Since you duck the question by saying you don't understand English jlew.
If Iran with the Shah in power had nuke plants given by the US and then lthe shah had to leave the country what would be any different? Your country was willing to cough up the technology back then. Like I said, if you can't see the big picture you like to try to belittle people. Why? I don't know. Anyway try commenting on the part about the US willing to chirp up the technology when they have the right person in power and how that is right. I am sure you are not stupid enough to not understand what I just typed. Then again...........
You need to get your facts straight. First of all Hizb-Allah is made up of two ideologies one which is more influenced by the Syrians and one which is more influenced by the Iranians. In the end they all follow their leader Nasrallah.
If anything it is more the Syrians that control Hizb-Allah than the other way around. (which are exactly the political problems going on in Lebanon right now).
Iranians did not create Hizb-Allah.. it was created as a resistance movement during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1983.
And trust me when the Israelis tried to invade last summer they didnt hide behind any women or children. You should go ask some IDF soldiers of their opinions of Hizb-Allah fighters. You will surprised to know they actually respected those who fought against them on land during the summer war.
What facts do I have wrong, specifically? Though it formed during the Lebonese civil war, the Iranians did, in fact, create hezbollah. Please provide any evidence to the contrary. Iran is the main supporter of Hezbollah with money, weapons and training. Please provide any evidence to the contrary.
There is a difference between respecting an enemy who is capable of killing you, and despising them for the tactics they use. The Americans respected Nazi soldiers, but does that mean their ideologies and government was legitimate, no.
almost 60 years ago (long time ago) the US helped a friend create a nuke program.
fast forward 60 long years and an Islamic revolution later, the US, and the world, doesnt want them to have it.
where is the problem. they are different times and different people. again, you make no sense.
You gave me an answer, I obviously make sense.
And I know you know the point is that your government dosen't mind giving the technology away when they deem appropriate to whoever. You seem to play stupid to believing this as truth. There wouldn't be too many problems if there wasn't a need to create a mess so the military could go and fix it.
surprised it took so long to pop in with this bullshit.
Truth hurts, right? lol
"We have to change the concept of patriotism to one of “matriotism” — love of humanity that transcends war. A matriarch would never send her own children off to wars that kill other people’s children." Cindy Sheehan --- London, Brixton, 14 July 1993 London, Wembley, 1996 London, Wembley, 18 June 2007 London, O2, 18 August 2009 London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012 Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 06 June 2017
And I know you know the point is that your government dosen't mind giving the technology away when they deem appropriate to whoever. You seem to play stupid to believing this as truth. There wouldn't be too many problems if there wasn't a need to create a mess so the military could go and fix it.
The truth is that different leaders make different decisions in different eras. Your arguement lacks historical perspective. Your attempt to damn the US government today for decisions it made 50 years ago is about as irresponsible as tyring to slander Angela Merckel's regime becuase Hitler commited atrocities against the Jews 60 years ago.
The truth is that different leaders make different decisions in different eras. Your arguement lacks historical perspective. Your attempt to damn the US government today for decisions it made 50 years ago is about as irresponsible as tyring to slander Angela Merckel's regime becuase Hitler commited atrocities against the Jews 60 years ago.
The truth is that the States will give to whoever and that helps to endanger the neighbours of said countries. Bottom line!
But you are right in a way. I didn't do anything to any races yet have to hear about all the time. So to say the past is irrelevant is petty at least.
The truth is that the States will give to whoever and that helps to endanger the neighbours of said countries. Bottom line!
But you are right in a way. I didn't do anything to any races yet have to hear about all the time. So to say the past is irrelevant is petty at least.
No, the States don't just give nuclear technology to "whoever". If that were true, why would we have a problem with Iran, North Korea, Syria? You jus can't say that we give aid to countries and that "endangers their neighbors". Please explain. I see Eygpt, Lebanon, Israel, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan all getting aid, and the list goes on and on and on. I'm pretty sure those countries appreciate getting money from the US. What do you think?
I don't get what you mean "you haven't done anything to any races", where are you going with that?
What facts do I have wrong, specifically? Though it formed during the Lebonese civil war, the Iranians did, in fact, create hezbollah. Please provide any evidence to the contrary. Iran is the main supporter of Hezbollah with money, weapons and training. Please provide any evidence to the contrary.
