventional weapons
3.Saddam threatens Israel and then after a week some bacteriological weapon is used in Jerusalem. Nobody knows true details of the terror act but everyone thinks Saddam did it because he threatened Israel before -- Israel shouldn't retalliate on Iraq at all if it isn't known who seriously hosted attacks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:22
|
|
quote:
Any use of weapons is unacceptable to me. I don't differentiate very much between non-conventional and conventional weapons .... It's really weighting the unacceptable against the even less acceptable.
|
Bah....
Let's just say we disagree about pacifism 
quote:
Victims get always more sympathy than aggressors. This is not different in the Arab world. The Arabs feel themselves as vicitms by Jewish/American aggression (this is not a question what they are but what they feel.) Saddam will get more points as a victim than as an aggressor - but he will also get points as an aggressor. This is what makes the situation so dangerous. It is impossible to make him lose his cause with military - or not military - only. To get around this, in view of the "natural" differences of the Arab and Western world - requires very bright politicians, and I don't see anyone who would intend to and could handle this. |
I agree.
But I think that no bright politician can win the arab support, unless the current dictators are removed - forcefully. They control the media and set the mood in their country.
It's time to dump the victims attitude and we should do it for them, or else there'll be no normal life on earth.
quote:
You can't scare people who don't fear death (and those are the worst). When you want to scare the Arabs you'll have to convince them that they'll lose paradise when they continue to attack Israel. I doubt this will be possible for any non-Muslim.
|
While the average suicide bomber is not afraid of dying - he does fear for his family.
And in any case - the organizers and leaders of the countries, and the terrorist networks, are themselves cowards and do fear dying and losing their status.
A nuke would damage both the suicider's family he leaves behind (not that i suggest nuking suicide bombers) and would definitly hurt Saddam's regime and property.
quote:
About the hate, you may be right (but I doubt it in this generality), but there are differences in the immediate danger to be felt. To think "I hate Jews" or "IDF will certainly kill all of us during the next two weeks if we don't act" are quite different things. With the first, you have a little chance to deal with. With the second, you don't have any.
|
Why would they think IDF will kill them for no reason?
they see IDF will only kill them if attacked. They learn not to attack.
quote:
What is a "mini nuke"? I can't believe that it is possible to develop anything that is much less destructive than the bombs used in Japan. There is something like a critical mass. |
There is, but todays nukes are much larger than the minimum.
I'm sure there are smaller bombs.
It may mean neutron bombs. I'm not aware of technicalities.
quote:
Neutron bombs are IIRC intended to kill people and leave infrastructure intact0. I don't see any moral advantage to conventional nukes. |
They don't leave radiation for the next hundreds of years.
With regards to the chemicals - here is a result of a short inquiry:
Yes, Israel bought ingridients of the Serin nerve gas agent. It bought it from an american company which similarly sells it to USA military. The purchases were authorised by the American DoD.
It was bought in 1992, a year after the gulf war - in which Israel feared the worse - a chemical attack by Iraq, in one of the Sqad missiles fired at Israel.
Is there any wonder why Israel would use the gas in research to improve gas masks and reasearch it effects to treat it?
The first order was made to the Israeli biological research institute (apparently for research), and a second order was made (probably for testing) by an Israeli gas mask manufacturer.
Please don't tell me you're surprised to hear that Israel is reasearching weapons which may be used against it.
quote:
What do you mean by 'much more specifically'? It sounds like you think that it's okay to target civilians so long as there is a convenient military target nearby. |
No I think it is wrong to target civilians.
When you use a nuke, your goal is to create widespread destruction of property.
When you use a gas - you specifically hunt out people - usually civilians, as army has means to combat gas.
quote:
A nuke would kill more civilians than gases or germs, but so long as it's aimed at a 'military' target it's okay? |
Yep - it is.
You're juding only based on result.
If we compare only losses without looking at how they were killed and what was the intention - you are bound to err in judgement.
quote:
Whereas just dousing the area with nerve gas will have a similar effect, but because it's distributed and not centered on something it's somehow illegitemate. Seems like pointless legalese to me. |
I disagree.
It's one thing to fight against an army in battle, when the strongest / best equipped man wins.
It's another thing to poison the enemy's food and water.
quote:
2.Saddam claims responsibility for a huge poisoned gas attack in Israel, which killed about 2000 people and injured for a life much more. Saddam also threatens more attacks to follow if Israel won't remove forces from West Banka and Gaza Strip in 24 hours and handle both territories to Iraq -- Israel should retalliate with conventional weapons |
I would most certainly find out where his bunkers are, and then send an agent with a briefcase nuke there.
quote:
3.Saddam threatens Israel and then after a week some bacteriological weapon is used in Jerusalem. Nobody knows true details of the terror act but everyone thinks Saddam did it because he threatened Israel before -- Israel shouldn't retalliate on Iraq at all if it isn't known who seriously hosted attacks |
Well obviously the decision for military plans don't go according to public opinion (usually).
