Why Won't the Media Mention Israel's Nukes?
-
What’s MSM?
MSN?Found it. Looks like SkyNews was reporting it.
-
Interesting read about the topic
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/israel-nuclear-weapons/.
Not just an interesting read: also a good example of the media mentioning Israel’s nukes, like OP seems to think they never do.
-
This post did not contain any content.
We should welcome an Iranian bomb. Honestly, it's what the Middle East really needs to bring it to stability.
The biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East is Israel. They're a destabilizing force because they're an expansionist nuclear-armed power with no hard borders. Their borders aren't actually fixed; they're in a decades-long process to slowly expand them. For those who forget, Israel's MO is to:
- Destabilize border regions of neighboring countries and foster the creation of militant groups within them.
- Use those destabilized regions as justification for military occupation of the territory of neighboring countries.
- Announce the creation of border "buffer zones."
- Allow their civilians to move into what is supposed to be a DMZ-like buffer zone.
- Again have civilians in the line of fire of militants, demanding further border expansion.
Israel has been expanding like this for decades, and there's no end in site. Their immediate neighbors are all to weak and destabilized to resist this process of slow Israeli lebensraum. The people in the Middle East are rightly afraid that they'll be next under the Israeli boot, and they'll find themselves reduced to the plight of the Gazans.
Israel is out of control. It's an expansionist military power hellbent on gobbling up its neighbors. The reason they're able to get away with this is because they have nuclear weapons. No Arab nation can invade them without the threat of being nuked in return. Israel uses its nuclear arsenal to conquer its neighbors.
Another nuclear power is desperately needed in the region to hold them in check. A nuclear Iran would serve this role well. They wouldn't be able to wipe Israel off the map, as that would result in them getting nuked in return. What a nuclear-armed Iran can do is to finally put a check on Israel's endless military expansion. We need powers that can stand up to the Israelis as equals and say, "no. Your borders are fucking big enough. You're not taking one more square meter of land."
-
Forced by who? The Republican Congress would likely say Iran deserved it, and even if they didn't Trump would dismantle any group the executive branch is supposed to use to enforce them as he was pushing for with Russia .
Their biggest trading partner is China .. not sure what they would do
I'm talking about the present, where everyone knows Israel has nukes but not officially. Not some future scenario where Israel nukes Iran.
-
I think the West has already demonstrated that they're perfectly happy to just ignore obligations like that, as evidenced by them all refusing to inforce the arrest warrant against Netanyahu.
They're already ignoring it. They just don't want to admit their ignoring it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
There are other countries too that unofficially have nukes
-
I'm talking about the present, where everyone knows Israel has nukes but not officially. Not some future scenario where Israel nukes Iran.
Why would you think they would need to be sanctioned for not using them? China and India both have nuclear weapons and have small skirmishes (granted not as big as this) and we don't discuss sanctioning both of them for it. I would think threatening to use or using them would be the only scenarios where sanctions would be "forced hand" for lack of a better term.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Iran needs nukes to defend itself from a nuclear armed aggressor. Everyone needs nukes for that reason. Greenland needs nukes to protect itself from the US.
-
Why would you think they would need to be sanctioned for not using them? China and India both have nuclear weapons and have small skirmishes (granted not as big as this) and we don't discuss sanctioning both of them for it. I would think threatening to use or using them would be the only scenarios where sanctions would be "forced hand" for lack of a better term.
China and India both have nuclear weapons and have small skirmishes (granted not as big as this) and we don’t discuss sanctioning both of them for it.
nor india and pakistan. that's the conflict I worry about more.
-
China and India both have nuclear weapons and have small skirmishes (granted not as big as this) and we don’t discuss sanctioning both of them for it.
nor india and pakistan. that's the conflict I worry about more.
I saw elsewhere that Pakistan stated they would be attacking Israel back with nukes if Israel used them against Iran. Which is why I assume it's a given they won't be used and we won't have to worry about them coming into play
-
This post did not contain any content.