There is a difference between respecting an enemy who is capable of killing you, and despising them for the tactics they use. The Americans respected Nazi soldiers, but does that mean their ideologies and government was legitimate, no.
The fact is i've lived in the country for 6 years and my mother is from Lebanon originally. I do not need to provide evidence to the contrary of your opinions because I actually know the REALITY of the situation. You provide me with information that supports your opinions.
Iran, now, is believed to be the main supporter of Hizb-Allah but that is not something I disagreed with. I explained to you the whole Syrian/Iranian control over Hizb-Allah and that is one of the points you were wrong with.
And no that is not the type of respect the IDF soldiers were giving the Hizb-Allah fighters. It was more as to how bravely they actually fought being outnumbered, with less weaponry and surrounded at the time. Point is you will always be biased because of the bullshit you read everyday even though the statistics of the war clearly showed Hizb-Allah killed a ratio of 2:1 Israeli soldiers to civilians while Israel killed a ratio of 3:1 civilians with respect to Hizb-Allah fighters.
Edit: And to add on this, there is a big difference between created by and created with the help of. Hizb-Allah was created by the Lebanese Shi'ites as a resistance movement against the Israeli invasion (but hey its Israel they are allowed to invade). The Lebanese Shi'ites were aided by followers of the Iranian clergy.
if Iran was truthful about its program then the US and the world would have no problem with them. but instead your buddy decides to lie, and if it continues, he will be dealt with severely.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to lie and decieve about it's nuclear program. Where's all the fuss about that? I can't hear it.
It's just jlews genius shining through again , funny how so many somehow cannot comprehend how it is.
It must be great to look down at everything from such a lofty perch.
Such a shame platform shoes went out of style a while back.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
YOU'VE BEEN OWED 10 TIMES OVER IN THIS THREAD. FIND A NEW HOBBY
lol...you've never have owned me once. Don't feel bad... being right about things, or possessing a sense of humor is not for everyone.
Each person is special in their own way. Find solace in that.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
If I were Iran I would be pusuing every possible venue possible to get Nukes. Its a very effective way to deter the worlds superpower from taking over your counrty, and one of the few, if only.
IE US FOREIGN POLICY IS ENCOURAGING NATIONS TO PURSUE DEVELOPMENT OF WMDS.
"When US President Bush declared in October 2007 that if Iran acquired the knowledge to produce nuclear weapons, we would be plunged into World War III, he was not joking or even exaggerating: he was making his intentions clear. In the same month, Vice-President Dick Cheney repeated the threat that the US would not ‘stand by’ as Iran allegedly pursued a nuclear weapons programme. If the present war in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine spreads to Iran, we will indeed have World War III. We have long had circumstantial evidence that the Bush regime was building up to an attack on Iran: the constant allegations (denied by Mohamed El Baradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]) that it was pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, charges (denied by the Iraqi government) that it was sending arms and fighters into Iraq, a US military build-up clearly directed against Iran, the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of Iran as a terrorist organisation and imposition of sweeping sanctions against Iran.[2] But it has now been revealed by two former high-ranking policy experts from the US National Security Council that war against Iran was planned all along, and nothing that Iran offered to do — including giving up its uranium enrichment programme — could have made a difference.[3]"
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
If I were Iran I would be pusuing every possible venue possible to get Nukes. Its a very effective way to deter the worlds superpower from taking over your counrty, and one of the few, if only.
in turn you would be encouraging countries to attack you. great plan
"When US President Bush declared in October 2007 that if Iran acquired the knowledge to produce nuclear weapons, we would be plunged into World War III, he was not joking or even exaggerating: he was making his intentions clear. In the same month, Vice-President Dick Cheney repeated the threat that the US would not ‘stand by’ as Iran allegedly pursued a nuclear weapons programme. If the present war in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine spreads to Iran, we will indeed have World War III. We have long had circumstantial evidence that the Bush regime was building up to an attack on Iran: the constant allegations (denied by Mohamed El Baradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]) that it was pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, charges (denied by the Iraqi government) that it was sending arms and fighters into Iraq, a US military build-up clearly directed against Iran, the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of Iran as a terrorist organisation and imposition of sweeping sanctions against Iran.[2] But it has now been revealed by two former high-ranking policy experts from the US National Security Council that war against Iran was planned all along, and nothing that Iran offered to do — including giving up its uranium enrichment programme — could have made a difference.[3]"
Biggest mistake the US will ever make, underestimating the Iranians just like Saddam. During the Iraqi/Iranian war there were 13/14 year old Iranian boys who were running to enlist, to get any type of weapon to go fight and die for their country. Their ideology and nationalism is like no other.
