The truth about Israel's secret nuclear arsenal

[WWWTT]

If Israel is pointing the finger, they need to come clean with their own nuclear weapons stockpile before they even consider bashing Iran. Man up, join the NPT and declare the weapons. No? Alright, don't expect Iran to disclose anything, and don't get upset about it.

Yes, actually, Israel is the aggressor and should be the one allowing the inspectors unlimited access to all facilities!

WWWTT

[Rue]

Reefer you made the allegation that Israel pretended it did not have nukes. Its allegations like that thrown out on this forum with no basis that render such dialogue meaningless.

Israel has never pretended to not have nukes. How and why would it do that? What a silly thing to say. Its also silly for you to act as if the world just became aware France might have helped it with its nuclear capability.

France of course built Israel's first nuclear site. It was public knowledge. No one hid it. None one has hid Israel has nuclear weapons. During the Yom Kippur war Israel was literally minutes away from using them as the Soviets targeted Israel with nukes. A Soviet General ignored his orders and prepared an attack and it was only literally minutes after that thanks to American intervention a catastrophe was prevented.

The US did not build Israel's nuclear sites, France helped, then Israel did it on there own. Israel had its own nuclear scientists. It did not use Americans. That is just out and out false.

The U,S, has been the principal arms supplier for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan and the Gulf States but has never given any of them weapons capable of being used to make nuclear weapons. It is a falsehood to say it did. It never did.

As for Israel it has never hidden its nuclear capacity. In fact it relies on it as a deterrent from being attacked. What it has not done is openly refer to it and it won't. It will never refer to it in any dialogue with Arab nations no matter how heated the exchanges may be because it has a strict policy never to use it as a direct threat, It reserves the right to use it as a defensive weapon if all else would fail but never as an offensive weapon.

Israel will not incite Arab nations with the threat of a nuclear attack. That is why it remains silent in that sense but it has never denied having nuclear weapons. The fact it won'tadmit having them does not mean it denies having them and if you can not understand what that means go find out.

Now you want to stop beating around the bush please. If you think Arab nations should have nuclear weapons because Israel does, just say so.

You think its a double standard the US, the United Kingdom have nuclear weapons but North Korea should not have them? Well? Is it just about Israel?

Come on put it on the table. The US, The Russians, Chinese, French, United Kingdom, South Africa, Brazil, Pakistan, India ,North Korea, Israel all have

nuclear weapons.

Japan, Australia, Canada, Ne Zealand, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany can make nuclear weapons if they wanted.

Anyone of us can go on the internet and get instructions to make a dirty bomb that spreads radioactivity into the air capable of killing thousands.

What is your point?

Do you really want to live next door to North Korea or the United States if you are Canadian. Is it unfair to say we trust the US but not North Korea with nuclear weapons?

You think Iran with its regime that is responsible for the massacre of Bahais, Zoroastreans, Kurds, Sunni Muslims, gays, communists, trade unionists,feminists, students, is trust worthy? You think a nation continually denying the holocaust and calling for Israel to be wiped out and is engaged in financing terror groups to fight a Muslim war between Shiites and Sunnis for control of the Middle East is trustworthy?

If that is the case good for you. I don't. Yes I trust France or Britain with nuclear weapons but not Iran or Pakistan.

No I am not trusting of China or Russia but they have the capacity. Yes I trust South Africa not to blow up the world at this point or Brazil.

Is that fair? Is that arbitrary? No and yes. So what is your point?

Stop beating around the bush.

The reality is no nation should have nuclear weapons but some do and because some do the question is, now what? Should anyone now have them?

If we follow that logic every nation should have them.

Me personally I wouldl love Israel to have lived in a world where it did not have to develop them as a direct deterrent as it did to the Soviet Union who threatened to nuke it repeatedly during the cold war.

The US never wanted Israel to have nukes. It never wanted anyone to have them, The US never wanted them to start with. It obtained them ina cold war with Russia and China. Curtis Lemay the former US air Force General and General McCarthur were the only major officers in the US Armed Forces to ever urge using them,Lemay in Vietnam,McArthur in Korea.

