Vanunu Goes Free

[East Street Trader]

It would seem distinctly odd to have nuclear weapons to deter nuclear wars.

Because if you don't want nuclear wars you just don't make nuclear weapons.

It is speculated that the existence of nuclear weapons detered the USA and the USSR from fighting an open war with each other. But I remember (just) the Cuban missile crisis and no one at the time or since has doubted that Kennedy was perfectly willing to engage in nuclear war.

Games of dare are for inadequate juveniles not for grown up politicians.

As for spanking babies, well I guess you have time to mature a bit yourself before you get to find out how babies are actually cared for.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
It would seem distinctly odd to have nuclear weapons to deter nuclear wars.

Because if you don't want nuclear wars you just don't make nuclear weapons.

It is speculated that the existence of nuclear weapons detered the USA and the USSR from fighting an open war with each other. But I remember (just) the Cuban missile crisis and no one at the time or since has doubted that Kennedy was perfectly willing to engage in nuclear war.

Games of dare are for inadequate juveniles not for grown up politicians.

As for spanking babies, well I guess you have time to mature a bit yourself before you get to find out how babies are actually cared for.

Hmm... how many nuclear exchanges have you noticed recently?

And how do you discipline your children? Sorry I used such an immature, naive mode of speech...

...but you seem to be deaf to reality.

EDIT:

It could also be argued that nuclear weapons deter conventional wars - not absolutely, but enough to discourage would be tyrants.

If nobody had nuclear weapons, this "threat of escalation" would not exist. Hence conventional wars would be more likely.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
not dead, then but, as history would show, it would become dead, over time. And how does buying weapons from Czechs justifies an attack on Egypt? I never heard this one, not as a 'justification'. Israel had Czech weaponary, as well.

There seemed to be a deal in the making were through the Czechs the soviets were going to funnel some bombers to Egypt after Egypt made a deal to buy tanks and artillery from the Czechs. one reaosn Israel gave to buy new French jet fighters and was one minor reason to say they had to attack: I forget if the Egyptians ever did get the bombers.

[Az]

first time I hear about it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel

So was the Arab Legion, that's why you could only sieze half the city.

We didn't have to seize half of the city. We already were there.

So were they.

Er, I meant they were trying to block Jordan.

Block Jordan from doing what? occupying the west bank? I wonder if there is any real evidence for this.

Do you have a better explanation as to why two Arab armies ostensibly allied were facing off against each other and refused to lend aid when one side was attacked by you?

[Sirotnikov]

So were they.

Yes - each side had control over half of the city.
And then the Arab legion took control of the Jewish side, and kicked out the jews living there.

Do you have a better explanation as to why two Arab armies ostensibly allied were facing off against each other and refused to lend aid when one side was attacked by you?

Because they had no working united war staff, and no united planning or even communications?

Because while they all wanted to destroy Israel, they wanted to take as many land as they could as well?

[Az]

So were they.

The Arab Legion wasn't there. Btw, which city are we talking about, all of Jerusalem, or just the walled city?