Biggest mistake the US will ever make, underestimating the Iranians just like Saddam. During the Iraqi/Iranian war there were 13/14 year old Iranian boys who were running to enlist, to get any type of weapon to go fight and die for their country. Their ideology and nationalism is like no other.
I disgree. I think the US greatly overestimated saddam. what they totally underestimated was the deep seeded hatred between shittes and sunnis.
The sad part is the warmongers don't care if the US wins or loses. They just need to spread chaos to fill their pockets. Any rational person will realise war with Iran is completely nonsensical.
The sad part is the warmongers don't care if the US wins or loses. They just need to spread chaos to fill their pockets. Any rational person will realise war with Iran is completely nonsensical.
there is a difference between all out invasion/occupation/regime change then there is to bombing some nuclear facilities. and not wanting Iran to have nukes doesnt qualify one as a war monger.
there is a difference between all out invasion/occupation/regime change then there is to bombing some nuclear facilities. and not wanting Iran to have nukes doesnt qualify one as a war monger.
Mate is it your hobby to misread my posts.. I am referring to the article than roland posted about the war with Iran being organised all along.. that my friend classifies them as war mongers..
Mate is it your hobby to misread my posts.. I am referring to the article than roland posted about the war with Iran being organised all along.. that my friend classifies them as war mongers..
yea I know. I was just making a statement because roland likes to classify anyone who opposes Iran having nukes as war mongers.
Israel is widely believed to possess a substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons,[1] and maintains intercontinental-range ballistic missiles to deliver them. Officially Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing nuclear weapons. The U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment has recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared chemical warfare capabilities, and an offensive biological warfare program.[2]
[edit] Nuclear weapons
Main article: Nuclear weapons and Israel
The Israeli government refuses to officially confirm or deny whether it has a nuclear weapon program. It has an unofficial but rigidly enforced policy of deliberate ambiguity, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East".[3] In the late 1960s, Israeli Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin informed the United States State Department, that its understanding of "introducing" such weapons meant that they would be tested and publicly declared, while merely possessing the weapons did not constitute "introducing" them.[4] Israel is widely believed to be one of four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the other three being India, Pakistan and North Korea.[5] The International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei regards Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons.[6] In a December 2006 interview, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Iran aspires "to have a nuclear weapon as America, France, Israel and Russia."[7] Olmert's office later said that the quote was taken out of context; in other parts of the interview, Olmert refused to confirm or deny Israel's nuclear weapon status.[8]
The first public revelation of Israel's nuclear capability (as opposed to development program) came in the London based Sunday Times on October 5, 1986, which printed information provided by Mordechai Vanunu, formerly employed at the Negev Nuclear Research Center, a facility located in the Negev desert south of Dimona. For publication of state secrets, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason and espionage. Although there had been much speculation prior to Vanunu's revelations that the Dimona site was creating nuclear weapons, Vanunu's information indicated that Israel had also built thermonuclear weapons.[17]
In 1998, former Prime Minister Shimon Peres said that Israel "built a nuclear option, not in order to have a Hiroshima but an Oslo".[18]
A United States Defense Intelligence Agency report (leaked and published in the book Rumsfeld's War: The Untold Story of America's Anti-Terrorist Commander by journalist Rowan Scarborough in 2004) puts the number of weapons at 82. U.S. intelligence sources in the late 1990s estimated 75–130,[20]and 400 in the early 2000s according to some sources at the U.S air force intelligence[21] or even as early as the mid 1990s.[22]
On February 1, 2007, President Chirac of France commented on the Nuclear ambitions of Iran, hinting on possible nuclear countermeasures from Israel:
"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed".[30]
There are speculations that a chemical weapons program might be located at the Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR) in Ness Ziona [2]. Professor Marcus Klingberg, deputy director of the institute, was sentenced in 1983 to 20 years in prison after being found guilty of the charge of being a Soviet spy. The government kept the matter secret for a decade, arguing it was a sensitive issue.[53]
190 liters of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a CWC schedule 2 chemical used in the synthesis of Sarin nerve gas, was discovered in the cargo of El Al Flight 1862 after it crashed in 1992 en route to Tel Aviv. Israel insisted the material was non-toxic, was to have been used to test filters that protect against chemical weapons, and that it had been clearly listed on the cargo manifest in accordance with international regulations. The shipment was from a U.S. chemical plant to the IIBR under a U.S. Department of Commerce license.[54]
In 1993, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities.[2] Former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense responsible for chemical and biological defense, Bill Richardson, said in 1998 "I have no doubt that Israel has worked on both chemical and biological offensive things for a long time ... There's no doubt they've had stuff for years".[55]
In 1993, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having an undeclared offensive biological warfare program.