It was precisely because Truman had to use them he was against them and that legacy passed to Eisenhower who played one of the strongest roles in preventing a nuclear war in the Middle East It was Eisenhower who intervened during the Gulf Canal crisis and got France, Britain and Israel to step down against Nasser who was planning to receive nuclear weapons assistance from the Soviets when Eisenhower stepped in.

How the US gets dragged into this is ridiculous. It is precisely because they were and remain Israel's most loyal ally they could pressure them into cooling it and prevent nuclear wars.

The US is not the bad guy in this equation and neither is Israel. If there is a failure of nations to live in peace point your finger at the entire globe.

Point your finger at the failure of the UN to do anything.

Let's also get something clear.Israel's nuclear deterrent was created to defend themselves against the Soviets not the Arab nations and that is why it never mentioned them in any dialogue with the Arab nations but did warn the Russians numerous times it would use them against them.

That weapons system is a relic of the cold war.

Today nuclear weapons are not the major threat-chemical warfare is. Why blow up buildings and leave radioactive waste for years to come when you can cleanly just kill everyone, leave the buildings standing and leave no lasting residue behind with anthrax or viruses.

The reality is all it takes is one mad man, one, with a pack releasing chemicals to kill hundreds of thousands if they wanted.

None of you know what the real issues are between Israel and Iran. For all any of you know the real issue could be chemicals and the fact that Iran has behind closed doors threatened to use them against Israel and this nuclear dialogue is just a coded public dialogue between the two trying to posture each other.

[DogOnPorch]

Seeing there is possibly a huge azz cobalt device sitting somewhere in the Negev, it's probably a good idea for all to make sure Israel is treated fairly. Unless 'On the Beach' scenarios are appealing for the 'anti-Zionists'. Never again...as the saying goes.

Edited January 25, 2014 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

Seeing there is possibly a huge azz cobalt device sitting somewhere in the Negev, it's probably a good idea for all to make sure Israel is treated fairly. Unless 'On the Beach' scenarios are appealing for the 'anti-Zionists'. Never again...as the saying goes.

Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout....mess with the bull...you get the horns. They will finally have a good reason to be "anti-Zionists".

Edited January 25, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout....mess with the bull...you get the horns. They will finally have a good reason to be "anti-Zionists".

If there was ever a nation that would build one...Israel is it. Nobody need ever know...unless...you know...Treblinka part II occurs.

[ReeferMadness]

Rue, I'm going to try to respond but in the future, it would be helpful if you could be a bit more concise in your arguments. You're long on pontification and short on evidence.

Reefer you made the allegation that Israel pretended it did not have nukes. Its allegations like that thrown out on this forum with no basis that render such dialogue meaningless.

Israel has been dishonest in acquiring the weapons (see bud's link) and continues to be deliberately vague and evasive

Israel maintains a policy known as "nuclear ambiguity" (also known as "nuclear opacity").[9][10] Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that it would not be the first country to "introduce" nuclear weapons to the Middle East, leaving ambiguity as to whether it means it will not create, will not disclose, will not make first use of the weapons or possibly some other interpretation of the phrase.

Now you want to stop beating around the bush please. If you think Arab nations should have nuclear weapons because Israel does, just say so.

You think its a double standard the US, the United Kingdom have nuclear weapons but North Korea should not have them? Well? Is it just about Israel?

Come on put it on the table. The US, The Russians, Chinese, French, United Kingdom, South Africa, Brazil, Pakistan, India ,North Korea, Israel all have

nuclear weapons.

Japan, Australia, Canada, Ne Zealand, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany can make nuclear weapons if they wanted.

Anyone of us can go on the internet and get instructions to make a dirty bomb that spreads radioactivity into the air capable of killing thousands.

