"Israel will cease to exist if it uses nuclear weapons against Iraq"

[Sandman]

We don't develop gases or germs.

I'm afraid I don't believe you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/325872.stm

Plus, such an attack would require targetting civilians much more specifically - which I object. I don't consider chem and bio weapons to be legitimate.

Nukes are legitimate but usually unjustifiable.

What do you mean by 'much more specifically'? It sounds like you think that it's okay to target civilians so long as there is a convenient military target nearby.

A nuke would kill more civilians than gases or germs, but so long as it's aimed at a 'military' target it's okay? Whereas just dousing the area with nerve gas will have a similar effect, but because it's distributed and not centered on something it's somehow illegitemate. Seems like pointless legalese to me.

I think that a mini nuke or a neutron bomb will be very justified.

Neutron bombs kill people whilst leaving structure intact, do they not? Why is this different from using gas or germs? In this case there is really no difference at all.

[Sandman]

Any use of weapons is unacceptable to me. I don't differentiate very much between non-conventional and conventional weapons - the only difference is that one thinks to know better how to protect oneself against conventional weapons, nothing more.

I heartily agree.

[Sonic]

In my opinion everthing depends on situation... Several examples below:

1.Saddam declares jihad on Israel and encourages terrorists to destroy Israel, next day a "little" nuke from Iraq comes and hits Tel Aviv, wiping out the city and poisoning surroundings -- Israel should obviously nuke back

2.Saddam claims responsibility for a huge poisoned gas attack in Israel, which killed about 2000 people and injured for a life much more. Saddam also threatens more attacks to follow if Israel won't remove forces from West Banka and Gaza Strip in 24 hours and handle both territories to Iraq -- Israel should retalliate with conventional weapons

3.Saddam threatens Israel and then after a week some bacteriological weapon is used in Jerusalem. Nobody knows true details of the terror act but everyone thinks Saddam did it because he threatened Israel before -- Israel shouldn't retalliate on Iraq at all if it isn't known who seriously hosted attacks

[orange]

Question: Is it acceptable for Israel to use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means?

Absolutely not.

Question: Will Saddam use non-conventional means?

I wouldn't doubt it. He has nothing else to lose if we go in there.

Question: If so, will Israel use nucler weapons?

Probably. Sharon is just slightly less desirable, and only slightly more intelligent, than Bush.

Question: What will be the actual consequences for Israel and Iraq?

Iraq - nothing other than the takeover we apparently are already going to do. You give people the 'nothing to lose' mentality, and that's how they act...like they have nothing to lose.

Israel - probably nothing. Israel is a whiney ***** state, and daddy Bush and mommy Blair will protect it at all costs.

Question: What will happen in the region?

Increased hatred, increased anti-America anti-Israel feelings, more Arab unity/Fundamentalism.

Sorry Israeli's, I don't mean to offend you as Israeli citizens, but I really dislike your nation and its policies (almost to the level that I dislike America and our policies)

[Felch]

Originally posted by Sonic
Israel shouldn't retalliate on Iraq at all if it isn't known who seriously hosted attacks

I disagree. If someone is declaring themselves hostile, and suddenly a little while later a suspicious terrorist act occurs that would require state-sponsorship . . . well I don't believe that nations have the same rights as individuals in court.

[Sirotnikov]

Any use of weapons is unacceptable to me. I don't differentiate very much between non-conventional and conventional weapons .... It's really weighting the unacceptable against the even less acceptable.

Bah....

Let's just say we disagree about pacifism

Victims get always more sympathy than aggressors. This is not different in the Arab world. The Arabs feel themselves as vicitms by Jewish/American aggression (this is not a question what they are but what they feel.) Saddam will get more points as a victim than as an aggressor - but he will also get points as an aggressor. This is what makes the situation so dangerous. It is impossible to make him lose his cause with military - or not military - only. To get around this, in view of the "natural" differences of the Arab and Western world - requires very bright politicians, and I don't see anyone who would intend to and could handle this.

I agree.

But I think that no bright politician can win the arab support, unless the current dictators are removed - forcefully. They control the media and set the mood in their country.

It's time to dump the victims attitude and we should do it for them, or else there'll be no normal life on earth.

You can't scare people who don't fear death (and those are the worst). When you want to scare the Arabs you'll have to convince them that they'll lose paradise when they continue to attack Israel. I doubt this will be possible for any non-Muslim.