Delivery Systems
Missiles
Israel is known to have tested two versions of the Jericho missile system. The Jericho I with a range of 500km and the Jericho II with a range of 1,500km.
The Shavit rocket is used for inserting objects into a low earth orbit.
Third version of the Jericho missile is possible. Jericho III is thought to have been in service since mid-2005. With a payload of 1,000 - 1,300 kg it has a range of 4,800 km, or 7,800km with a payload of 350 kg (one Israeli nuclear warhead). This gives Israel, at least, nuclear strike capability against Africa, Europe, and most of Asia.
Popeye turbo cruise missile with a range of 1,500km.
now that that argument can be put to rest around here (even though i know some will compltely ignore the obvious and continue to argue their stubborn talking points)... i think the argument should not be about who has them... but why does anyone still have them and how can we reverse this insane race to exctinction... because that is what it is. so unless you are pushing for a full universal nuclear ban, then you are wasting your time in my opinion. our future generations agree
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
yea I know. I was just making a statement because roland likes to classify anyone who opposes Iran having nukes as war mongers.
Hey buddy if you got something to say say it to me or else...oo oooo
lol
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
ok lets see here
almost 60 years ago (long time ago) the US helped a friend create a nuke program.
fast forward 60 long years and an Islamic revolution later, the US, and the world, doesnt want them to have it.
where is the problem. they are different times and different people. again, you make no sense.
What facts do I have wrong, specifically? Though it formed during the Lebonese civil war, the Iranians did, in fact, create hezbollah. Please provide any evidence to the contrary. Iran is the main supporter of Hezbollah with money, weapons and training. Please provide any evidence to the contrary.
There is a difference between respecting an enemy who is capable of killing you, and despising them for the tactics they use. The Americans respected Nazi soldiers, but does that mean their ideologies and government was legitimate, no.
You gave me an answer, I obviously make sense.
And I know you know the point is that your government dosen't mind giving the technology away when they deem appropriate to whoever. You seem to play stupid to believing this as truth. There wouldn't be too many problems if there wasn't a need to create a mess so the military could go and fix it.
Truth hurts, right? lol
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
The truth is that different leaders make different decisions in different eras. Your arguement lacks historical perspective. Your attempt to damn the US government today for decisions it made 50 years ago is about as irresponsible as tyring to slander Angela Merckel's regime becuase Hitler commited atrocities against the Jews 60 years ago.
Your ignorance is sad.
The truth is that the States will give to whoever and that helps to endanger the neighbours of said countries. Bottom line!
But you are right in a way. I didn't do anything to any races yet have to hear about all the time. So to say the past is irrelevant is petty at least.
No, the States don't just give nuclear technology to "whoever". If that were true, why would we have a problem with Iran, North Korea, Syria? You jus can't say that we give aid to countries and that "endangers their neighbors". Please explain. I see Eygpt, Lebanon, Israel, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan all getting aid, and the list goes on and on and on. I'm pretty sure those countries appreciate getting money from the US. What do you think?
I don't get what you mean "you haven't done anything to any races", where are you going with that?
The fact is i've lived in the country for 6 years and my mother is from Lebanon originally. I do not need to provide evidence to the contrary of your opinions because I actually know the REALITY of the situation. You provide me with information that supports your opinions.