I would prefer that nobody had nuclear weapons. However, since that isn't feasible in the short term, I would prefer that countries would be honest and open about how many weapons they have and what they plan to do with them. Your excuses for why Israel won't come clean about its arsenal is just that - excuses. It's this type of lack of honesty that makes international politics the snake pit that it is.

Do you really want to live next door to North Korea or the United States if you are Canadian. Is it unfair to say we trust the US but not North Korea with nuclear weapons?

You think Iran with its regime that is responsible for the massacre of Bahais, Zoroastreans, Kurds, Sunni Muslims, gays, communists, trade unionists,feminists, students, is trust worthy? You think a nation continually denying the holocaust and calling for Israel to be wiped out and is engaged in financing terror groups to fight a Muslim war between Shiites and Sunnis for control of the Middle East is trustworthy?

If that is the case good for you. I don't. Yes I trust France or Britain with nuclear weapons but not Iran or Pakistan.

No I am not trusting of China or Russia but they have the capacity. Yes I trust South Africa not to blow up the world at this point or Brazil.

I'm glad that you have an extensive inventory of what countries you trust and don't trust. Are you suggesting that the entire world order be based on that? You know, it's just possible that other parts of the world have a lot less trust for former colonial powers (France, Britain) and countries that in recent times have made a habit of supporting dictators or otherwise interfering in other countries affairs (US, Russia, China) than you do.

There has to be one set of rules that apply to everyone; or there will be no rules at all.

The US never wanted Israel to have nukes. It never wanted anyone to have them, The US never wanted them to start with. It obtained them ina cold war with Russia and China. Curtis Lemay the former US air Force General and General McCarthur were the only major officers in the US Armed Forces to ever urge using them,Lemay in Vietnam,McArthur in Korea.

It was precisely because Truman had to use them he was against them and that legacy passed to Eisenhower who played one of the strongest roles in preventing a nuclear war in the Middle East It was Eisenhower who intervened during the Gulf Canal crisis and got France, Britain and Israel to step down against Nasser who was planning to receive nuclear weapons assistance from the Soviets when Eisenhower stepped in.

How the US gets dragged into this is ridiculous. It is precisely because they were and remain Israel's most loyal ally they could pressure them into cooling it and prevent nuclear wars.

Your post is a curious mixture of fiction and historical revisionism. The US didn't obtain nukes in a cold war, it was the first to develop them in WWII. Truman didn't have to use them, he chose to use them and there are historians who firmly believe that the primary reason for dropping them on the Japanese was to send a message to the Soviets.

Today nuclear weapons are not the major threat-chemical warfare is. Why blow up buildings and leave radioactive waste for years to come when you can cleanly just kill everyone, leave the buildings standing and leave no lasting residue behind with anthrax or viruses.

The reality is all it takes is one mad man, one, with a pack releasing chemicals to kill hundreds of thousands if they wanted.

None of you know what the real issues are between Israel and Iran. For all any of you know the real issue could be chemicals and the fact that Iran has behind closed doors threatened to use them against Israel and this nuclear dialogue is just a coded public dialogue between the two trying to posture each other.

OK, now you're just pulling random shit out of your ass. Wildly postulate away - I'm not going to waste my time responding.

Edited January 27, 2014 by ReeferMadness

[PIK]

Israel has never used a weaponed or threatened to wipe somebody off the face of the earth. And if the leader of NK can get 16 holes in one ,he should have no problem making pigs fly. And I see on this thread Israel is being singled out again. Harper is so right.

Edited January 28, 2014 by PIK

[Rue]

Reefer yopu stated:

"I would prefer that countries would be honest and open about how many weapons they have and what they plan to do with them."

No country is going to disclose its arsenal for obvious reasons. Countries do through espionage and satellites try get to this information whether they truly succeed or get false info or a bit of both no one knows for sure.

As for you wanting countries to disclose their intentions, what would you like them to say-I make you go boom? Get real.

You stated:

"Your excuses for why Israel won't come clean about its arsenal is just that - excuses. It's this type of lack of honesty that makes international politics the snake pit that it is."

