Israel adds 2 nuclear-capable submarines

NCfan

Commy wrote:

So apparently its ok for Israel to go all out with its nuclear program but when Iran does it is an open act of hostility. ok.

So much for a safer world I suppose.

There is no such thing as abstract hypocrisy when it is a matter of nuclear war. It just seems irresponsible for you to promote the idea that Iran has as much right to expand their nuclear program as Israel. I'll give you six good reasons (not my own) why Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, and why it is okay for Israel to have them.

First, the logic of "They did it, so why can't I?" would lead to a nuclearized globe in which our daily multifarious wars, from Darfur to the Middle East, would all assume the potential to go nuclear. In contrast, the fewer the nuclear players, the more likely deterrence can play some role.

Second, it is a fact that full-fledged democracies are less likely to attack one another. Consensual governments are not so ready to fight like kind. In contemporary terms that means that there is no chance whatsoever that an anti-American France and an increasingly anti-French America would, as nuclear democracies, attack each other. Russia, following the fall of Communism, and its partial evolution to democracy, poses less threat to the United States than when it was a totalitarian state.

For example, It would be regrettable should Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, or Germany go nuclear — but not the catastrophe of a nuclear Pakistan that, with impunity de facto, offers sanctuary to bin Laden and the planners of 9/11. The former governments operate under a free press, open elections, and free speech, and thus their war-making is subject to a series of checks and balances. Pakistan is a strongman's heartbeat away from an Islamic theocracy. And while India has volatile relations with its Islamic neighbor, the world is not nearly as worried about its arsenal as it is about autocratic Pakistan's.

Third, there are a number of rogue regimes that belong in a special category: North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Cuba, unfree states whose leaders have sought global attention and stature through sponsoring insurrection and terrorism beyond their borders. If it is scary that Russia, China, and Pakistan are now nuclear, it is terrifying that Kim Jong Il has the bomb, or that President Ahmadinejad might. When such renegade regimes go nuclear they gain the added lunatic edge: "We are either crazy or have nothing to lose or both — but you aren't." In nuclear poker, the appearance of derangement is an apparent advantage.

Fourth, there are all sorts of scary combinations — petrodollars, nukes, terrorism, and fanaticism. But Iran is a uniquely fivefold danger. It has enough cash to buy influence and exemption; nuclear weapons to threaten civilization; oil reserves to blackmail a petroleum hungry world; terrorists to either find sanctuary under a nuclear umbrella or to be armed with dirty bombs.

Fifth, any country that seeks "peaceful" nuclear power and is completely self-sufficient in energy production is de facto suspect. Iran has enough natural gas to meet its clean electrical generation needs for centuries. The only possible rationale for its multi-billion-dollar program of building nuclear reactors, and spending billions more to hide and decentralize them, is to obtain weapons, and thus to gain clout and attention in a manner that otherwise is not warranted by either Iranian conventional forces, cultural influence, or economic achievement.

Sixth, the West is right to take on a certain responsibility to discourage nuclear proliferation. The technology for such weapons grew entirely out of Western science and technology. In fact, the story of nuclear proliferation is exclusively one of espionage, stealthy commerce, or American and European-trained native engineers using their foreign-acquired expertise. Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran have no ability themselves to create such weapons, in the same manner that Russia, China, and India learned or stole a craft established only from the knowledge of European-American physics and industrial engineering. Any country that cannot itself create such weapons is probably not going to ensure the necessary protocols to guard against their misuse or theft.

Milhouse VanHouten

NCfan wrote:

Second, it is a fact that full-fledged democracies are less likely to attack one another.

I'm thinking about the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against their enemy... what form of government did they use?

NCfan

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I'm thinking about the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against their enemy... what form of government did they use?

Of course there are exceptions, but the theory is still solid.

Milhouse VanHouten

NCfan wrote:

Of course there are exceptions, but the theory is still solid.

How is the theory solid? We only have one example to study, and it invalidates the theory completely.

I'm not saying that Iran should or shouldn't have the bomb, but why is Israel any more entitled to it than Iran? If we're all about non-proliferation, we should be about non-proliferation for everyone. Israel's nuke program has been hinted at for years, and they've never confirmed or denied it. You know why that is? Because we never forced them to. It's hard to not see some hypocrisy there.

rebornFixer

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I'm thinking about the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against their enemy... what form of government did they use?

Arg ... Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the Middle East? Completely unconnected. Completely. There is no analogy here.

Milhouse VanHouten

reborncareerist wrote:

Arg ... Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the Middle East? Completely unconnected. Completely. There is no analogy here.

I wasn't attempting to make an analogy between the two situations, I was pointing out a flawed point in the article/post. Poster claimed that non-democratic nations were more likely to use the bomb, which isn't true.

rebornFixer

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I wasn't attempting to make an analogy between the two situations, I was pointing out a flawed point in the article/post. Poster claimed that non-democratic nations were more likely to use the bomb, which isn't true.

Sorry ... The a-bomb thing is a real pet peeve of mine. People often evoke that as another way to bash the U.S., completely disregarding how different the political realities were back then.