Iran, now, is believed to be the main supporter of Hizb-Allah but that is not something I disagreed with. I explained to you the whole Syrian/Iranian control over Hizb-Allah and that is one of the points you were wrong with.
And no that is not the type of respect the IDF soldiers were giving the Hizb-Allah fighters. It was more as to how bravely they actually fought being outnumbered, with less weaponry and surrounded at the time. Point is you will always be biased because of the bullshit you read everyday even though the statistics of the war clearly showed Hizb-Allah killed a ratio of 2:1 Israeli soldiers to civilians while Israel killed a ratio of 3:1 civilians with respect to Hizb-Allah fighters.
Edit: And to add on this, there is a big difference between created by and created with the help of. Hizb-Allah was created by the Lebanese Shi'ites as a resistance movement against the Israeli invasion (but hey its Israel they are allowed to invade). The Lebanese Shi'ites were aided by followers of the Iranian clergy.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to lie and decieve about it's nuclear program. Where's all the fuss about that? I can't hear it.
It must be great to look down at everything from such a lofty perch.
Such a shame platform shoes went out of style a while back.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
wow you just make shit up as you go along or what? Israel is lying about its nuke program? since when?
ZINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
YOU'VE BEEN OWED 10 TIMES OVER IN THIS THREAD. FIND A NEW HOBBY
lol...you've never have owned me once. Don't feel bad... being right about things, or possessing a sense of humor is not for everyone.
Each person is special in their own way. Find solace in that.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
since kennedy was president.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
BUT.
If I were Iran I would be pusuing every possible venue possible to get Nukes. Its a very effective way to deter the worlds superpower from taking over your counrty, and one of the few, if only.
IE US FOREIGN POLICY IS ENCOURAGING NATIONS TO PURSUE DEVELOPMENT OF WMDS.
"When US President Bush declared in October 2007 that if Iran acquired the knowledge to produce nuclear weapons, we would be plunged into World War III, he was not joking or even exaggerating: he was making his intentions clear. In the same month, Vice-President Dick Cheney repeated the threat that the US would not ‘stand by’ as Iran allegedly pursued a nuclear weapons programme. If the present war in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine spreads to Iran, we will indeed have World War III. We have long had circumstantial evidence that the Bush regime was building up to an attack on Iran: the constant allegations (denied by Mohamed El Baradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]) that it was pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, charges (denied by the Iraqi government) that it was sending arms and fighters into Iraq, a US military build-up clearly directed against Iran, the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of Iran as a terrorist organisation and imposition of sweeping sanctions against Iran.[2] But it has now been revealed by two former high-ranking policy experts from the US National Security Council that war against Iran was planned all along, and nothing that Iran offered to do — including giving up its uranium enrichment programme — could have made a difference.[3]"
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/averting-world-war-iii-ending-dollar-hegemony-and-us-imperialism/
[3] http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107
Money talks.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
this is unfortunately true.
Biggest mistake the US will ever make, underestimating the Iranians just like Saddam. During the Iraqi/Iranian war there were 13/14 year old Iranian boys who were running to enlist, to get any type of weapon to go fight and die for their country. Their ideology and nationalism is like no other.
I disgree. I think the US greatly overestimated saddam. what they totally underestimated was the deep seeded hatred between shittes and sunnis.
as for the Iranians, I'd say you are right.
I never mentioned anything about the US and Saddam. My post meant the US will underestimate the Iranians just like Saddam underestimated them.
o I gotcha. my bad. I agree
there is a difference between all out invasion/occupation/regime change then there is to bombing some nuclear facilities. and not wanting Iran to have nukes doesnt qualify one as a war monger.
Mate is it your hobby to misread my posts.. I am referring to the article than roland posted about the war with Iran being organised all along.. that my friend classifies them as war mongers..
yea I know. I was just making a statement because roland likes to classify anyone who opposes Iran having nukes as war mongers.