So you figured out nations are less than candid with one another. I am glad you figured that out but come on, come clean? Come clean about what? What is there to come clean about and who is making excuses?

Read what I wrote-I made no excuses I am stating a fact-Israel does not acknowledge it has weapons or disclose the exact amount of weapons it has the same reason no other country does. Its not about excuses, its about strategic defence strategy of these nations not Israel, and not wanting to compromise their security and trying to keep an edge on the other side.

in Israel's case its also about not giving any Arab nation an excuse to say Israel threatened it with nuclear weapons and showing the world it's not threatening anyone but has ability to use nuclear weapons as a defence not an offence. That is not makinge excuses. It is explaining motive for its policies. An excuse would have been to say its acceptable. I never argued that. I stated it is what it is. You are the one assigning moral judgement to it. You want to say bad Israel bad bad bad, go ahead.

.All countries bluff one another to try maintain a competitive edge. That's not excusing it, its simply stating it as it is.

You stated:

"I'm glad that you have an extensive inventory of what countries you trust and don't trust. Are you suggesting that the entire world order be based on that? "

Its not an extensive inventory at all. I simply stated a fact and who the countries are that admitted to having nuclear weapons and who probably has them. Its simply acknowledging that there are a limited number of countries right now with nuclear weapons and that some are more problematic than others.

Are you suggesting North Korea and Iran are stable entities? Good for you. I don't think so. You defend them as stable countries you trusty with weapons, I choose to call them unstable states. I choose the same to say about Pakistan right now as well.

What are you suggesting that you have no problems with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons? Well if you don't have a problem with that good for you. I do. I much prefer them in the hands of the Yanks than the North Koreans. Yes I much prefer them in the hands of the British or French or even Brazil and Israel, etc., than Iran. Of course. What do you want me to say, Yemen should have them? Sudan should have them? No I do not think that nor do I think I was speaking on behalf of the world. No I think you should be content knowing the UN today is run by a network of corupt and tyranical nations who rest assured will make sure North Korea and Iran and hey you just never know Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, can all get the bomb. Yes that will make the world a much better place.

You stated:

"There has to be one set of rules that apply to everyone; or there will be no rules at all."

he above makes no sense. In international law it is impossible to have one set of rules that apply to everyone. That is not possible. It is an ideal that can not be achieved as has been demonstrated repeatedly by the United Nations and its failure to enforce let alone convince countries to follow any rules.

Countries put their own set of rules, their own interests first. Its what they do. They only conform to rules other than their own if its to their benefit.

International law and rules only apply if countries volunteer to follow them and they only do that if its in their best interests and this is why the UN is compromised, corupt and unable to achieve anything other than allow tyrants a semblance of respectability and yes that is my opinion of course it is-this is a forum and I am stating my opinion.

Your comment abive makes no sense in regards to nuclear weapons. Using your arguement, all nations should get nuclear weapons and then they will be able to behave the same way. Uh no, I do not think so.

You stated:

"Your post is a curious mixture of fiction and historical revisionism. The US didn't obtain nukes in a cold war, it was the first to develop them in WWII. Truman didn't have to use them, he chose to use them and there are historians who firmly believe that the primary reason for dropping them on the Japanese was to send a message to the Soviets."

To start with I never stated the US did not use them in WW11 otherwise I would not have made the comment in regards to Truman which you clearly did not understand and are now misstating.

You can argue what you want about Truman's motives for using the bomb and argue he had a choice but it is my opinion based on what he stated in his biography that Truman made the decision to use nuclear bombs on Japan because he felt less lives would be lost doing this than in prolonging the war with a conventional ground invasion in Japan which would have led to far more deaths.

In that sense he stated he felt the choice of immediate horrific deaths but less deaths than a long term slow bloody invasion gave him one choice and that choice was to avoid the most deaths. That was what I was referring to.

.

