Why Won't the Media Mention Israel's Nukes?
-
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.
-
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
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
yeeeah, I do wonder about that. the world has seen what a few madmen can get away with for a decade here and there... doesn't seem to be stabilizing.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Pretty simple. Currently not all nations have nukes, out of those who have, a few have enough to completely destroy a rival nation. This means that the nations with the big nuke stocks are the ones calling the shots as to who should have nukes and how much. Iran being mostly against the US is not allowed nukes, Israel being mostly a US ally is allowed nukes.
This is the unpolitical explanation.
-
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.
Israel doesn’t seem to be using its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for invasion.
So it's just a coincidence that no neighboring country has threatened them with outright military invasion since they got nukes?
And when has Iran ever threatened to use a bomb against Israel? They deny they're even trying to get a bomb. Do their politicians like to say, "death to Israel?" Sure, but that's just part of their discourse. The Iranians use "death to" as a synonym for "down with." They say the same thing during political campaigns against opposing political candidates.
An Iranian bomb would stabilize the situation because the same pattern has occurred in numerous other conflicts. Yes, nukes don't prevent conventional wars, but they do prevent total war between nuclear powers. Russia would have never attempted its invasion of Ukraine if Ukraine still had their nukes. India and Pakistan's arsenals are what kept the recent conflict between them from spiraling further than it did.
You can speculate that nukes wouldn't prevent further expansion of Israel, but that's ahistorical analysis. Having an opponent that is just as well armed as you are makes you act more carefully. The Soviets didn't just keep expanding across Europe, precisely because the US had the bomb to hold them in check. Israel has been able to act with such impunity because ultimately none of its neighbors can stand up to it. It's only when some of Israel's neighbors actually have nukes, and they have to address their neighbors as equals, that peace is actually possible. As long as one side holds complete military dominance, real peace isn't possible.
-
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.
Yeah after ukraine, i don't think anyobe else will ever make that mistake again.
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]best to keep the number low
Yeah it would be cool if Ukraine was a positive example of what happens when you surrender your nuclear weapons.
How about we all just agree to glass any religious fanatics, especially ethnostates, that get their hands on the things?
-
Pretty simple. Currently not all nations have nukes, out of those who have, a few have enough to completely destroy a rival nation. This means that the nations with the big nuke stocks are the ones calling the shots as to who should have nukes and how much. Iran being mostly against the US is not allowed nukes, Israel being mostly a US ally is allowed nukes.
This is the unpolitical explanation.
we really should have some deal to allow Iran to have access to nuclear power under supervision
-
we really should have some deal to allow Iran to have access to nuclear power under supervision
We used to have that, Trump 45 ripped it up.
-
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.
Any state that signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is obligated to sanction any other state that didn't but has nuclear weapons.
China is an authorized to have nukes in the NPT as NWS. However, neither India nor Pakistan are NPT signatories and get mixed sanctions based on who is doing it. The US has sanctions on Pakistan but overt nuclear deals with India. China has deals with Pakistan. Australia had sanctions on India until recently.
Basically international law is only enforced if politically expedient. It shouldn't surprise you that Israel certainly wouldn't actually face any actual sanctions if they declared they had nukes. But they are legitimately afraid of getting the Apartheid South Africa treatment so they don't give any ground on the issue.
-
Because then the US any every other IAEA signatory would be obligated to sanction Israel which would be the end of Israel's economy.
No news media dares mention it because they have no proof and would both loose any insider access and get buried in libel cases.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Hahha there is tons of proof, if you use the standard the US used to claim Iraq had WMD and then invade them.
Difference being that Israel actually has nukes and does everything they can for a very long time to stop the IAEA from getting assigned to look at them...
...and Saddam actually let weapons inspectors in, because the only chemical weapons he still had were old artillery shells we fucking sold him in the 80s, ageing and leaking in a few armories that had been cordoned off as hazardous waste dumps.
....
Howabout the fact that Israel has a nuclear weapons doctrine?
That you can find random essays written by West Point grads in 30 seconds of websearching... that are about Israel's nuclear doctrine?
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/israel-samson-option-interconnected-world/
Despite Israel also having a 'nuclear ambiguity' policy?
Despite also Ephraim Katzir, Moshe Dayan, Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert all actually making public statements that Israel does have nuclear weapons?