Every attack can be traced, and if the intelligence points to saddam - he'll glow in the dark. But an investigation would most certainly take place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:22
|
|
what *should* happen:
- If Sadam uses ABC weapons israel should do nothing and the USA / british forces should invade Iraque and eliminate every militairy / governamental person who was more or less connected to the sadam regime.
No reaction from israel should happen because the Iraq people are not responsible for their dictators actions. Pherhaps a counter attack would be justified, but it would help nothing, since the responsible people won't be hitted and it will only raise the hate against israel.
- If the palestinians should use the war to uprise against israel even more, and large terracts or ABC weapons will be used against israel, Israel should finally *solve* the problem.
Which is a simple word for a very cruel thing, which is removing all arabs from israel, and force the surrounding countries (Joran most of all) to accept the palestinians. Again: this should only happen in case of large terracts and ABC weapons.
I don't like that way to solve the problem, but splitting the israelis and the arabs is the *only* way to solve it for the future.
Of course the americans should drop a big bomb on the temple mountain, to destroy both the sacred jewish wall and the all asqua thingy.
Eventhough I prefer diplomacy, I think we run out of the time for the ME conflict. We should not let it grow longer, it should end now. And there's only one way to end it:
1. eliminate the iraq govermanemtn
2. split up the israelis and the palestinians.
Since there's plenty of room for arabs to go to, the only solution is that the palestinians have to go. It's hars, it's unjust, but again: there is no other solution.
If you close your eyes for that, you will face an even bigger war within 20 years, in which much of the involved countries will have larger weapons, and the entire world will be drawed into war.
Solve it, or let humanity finish itself within 50 years.
The decision is on you.
Pascifists who think the problem can be solved by diplomacy are plain idiots. I wish they were right, but it's so very stupid to think that any conversation can end to problem. You just close your eyes for reality.
Again: I wish they were right though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
Everyone is ignoring US aims here, and the US is the Superpower- I don't care what Israeli public sentiment is- no Israeli government will cross the US seriously- heck, if the Germans are reprimanded by thie admin. for screwing with iraq policy, what chance doea nation that gets 4 billion dollars a year from Uncle Sam have?
The US is going in to remake Iraq in the image the Bushies see fit. Any major Israeli strike, be it nuclear, or conventional, will only screw the US up: lets remember, the scenerio is that Saddam will attack Israel post an American invasion: what if there are US troops in Baghdad at the time the Israelis decide to atatck? would Israel begin bombing an area with active US presence? OR woul it attack infrastructure the US and its allies within Iarq were using? I doubt it higly- Washington would not be ammused. So, how much damage would Iraq have to do to Israel, so that pressure within Washington , not Jerusalem, would allow for a massive Israeli strike? I think it would have to be somehting very big- if lets say 20 Israelis die, and then Israel does somehting that kills large numbers of Iraqis, making the US job much harder, and then leading to several more billions of US dollars having to be spent, or more US lives lost- again, Washington would not be pleased- and the pro-Israel lobby in the US is only so strong.
Everyone in the region is having to bend to US pressure- Israel is not immune, specially after the thing get going. An israeli pre-emptive strike woul be a huge disaster for the US- thus it wil not happen- after all, any Israelki strike into Iraq woul be done with US intelligence data and would have to be clear with US warplanes in the region. Lets not be kid into who's the boss here- the US is, and Israel does not have much capitol to mess around with Uncle Sam.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
GePap I think you're vastly underestimating the independence of the Israelis and "America-friendly" Arab states. If our influence was so great we wouldnt even be having such interesting discussions.
I agree though that an Israeli first-strike is much less likely if America and Britain are truly preparing for, or are actively engaged in, the military removal of Saddam Hussein. The potential threat will come in the future if no action is taken against Hussein ie more ineffective UN weapons inspections in conjunction with some perceived benefit for Hussein for an attack on Israel. |
An israeli first strike is an non-issue: Israel does not have the wherewithall to hit iraq's weapon delivery system, if any: it would need US intelligence to aquire targets to hit even stationary targets: and an israeli first -strike with WMD is totally out of the question- the fatest way for Isreal to face stiff international sactions, and cals for the Israeli cabinet to be handed in as war criminals.
