Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: OK. I'll say it. Yes, I'd rather risk Iran having nukes than [View all]polly7
(20,582 posts)78. Yes, they are.
Interesting though, the hypocrisy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patrick-pexton-what-about-israels-nuclear-weapons/2012/08/31/390e486a-f389-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_story.html
"President John Kennedy vigorously tried to prevent Israel from obtaining the bomb; President Lyndon Johnson did so to a much lesser extent. But once it was a done deal, Nixon and every president since has not pressed Israel to officially disclose its capabilities or to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty . In return, Israel agrees to keep its nuclear weapons unacknowledged and low-profile.
Because Israel has not signed the treaty, it is under no legal obligation to submit its major nuclear facility at Dimona to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. Iran, in contrast, did sign the treaty and thus agrees to periodic inspections. IAEA inspectors are regularly in Iran, but the core of the current dispute is that Tehran is not letting them have unfettered access to all of the countrys nuclear installations.
Furthermore, although Israel has an aggressive media, it still has military censors that can and do prevent publication of material on Israels nuclear forces. Censorship applies to foreign correspondents working there, too.
Another problem, Cohen said, is that relatively few people have overall knowledge of the Israeli program and no one leaks. Those in the program certainly do not leak; it is a crime to do so. The last time an Israeli insider leaked, in 1986, nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu was kidnapped by Israeli agents in Italy, taken home to trial, convicted and served 18 years in jail, much of it in solitary confinement."
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
"The United States first became aware of Dimona's existence after U-2 overflights in 1958 captured the facility's construction, but it was not identified as a nuclear site until two years later. The complex was variously explained as a textile plant, an agricultural station, and a metallurgical research facility, until David Ben-Gurion stated in December 1960 that Dimona complex was a nuclear research center built for "peaceful purposes."
There followed two decades in which the United States, through a combination of benign neglect, erroneous analysis, and successful Israeli deception, failed to discern first the details of Israel's nuclear program. As early as 8 December 1960, the CIA issued a report outlining Dimona's implications for nuclear proliferation, and the CIA station in Tel Aviv had determined by the mid-1960s that the Israeli nuclear weapons program was an established and irreversible fact.
United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility. The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power program justifying such a large reactor - circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb program - but found no evidence of "weapons related activities" such as the existence of a plutonium reprocessing plant."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
174 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If Israel can live with the Pakistani/Saudi bomb, they can learn to live with the Persian bomb, too
leveymg
Sep 2012
#1
Stop allowing Jewish settlers to take over Palestinian land would at least help.
randome
Sep 2012
#87
You mean like at the Olympics in '72? Lod Airport? Hebrew University? Pan Am 103? School
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#46
Well they do although it really isnt necessary if you have nuclear capability. nm
rhett o rick
Sep 2012
#41
Israel is the only country over there I have heard threatening to nuke Iran's
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#91
That talk is for domestic consumption. It appeals to the conservative base in Iran and
alfredo
Sep 2012
#95
Aren't we? Israel has used the threat against its neighbors as blackmail against us more than once
leveymg
Sep 2012
#30
First of all, Iran hasn't been "Persia" for centuries. Secondly, who are you to say what another
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#5
I have every fucking right in the world to say what I wish about this matter, dear.
cali
Sep 2012
#11
Yes, of course; you are not the Leader of the Free World, are you? I'm not talking about Free Speech
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#48
Actually, I have always wondered why some countries can have them and some can't. Always
Laura PourMeADrink
Sep 2012
#44
Actually, America is the last nation which can be considered to have moral authority to speak to the
Skidmore
Sep 2012
#122
which would include telling another nation what technology they may develop
magical thyme
Sep 2012
#20
I was speaking, specifically, of an American telling israel what to do or not to do. And yes, that
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#47
I don't believe I said that. But "not for anything"? You need a bigger imagination.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#53
You are fundamentally incorrect. No USSR leader said any such thing. The MOST that was said
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#8
Nothing short of a full fledged invasion and occupation of Iran will stop them from getting nukes.
redgreenandblue
Sep 2012
#14
Your thinking not your shot gun skills. I quess you weren't on the Fight Deck Mission Accomplished
bahrbearian
Sep 2012
#58
It depends on whether by "win" you just mean the initial fighting or include the occupation.
JHB
Sep 2012
#109
i dont know if theyare try to get the bomb or not, but if they are, i bet money it's for something
dionysus
Sep 2012
#28
"the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"
ronnie624
Sep 2012
#61
They could have attacked and killed most of the Israeli people already if they wanted.
former-republican
Sep 2012
#34
Well, when Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust, and Netanyahu waved the Auchwitz plans at him,
Nye Bevan
Sep 2012
#80
Using a nuclear bomb on Israel would make the country uninhabitable for decades.
randome
Sep 2012
#59
I would think the capability of building those kind of delivery systems would take years.
randome
Sep 2012
#73
I agree, but Israel isn't going to allow that, so other opinions are irrelevant. n/t
Waiting For Everyman
Sep 2012
#81
In short, right or wrong, an attack on Iran will be a F'en mess for years. Another win for religion.
RKP5637
Sep 2012
#83
Oh, are we supposed to suspend posting about politics during Rosh Hashanah?
progressoid
Sep 2012
#110
Only religious fanatics and lunatics would ever use them....people like Harry Truman.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Sep 2012
#117
Surely you're not so naive as to think if Truman hadn't used them then no one else would have in the
cherokeeprogressive
Sep 2012
#132
Because until it was used the first time, no one really knew what it was capable of.
cherokeeprogressive
Sep 2012
#134
I'm guessing it's possible the Bomb Damage Assessments were inconclusive.
cherokeeprogressive
Sep 2012
#170