That they caused a giant fucking scandal back in the 60s by stealing actual fissile material from NUMEC, a US company that uh, refines weapons grades uranium?
Look up 'Apollo Affair'.
That the CIA believed Israel had working nukes back in '75?
That they conducted a nuclear test in cooperation with South Africa in '79?
'Vela Incident'.
That the French helped them build an enrichment facility outside of Dimona in the Negev, that an unclassified US report released in 1980 concluded its had working, functional capacity since 1965?
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011997288&view=1up&seq=433
...
Why?
Why doesn't the world openly call out this bullshit?
Well it certainly couldn't have anything to do with Mossad and Jeffery Epstein, no sir, nothing like that, definitely not that.
-
Hahha there is tons of proof, if you use the standard the US used to claim Iraq had WMD and then invade them.
Difference being that Israel actually has nukes and does everything they can for a very long time to stop the IAEA from getting assigned to look at them...
...and Saddam actually let weapons inspectors in, because the only chemical weapons he still had were old artillery shells we fucking sold him in the 80s, ageing and leaking in a few armories that had been cordoned off as hazardous waste dumps.
....
Howabout the fact that Israel has a nuclear weapons doctrine?
That you can find random essays written by West Point grads in 30 seconds of websearching... that are about Israel's nuclear doctrine?
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/israel-samson-option-interconnected-world/
Despite Israel also having a 'nuclear ambiguity' policy?
Despite also Ephraim Katzir, Moshe Dayan, Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert all actually making public statements that Israel does have nuclear weapons?
That they caused a giant fucking scandal back in the 60s by stealing actual fissile material from NUMEC, a US company that uh, refines weapons grades uranium?
Look up 'Apollo Affair'.
That the CIA believed Israel had working nukes back in '75?
That they conducted a nuclear test in cooperation with South Africa in '79?
'Vela Incident'.
That the French helped them build an enrichment facility outside of Dimona in the Negev, that an unclassified US report released in 1980 concluded its had working, functional capacity since 1965?
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011997288&view=1up&seq=433
...
Why?
Why doesn't the world openly call out this bullshit?
Well it certainly couldn't have anything to do with Mossad and Jeffery Epstein, no sir, nothing like that, definitely not that.
Sorry for the confusion when I said "no proof". I meant "no official sources". Everyone knows Israel has nukes they just have to pretend they aren't for the legal reasons I stated.
-
Any state that signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is obligated to sanction any other state that didn't but has nuclear weapons.
China is an authorized to have nukes in the NPT as NWS. However, neither India nor Pakistan are NPT signatories and get mixed sanctions based on who is doing it. The US has sanctions on Pakistan but overt nuclear deals with India. China has deals with Pakistan. Australia had sanctions on India until recently.
Basically international law is only enforced if politically expedient. It shouldn't surprise you that Israel certainly wouldn't actually face any actual sanctions if they declared they had nukes. But they are legitimately afraid of getting the Apartheid South Africa treatment so they don't give any ground on the issue.
Yeah I don't see why anyone would care bout that treaty if people can ignore it. Shit the U.S. /India have 1.5 billion dollar satellite being launched into space this week from India. I don't see why we would be sanctioning people and building future endeavors with them.
-
Yeah I don't see why anyone would care bout that treaty if people can ignore it. Shit the U.S. /India have 1.5 billion dollar satellite being launched into space this week from India. I don't see why we would be sanctioning people and building future endeavors with them.
Yeah I don’t see why anyone would care bout that treaty if people can ignore it.
Except we magically give all the shits about it when it comes to Iran. All treaties are selectively applied. Welcome to the world of foreign relations.
-
Sorry for the confusion when I said "no proof". I meant "no official sources". Everyone knows Israel has nukes they just have to pretend they aren't for the legal reasons I stated.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I get what you are saying but there are extensive, publically released offcial documents from the US government that the US has been very much convinced Israel has had nukes since the 60s.
What... what kind of ... what can be more official than a declassified CIA document that says 'yeah we're pretty sure Israel has nukes'?
From all the minutes (transcripts) of Congressional hearings about the Apollo Affair, which also had FBI reports and CIA reports and I think the NSA as well?
I am not asking this rhetorically, to just belabor a point for emphasis.
I am asking you: If all this shit doesn't meet your 'official source' criteria... what does?