Everyone's got them but nobody uses them. So do they really need them or just need to convince other countries that they have them.
-
Everyone's got them but nobody uses them. So do they really need them or just need to convince other countries that they have them.
not every country has a nuclear arsenal
-
Iran needs nukes to defend itself from a nuclear armed aggressor. Everyone needs nukes for that reason. Greenland needs nukes to protect itself from the US.
Probability of nuclear war rises with number of states having nukes. It's best to keep that number as low as possible, so I would not think it wise for Greenland to have nukes. It would not be a sin for Iran to have them, though, given Iran's allies aren't exactly offering a nuclear umbrella.
-
not every country has a nuclear arsenal
Why not? Everyone should keep a nuke in their basement just in case
-
This post did not contain any content.
In an oligarchy, corporate media is state media.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
Why not? Everyone should keep a nuke in their basement just in case
It's my uhh hunting tactical nuke. I use it when I need to blast 40-60 wild hogs in 5 milliseconds
-
Why not? Everyone should keep a nuke in their basement just in case
Just gotta dig up grandpa's old Atomic Energy Lab play set and experiment a bit.
-
We should welcome an Iranian bomb. Honestly, it's what the Middle East really needs to bring it to stability.
The biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East is Israel. They're a destabilizing force because they're an expansionist nuclear-armed power with no hard borders. Their borders aren't actually fixed; they're in a decades-long process to slowly expand them. For those who forget, Israel's MO is to:
- Destabilize border regions of neighboring countries and foster the creation of militant groups within them.
- Use those destabilized regions as justification for military occupation of the territory of neighboring countries.
- Announce the creation of border "buffer zones."
- Allow their civilians to move into what is supposed to be a DMZ-like buffer zone.
- Again have civilians in the line of fire of militants, demanding further border expansion.
Israel has been expanding like this for decades, and there's no end in site. Their immediate neighbors are all to weak and destabilized to resist this process of slow Israeli lebensraum. The people in the Middle East are rightly afraid that they'll be next under the Israeli boot, and they'll find themselves reduced to the plight of the Gazans.
Israel is out of control. It's an expansionist military power hellbent on gobbling up its neighbors. The reason they're able to get away with this is because they have nuclear weapons. No Arab nation can invade them without the threat of being nuked in return. Israel uses its nuclear arsenal to conquer its neighbors.
Another nuclear power is desperately needed in the region to hold them in check. A nuclear Iran would serve this role well. They wouldn't be able to wipe Israel off the map, as that would result in them getting nuked in return. What a nuclear-armed Iran can do is to finally put a check on Israel's endless military expansion. We need powers that can stand up to the Israelis as equals and say, "no. Your borders are fucking big enough. You're not taking one more square meter of land."
As much as I agree that Israel is a destabilizing force and that you have their MO fairly spot on, Israel doesn't seem to be using its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for invasion. They don't have to, they have significant conventional forces with US backing, making invasion nigh-impossible anyway. That's how it went in the past at least with the various regional wars.
I'm not sure an Iranian bomb would stabilize much if anything. Israel sees it as a direct existential threat and will stop at nothing to prevent or disable such a weapon. Iran has also repeatedly threatened to use it on Israel offensively, which doesn't really bode well for peace either. Suppose Iran does lob a bomb at Israel, how would they respond? Or what if Israel strikes first? I don't trust either party to be reasonable and responsible here tbh.
Iran can't use the weapon to threaten Israel as you say, because it'd be an empty threat. Iran can't nuke Israel without getting nuked right back. Israel knows this, so they can continue their expansions just fine.
MAD doctrine prevents nuclear wars from breaking out, but as we have been seeing recently it doesn't prevent conventional wars.
-
Probability of nuclear war rises with number of states having nukes. It's best to keep that number as low as possible, so I would not think it wise for Greenland to have nukes. It would not be a sin for Iran to have them, though, given Iran's allies aren't exactly offering a nuclear umbrella.
That is the conventional wisdom. Wisdom written by people with nukes who can't stop bullying everyone else.