The US had a tiny arsenal during WW2. To suggest it acquired its nuclear arsenal during WW2 is just silly. Having nuclear bomns and then developing its nuclear arsenal no did not happen the moment presto they made 2 bombs.

It only began when they aquired ICBM strategic weapons in the late 1950's. Until then the bombs they had would have been delivered by B-52 bombers. There was no real delivery system other than these slow moving B52's.

The arsenal then changed drastically to include missiles both on land in solos and capable of being launched from nuclear submarines that did not have to resurface like conventional submarines. The use of nuclear submarines and nuclear missiles as delivery systems came about during andbecause of the cold war not because of WW2.

You want to revise history to change the above, be my guest.

Truman had a choice to use nuclear weapons in Korea. McCarthur urged him too. He refused. Air Force General Curtis Lemay asked Kennedy and LBJ to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam, both refused. Barry Goldwater endorsed using nuclear weapons and lost an election because of that. That was what I was referring to. Eisenhower talked down a nuclear war with the Soviets during the Suez Canal crisis.Kennedy had to avert a nuclear crisis. That was what I was referring to. I was using this to suggest calling the US irresponsible with nuclear weapons is b.s. They demonstrated restraint with these weapons through these events.

I stated the following:

"Today nuclear weapons are not the major threat-chemical warfare is. Why blow up buildings and leave radioactive waste for years to come when you can cleanly just kill everyone, leave the buildings standing and leave no lasting residue behind with anthrax or viruses.

The reality is all it takes is one mad man, one, with a pack releasing chemicals to kill hundreds of thousands if they wanted.

None of you know what the real issues are between Israel and Iran. For all any of you know the real issue could be chemicals and the fact that Iran has behind closed doors threatened to use them against Israel and this nuclear dialogue is just a coded public dialogue between the two trying to posture each other."

You responded with:

"OK, now you're just pulling random shit out of your ass. Wildly postulate away - I'm not going to waste my time responding."

But you did anyways because you just had to let that insult out right?

Of course I was postulating. I made clear I was. The point remains. You have no idea whether the actual concerns in the Middle East between Iran and Israel are simply about nuclear weapons. You do not. That was the point. You do not know and I do not know. None of us know.

If you think you are in the position to actually know that Iran only wants nuclear weapons because Israel has them, then good for you but you have no direct information as to that fact, no one does.

The point remains and you have failed to rebutt it, that no one country discloses its actual weapons capacity or true security concerns.

Its all strategic negotiation-a game of bluff.

So you and I do not know what the real story is beneath the one for public consumption and it is a fact anyone can make a dirty bomb and that chemical weapons are far more lethal and do less property damage.

That is not pulling things out of anyone's ass, it is fact. Chemical weapons wipe out people, not infrastructure, while nuclear weapons wipe out not just people but infrastructure. That is not ass pulling, that is fact.

I personally am far more concerned about chemical weapons today and the fact any mad man could use them.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

....The US had a tiny arsenal during WW2. It only began aquiring ICBM strategic weapons the true nuclear arsenal in the late 1950's. Until then the bombs they had would have been delivered by B-52 bombers. The arsenal then changed drastically to include missiles both on land and on nuclear submarines that did not have to resurface like conventional submarines. The use of nuclear submarines and nuclear missiles as delivery systems came about because of the cold war not because of WW2,

Mostly true but with some gaps. The B-36 Peacemaker was the primary post-WW2 nuclear bomber until the B-52 entered service, and Regulus "cruise missiles" launched from submarines with W27 nuclear warheads were operational before U.S. ICBMs.

An effective nuclear weapons deterrent must be credible, reliable, and survivable.

[DogOnPorch]

Yup...and in theory...all of Israel's weapons will go 'bang' when asked. Or not....

[bush_cheney2004]

Yup...and in theory...all of Israel's weapons will go 'bang' when asked. Or not....

...and who wants to be dumb enough to find out ?

[DogOnPorch]

Don't forget the amazing B-47 for those post-war delivery systems...right behind and concurrent with the B-36.

...and who wants to be dumb enough to find out ?