Milhouse VanHouten

reborncareerist wrote:

Sorry ... The a-bomb thing is a real pet peeve of mine. People often evoke that as another way to bash the U.S., completely disregarding how different the political realities were back then.

Not trying to bash here, but we are the only nation ever to use them, and we're pretty vocal when anyone we don't like tries to attain them. We also chose to look the other way as Israel has apprently moved toward nukes.

How are the political realities of today different from those of 60 years ago?

rebornFixer

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Not trying to bash here, but we are the only nation ever to use them, and we're pretty vocal when anyone we don't like tries to attain them. We also chose to look the other way as Israel has apprently moved toward nukes.

How are the political realities of today different from those of 60 years ago?

The U.S. use of atomic bombs on Japan actually had the support of the other Allied nations, and the goal was pretty specific ... end the war without the need for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, which would have resulted in far more Japanese (and Allied) deaths than dropping those two bombs did. To me, this usage, while certainly open to criticism, has no real bearing on the likelihood that the U.S. or Israel would use nukes today.

NCfan

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I wasn't attempting to make an analogy between the two situations, I was pointing out a flawed point in the article/post. Poster claimed that non-democratic nations were more likely to use the bomb, which isn't true.

Please go read my post again. I explain exactly why Iran should not be allowed to have a bomb. I give 6 specific reasons.

Milhouse VanHouten

NCfan wrote:

Please go read my post again. I explain exactly why Iran should not be allowed to have a bomb. I give 6 specific reasons.

I read it over again. I still don't buy it.

I'm not arguing that Iran should have the bomb, I simply don't buy the rationalizations that justify Israel's developing nuclear weapons.

sourdough

reborncareerist wrote:

The U.S. use of atomic bombs on Japan actually had the support of the other Allied nations, and the goal was pretty specific ... end the war without the need for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, which would have resulted in far more Japanese (and Allied) deaths than dropping those two bombs did. To me, this usage, while certainly open to criticism, has no real bearing on the likelihood that the U.S. or Israel would use nukes today.

I think its widely recognized now that the Japanese had every intention of surrendering and were actively trying to surrender before the bomb was dropped. I believe Eisenhower acknowledges this, but the bomb was dropped to send a message to Russia and had nothing to do with sparing the lives of a ground invasion. Especially after Hiroshima, Nagasaki was completely unnecessary. It was a display of aggression towards Russia and a way to flex America's military might.

Milhouse VanHouten

reborncareerist wrote:

The U.S. use of atomic bombs on Japan actually had the support of the other Allied nations, and the goal was pretty specific ... end the war without the need for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, which would have resulted in far more Japanese (and Allied) deaths than dropping those two bombs did. To me, this usage, while certainly open to criticism, has no real bearing on the likelihood that the U.S. or Israel would use nukes today.

Another acknowledged motive behind the bombing was to show the world that we had it.

MrBrian

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Another acknowledged motive behind the bombing was to show the world that we had it.

and had no problems with it being used, coooooold blooooded.

sourdough

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Another acknowledged motive behind the bombing was to show the world that we had it.

And the second was used to show that they had more than one and could make more. It had nothing to do with the Japanese and everything to do with the Russians.

Milhouse VanHouten

sourdough wrote:

And the second was used to show that they had more than one and could make more. It had nothing to do with the Japanese and everything to do with the Russians.

Yeah, basically us showing our ass before the Cold War started. Or starting the Cold War, depending on how you look at it.

I'm sure the people of Hiroshima & Nagasaki are comforted to know that it wasn't really personal.

rebornFixer

sourdough wrote:

And the second was used to show that they had more than one and could make more. It had nothing to do with the Japanese and everything to do with the Russians.

There was little indication that the Japanese were going to surrender, at least, not the military commanders nor most of the civilian populace. Only government officials had hinted at the possibility. Its not as cut and dried as your statement "widely acknowledged" makes it out to be.

That being said, your point about showing the Soviets is probably accurate as well. Still has no bearing on my point about the likelihood that the U.S. poses a nuclear threat in this day and age.

rebornFixer

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I'm sure the people of Hiroshima & Nagasaki are comforted to know that it wasn't really personal.

I wonder how the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki felt about the Nanking rapes and massacre, or how they felt about Allied POWs tortured in prison camps, or how they felt about conquering more land mass than the Germans did. Let's not pretend that World War II only had one victim, here.

NCfan

sourdough wrote:

And the second was used to show that they had more than one and could make more. It had nothing to do with the Japanese and everything to do with the Russians.

LOL, or maybe it could be that after 3 days they didn't surrender?!?!?! Duh!

So you are saying that we would have dropped the second one even if they did surrender to show we had more than one and could make more? Does the fact that the war was still going on not have anything to do with the decision to drop the second bomb?

Milhouse VanHouten

reborncareerist wrote:

I wonder how the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki felt about the Nanking rapes and massacre, or how they felt about Allied POWs tortured in prison camps, or how they felt about conquering more land mass than the Germans did. Let's not pretend that World War II only had one victim, here.

That's not what I was doing. Anyway, I doubt that the Japanese invasion of Nanking province was really a motivating factor in the decision to bomb.