The US keeps saying it hasn't decided. Bullsh1t, it has, just trying to get the diplomacy right. Every state as to measure its own self-interests. The biggest fears of our Arab friends us their own people: if they think their own people will make them the new Shah on the block if they go along, they won't - its against their basic national interests. The US doesn't need many of these state anyway- and many neo-conservatives are rethinking the relations anyway- the opposition of these states is not too great a limitation or a danger to US interest in Iraq. Now, israel's great fear is its neighbors, so there, israel needs the US: we are israel's diplomatic bodyguard in the UN security council, and for a state with a GNP of 120 billion, 4 billion a year is big money, specially when its equal to 1/3 is yearly Defense budget (12 Billion). Israel can't afford to screw up the relation with the US- and a major Israeli strake against Iraq, short of it having carried out a higly damaging attack on israel, woud greatly complicate US-Israeli relations. Could you imagine the furor in the US if Iraq kills, lets say, 10 Israeli civilians, and then Israel strikes, and creates a situation in which more US soldiers than that die? Not good press for the Israeli embassy to cover.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:22
|
|
quote:
An israeli first strike is an non-issue: Israel does not have the wherewithall to hit iraq's weapon delivery system, if any: it would need US intelligence to aquire targets to hit even stationary targets: and an israeli first -strike with WMD is totally out of the question- the fatest way for Isreal to face stiff international sactions, and cals for the Israeli cabinet to be handed in as war criminals. |
1) If they build a nuclear reactor - it won't last long. Same goes for Iran which is about to finish it's reactor.
2) We don't need US intelligence that much no more since we've launched Ofek 5 
3) A pre-emptive attack using nukes would indeed be the most idiotic thing possible, for any side in the conflict, and Israel would cease to exist in any case (either a radiation pond if attacked, or will be dismantled if attacks).
quote:
The US keeps saying it hasn't decided. Bullsh1t, it has, just trying to get the diplomacy right. Every state as to measure its own self-interests. |
Exactly.
quote:
The biggest fears of our Arab friends us their own people: if they think their own people will make them the new Shah on the block if they go along, they won't - its against their basic national interests. The US doesn't need many of these state anyway- and many neo-conservatives are rethinking the relations anyway- the opposition of these states is not too great a limitation or a danger to US interest in Iraq. |
Agreed if I understand you right.
quote:
Now, israel's great fear is its neighbors, so there, israel needs the US: we are israel's diplomatic bodyguard in the UN security council, and for a state with a GNP of 120 billion, 4 billion a year is big money, specially when its equal to 1/3 is yearly Defense budget (12 Billion). Israel can't afford to screw up the relation with the US- and a major Israeli strake against Iraq, short of it having carried out a higly damaging attack on israel, woud greatly complicate US-Israeli relations. |
Exactly.
quote:
Could you imagine the furor in the US if Iraq kills, lets say, 10 Israeli civilians, and then Israel strikes, and creates a situation in which more US soldiers than that die? Not good press for the Israeli embassy to cover. |
Bingo.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
I think everybody in the Israeli military knows what nuclear missile mean : send it on Baghdad, and the city is completely razed, its inhabitants melted (ever read witnesses from Hiroshima - Nagasaki, which got much less powerful nukes than those of today ?)
Several people here are talking about genocide, and that's a fitting term : in order to strike Saddam's regime, we'd kill millions with this method, as "colateral damage". By doing this, Israel would range among the worst genociadial nations, just after the nazi Germany. You can imagine how much they'll be hated by the whole world.
Sending nukes to Irak (or anyone else) would be an incredible political mistake : the US, in order to avoid a full-scale war with the Arab world, will stop supporting Israel. Europe will stop to be schizophrenic, and wil now blatantly support everything arab -currently, the Zionists have enough influence to avoid this support to go to far.
It's very possible there is a major trade embargo on Israel from the international community (Africa as a great provider of raw resources could participate because of the influence of the former colonists)
No reasonable politician would do this : without foreign support, Israel would be able to hold on a bit, but not long : a trade embargo would mean no oil for the troops, no plutonium for further nukes, no resources to build new weapons... I don't know if Israeli agriculture can sustain the whole population or not.
But I think Israel on't use its nukes for a different reason : there are no genocidial policies currently going on. From the beginning of the second Intifada, Israel could have easily mass murdered Palestinians : Israeli have MUCH more modern and massive destruction means than Pals. Such a slaughter didn't happen, and won't happen in the near future even with Sharon at power.
By the same token, I don't think Israel will genocide any nearby country except for one condition : if the very existence of Israel is seriously threatened, then the country will do everything it can to survive, includin sending nukes, gasses, neutrons and everything. Until then, the warfare remain in conventional proportions
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-09-2002 03:14
|