[edit] Nuclear weapons
Main article: Nuclear weapons and Israel
The Israeli government refuses to officially confirm or deny whether it has a nuclear weapon program. It has an unofficial but rigidly enforced policy of deliberate ambiguity, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East".[3] In the late 1960s, Israeli Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin informed the United States State Department, that its understanding of "introducing" such weapons meant that they would be tested and publicly declared, while merely possessing the weapons did not constitute "introducing" them.[4] Israel is widely believed to be one of four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the other three being India, Pakistan and North Korea.[5] The International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei regards Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons.[6] In a December 2006 interview, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Iran aspires "to have a nuclear weapon as America, France, Israel and Russia."[7] Olmert's office later said that the quote was taken out of context; in other parts of the interview, Olmert refused to confirm or deny Israel's nuclear weapon status.[8]
The first public revelation of Israel's nuclear capability (as opposed to development program) came in the London based Sunday Times on October 5, 1986, which printed information provided by Mordechai Vanunu, formerly employed at the Negev Nuclear Research Center, a facility located in the Negev desert south of Dimona. For publication of state secrets, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason and espionage. Although there had been much speculation prior to Vanunu's revelations that the Dimona site was creating nuclear weapons, Vanunu's information indicated that Israel had also built thermonuclear weapons.[17]
In 1998, former Prime Minister Shimon Peres said that Israel "built a nuclear option, not in order to have a Hiroshima but an Oslo".[18]
A United States Defense Intelligence Agency report (leaked and published in the book Rumsfeld's War: The Untold Story of America's Anti-Terrorist Commander by journalist Rowan Scarborough in 2004) puts the number of weapons at 82. U.S. intelligence sources in the late 1990s estimated 75–130,[20]and 400 in the early 2000s according to some sources at the U.S air force intelligence[21] or even as early as the mid 1990s.[22]
On February 1, 2007, President Chirac of France commented on the Nuclear ambitions of Iran, hinting on possible nuclear countermeasures from Israel:
"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed".[30]
There are speculations that a chemical weapons program might be located at the Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR) in Ness Ziona [2]. Professor Marcus Klingberg, deputy director of the institute, was sentenced in 1983 to 20 years in prison after being found guilty of the charge of being a Soviet spy. The government kept the matter secret for a decade, arguing it was a sensitive issue.[53]
190 liters of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a CWC schedule 2 chemical used in the synthesis of Sarin nerve gas, was discovered in the cargo of El Al Flight 1862 after it crashed in 1992 en route to Tel Aviv. Israel insisted the material was non-toxic, was to have been used to test filters that protect against chemical weapons, and that it had been clearly listed on the cargo manifest in accordance with international regulations. The shipment was from a U.S. chemical plant to the IIBR under a U.S. Department of Commerce license.[54]
In 1993, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities.[2] Former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense responsible for chemical and biological defense, Bill Richardson, said in 1998 "I have no doubt that Israel has worked on both chemical and biological offensive things for a long time ... There's no doubt they've had stuff for years".[55]
In 1993, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having an undeclared offensive biological warfare program.
Delivery Systems
Missiles
Israel is known to have tested two versions of the Jericho missile system. The Jericho I with a range of 500km and the Jericho II with a range of 1,500km.
The Shavit rocket is used for inserting objects into a low earth orbit.
Third version of the Jericho missile is possible. Jericho III is thought to have been in service since mid-2005. With a payload of 1,000 - 1,300 kg it has a range of 4,800 km, or 7,800km with a payload of 350 kg (one Israeli nuclear warhead). This gives Israel, at least, nuclear strike capability against Africa, Europe, and most of Asia.
Popeye turbo cruise missile with a range of 1,500km.
Aircraft
Lockheed Martin F-16I Sufa ("Storm")
McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F-15 Eagle Baz 2000 (A/B/C/D/E)
Marine
Dolphin Class - Type 800 coastal submarines - "Nuclear capable", according to The Washington Post [3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
now that that argument can be put to rest around here (even though i know some will compltely ignore the obvious and continue to argue their stubborn talking points)... i think the argument should not be about who has them... but why does anyone still have them and how can we reverse this insane race to exctinction... because that is what it is. so unless you are pushing for a full universal nuclear ban, then you are wasting your time in my opinion. our future generations agree
"Considering a war with Iran, A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East"
http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/IranStudy082807a.pdf
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Hey buddy if you got something to say say it to me or else...oo oooo
lol
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
didnt you ask me how old I am for using the term owned. yet you constantly throw out LOL's :rolleyes: I'm almost 28. how old r u?