True enough. I imagine a 500kt to 1mt device is pretty standard for them. But, they do seem to have much of their assets concentrated around Palmachim AFB which can be a bit tempting...

[Hudson Jones]

Hypocrisy? Of course. Unjust? Certainly.

This is a simple case of the mafia (Israel) and their mouthpieces, not wanting weapons in the hands of anyone else. The mafia wants to control the whole piece of the pie.

[DogOnPorch]

Hypocrisy? Of course. Unjust? Certainly.

This is a simple case of the mafia (Israel) and their mouthpieces, not wanting weapons in the hands of anyone else. The mafia wants to control the whole piece of the pie.

Who else do you suggest should have nuclear weapons?

[Hudson Jones]

Who else do you suggest should have nuclear weapons?

I think no one should have nuclear weapons.

However, as long as Israel, U.S., Pakistan and India are surrounding Iran with the weapons, who the fck are we to tell Iran they cannot have weapons?

I'm not going to sit here and drip with hypocrisy and tell a country who is surrounded with countries, who are not only militarily aggressive, but have repeatedly said that "all options are on the table", that they shouldn't have weapons. That's just retarded.

I find it extremely puzzling that there is such an aggressive approach to Iran, who doesn't even have nuclear weapons when it's surrounded by the U.S. and its nuclear warheads and Israel headed by its unstable warmongering leaders and Pakistan, who is being influenced and bought by the crazy, Saudis who also fund Al Qaeda.

[DogOnPorch]

I think no one should have nuclear weapons.

However, as long as Israel, U.S., Pakistan and India are surrounding Iran with the weapons, who the fck are we to tell Iran they cannot have weapons?

I'm not going to sit here and drip with hypocrisy and tell a country who is surrounded with countries, who are not only militarily aggressive, but have repeatedly said that "all options are on the table", that they shouldn't have weapons. That's just retarded.

I find it extremely puzzling that there is such an aggressive approach to Iran, who doesn't even have nuclear weapons when it's surrounded by the U.S. and its nuclear warheads and Israel headed by its unstable warmongering leaders and Pakistan, who is being influenced and bought by the crazy, Saudis who also fund Al Qaeda.

It's a dangerous game for all of us. These things don't simply go off with a bigger bang. There are weapons on this planet that make Hiroshima seem like a pop-gun. One exchange between even two small groups could give the world a radioactive bath that will have us all growing extra legs.

http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Try it out on Vancouver...Hiroshima vs say...a 1 megaton warhead.

Plus...if you like to delve into the sinister...beware my warning re: the Cobalt Bomb and Israel's need for a MAD policy. This isn't science fiction. One of these babies is well within their capacity. You'll be cursing those damn "Zionists" from your grave...

But, that's just a remote fairy tale to keep you up at night...right?

[Hudson Jones]

It's a dangerous game for all of us. These things don't simply go off with a bigger bang. There are weapons on this planet that make Hiroshima seem like a pop-gun. One exchange between even two small groups could give the world a radioactive bath that will have us all growing extra legs.

http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Try it out on Vancouver...Hiroshima vs say...a 1 megaton warhead.

Plus...if you like to delve into the sinister...beware my warning re: the Cobalt Bomb and Israel's need for a MAD policy. This isn't science fiction. One of these babies is well within their capacity. You'll be cursing those damn "Zionists" from your grave...

But, that's just a remote fairy tale to keep you up at night...right?

I would prefer that you wouldn't get turned on, on this forum, by thinking about and talking about weapons of mass destruction. Ew.

[DogOnPorch]

I would prefer that you wouldn't get turned on, on this forum, by thinking about and talking about weapons of mass destruction. Ew.

Fine...push the world towards another Holocaust. See what it gets us.

[GostHacked]

Fine...push the world towards another Holocaust. See what it gets us.

Like a guilt trip lasting for decades?

[Rue]

Agree with all H Jones comments in regards to the WW2 and post WW2 US nuclear arsenal.

[DogOnPorch]

Like a guilt trip lasting for decades?

I think we need to get it out of our heads that regional nuclear wars are possible...or even desirable. Israel is a particularly difficult place to defend and we really don't know what it would take for them to feel threatened enough to use nuclear weapons. They were apparently assembling nuclear weapons during the dark hours of the Yom Kippur War...just in case.

As for MAD...it gets tossed around a lot like it's a good thing. Well, I've laid out the difficulties Israel has with the strategy. HJ's response was to attack me. A Cobalt device...if it exists as Israel's version of MAD...would irradiate the ME if small and all of the globe if large enough.

[Rue]

In direct response to H Jones' comments on Iran. Uh yes some of us have a double standard when it comes to Iran and its holding nuclear weapons, sort of how you have one standard for Israel and another for the rest of the world. Funny how that works.

On a more serious note, yes on one level, of course its completely subjective and therefore politically partisan as to who any of us thinks should or should not have nuclear weapons. Absolutely. I am not sure how to me more blunt and upfront about that bias.

I have a concern with certain countries having nuclear or chemical capacity yes. Whatever you want to continue negatively saying about Israel no I do no worry about it having nuclear weapons as I do North Korea or Pakistan or Iran.

I think there are others, oh call me crazy, but yes I think there are others out there who think the same way and do analyze countries and feel more comfortable with some than others.

So for example and again call me crazy, I prefer the yanks having nuclear weapons than that little chubby boy in North Korea.

Does Iran have nuke capacity?

You and I will never know. I speculate it may all be a cover story to distract from the real concern-chemical weapons. How would you and I really know the difference between disinformation and the real thing when it comes to what all these countries true concerns are.

That is the game is it not to mix false and true information so its impossible to tell one from the other and then strategically post it in a timely manner in the media as part of this game of international bluff.

Again please call me crazy I want you to because I personally don't take what I read literally in the media and so call me a skeptic but I think there is something other than nuclear weapons of major concern to Israel's security and not just their security but Saudi Aeabia's, Egypt's, Jordan's, the Gulf States', Lebanon's.

I think there is a Sunni-Shiite conflict going on and Israel and the West Bank issue are just a sub-plot and one of many sub-plots such as the Syrian civil war that are expressing it in fragmented sites rather than one all out war.

I also think Hezbollah having numerous well educated engineers and having worked closely with China to set up its extensive mobile missile on rail sites would have no problem building dirty weapons whether they be chemical or nuclear. Hezbollah unlike other terror cells has some very well educated

weapons experts. If people know their true capacity and capabilities which I suspect the US and Israel do, for all any of us know they may also already have a nuke capacity which is part of all this manouvering.

Who would know?

Bottom line is, you go cheer lead Iran. I am just glad the Yanks live next door and not them. The only concern I have with the Yanks is

Wayne Newton, He scares me.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think we need to get it out of our heads that regional nuclear wars are possible...or even desirable. ...

Agreed, and confirmed by the reduction of operational and forward deployed "tactical nukes" by the U.S. and other nations. Modern nuke calculus must include unintended possession by "terrorists" and the vastly improved targeting accuracy of conventional smart bombs. Getting "nuked" just ain't what it used to be (sigh).

[DogOnPorch]

Agreed, and confirmed by the reduction of operational and forward deployed "tactical nukes" by the U.S. and other nations. Modern nuke calculus must include unintended possession by "terrorists" and the vastly improved targeting accuracy of conventional smart bombs. Getting "nuked" just ain't what it used to be (sigh).

Yes...early Soviet ICBMs had a 5km CEP...more on Polar routes. Only a few 'megaton' designs still exist in US stockpiles. However, the 'kids' are going to want the H-Bomb, anyways. It says "our country has matured in its weapon making skills and we now play on the same field as the Superpowers"...such that they are.

[Hudson Jones]

In direct response to H Jones' comments on Iran. Uh yes some of us have a double standard when it comes to Iran

There you have it.