While the average suicide bomber is not afraid of dying - he does fear for his family.

And in any case - the organizers and leaders of the countries, and the terrorist networks, are themselves cowards and do fear dying and losing their status.

A nuke would damage both the suicider's family he leaves behind (not that i suggest nuking suicide bombers) and would definitly hurt Saddam's regime and property.

About the hate, you may be right (but I doubt it in this generality), but there are differences in the immediate danger to be felt. To think "I hate Jews" or "IDF will certainly kill all of us during the next two weeks if we don't act" are quite different things. With the first, you have a little chance to deal with. With the second, you don't have any.

Why would they think IDF will kill them for no reason?

they see IDF will only kill them if attacked. They learn not to attack.

What is a "mini nuke"? I can't believe that it is possible to develop anything that is much less destructive than the bombs used in Japan. There is something like a critical mass.

There is, but todays nukes are much larger than the minimum.

I'm sure there are smaller bombs.

It may mean neutron bombs. I'm not aware of technicalities.

Neutron bombs are IIRC intended to kill people and leave infrastructure intact0. I don't see any moral advantage to conventional nukes.

They don't leave radiation for the next hundreds of years.



With regards to the chemicals - here is a result of a short inquiry:

Yes, Israel bought ingridients of the Serin nerve gas agent. It bought it from an american company which similarly sells it to USA military. The purchases were authorised by the American DoD.

It was bought in 1992, a year after the gulf war - in which Israel feared the worse - a chemical attack by Iraq, in one of the Sqad missiles fired at Israel.

Is there any wonder why Israel would use the gas in research to improve gas masks and reasearch it effects to treat it?

The first order was made to the Israeli biological research institute (apparently for research), and a second order was made (probably for testing) by an Israeli gas mask manufacturer.

Please don't tell me you're surprised to hear that Israel is reasearching weapons which may be used against it.

What do you mean by 'much more specifically'? It sounds like you think that it's okay to target civilians so long as there is a convenient military target nearby.

No I think it is wrong to target civilians.

When you use a nuke, your goal is to create widespread destruction of property.

When you use a gas - you specifically hunt out people - usually civilians, as army has means to combat gas.

A nuke would kill more civilians than gases or germs, but so long as it's aimed at a 'military' target it's okay?

Yep - it is.

You're juding only based on result.

If we compare only losses without looking at how they were killed and what was the intention - you are bound to err in judgement.

Whereas just dousing the area with nerve gas will have a similar effect, but because it's distributed and not centered on something it's somehow illegitemate. Seems like pointless legalese to me.

I disagree.

It's one thing to fight against an army in battle, when the strongest / best equipped man wins.

It's another thing to poison the enemy's food and water.

2.Saddam claims responsibility for a huge poisoned gas attack in Israel, which killed about 2000 people and injured for a life much more. Saddam also threatens more attacks to follow if Israel won't remove forces from West Banka and Gaza Strip in 24 hours and handle both territories to Iraq -- Israel should retalliate with conventional weapons

I would most certainly find out where his bunkers are, and then send an agent with a briefcase nuke there.

3.Saddam threatens Israel and then after a week some bacteriological weapon is used in Jerusalem. Nobody knows true details of the terror act but everyone thinks Saddam did it because he threatened Israel before -- Israel shouldn't retalliate on Iraq at all if it isn't known who seriously hosted attacks

Well obviously the decision for military plans don't go according to public opinion (usually).

Every attack can be traced, and if the intelligence points to saddam - he'll glow in the dark. But an investigation would most certainly take place.

[Bereta_Eder]

". . . Israel knew that the goal of the Second Temple era was the kingdom of Torah and the Commandments -- and the kindling of a small Menorah that could banish the darkness of Greek culture. When that happened, it was time to celebrate . . . Merely being alive on the twenty-fifth of Kislev is not enough; one must see the flame, remember what it represents, and know that we are grateful for the triumph of Torah's light over Greece's darkness."

-- New York Post, "Understanding the Meaning of Chanukah",



hmmm.... hmmm I SAY!

[Bereta_Eder]

When cotton grows on the fig tree
And alfalfa hangs on the rose
When the aliens run the United States
And the Jews grow a straight nose
When the Pope is praised by every one
In the land of Uncle Sam
And a Greek is elected President
THEN-the Ku Klux won't be worth a damn

-- Poem passed out at election polls by the Klan during the 1920's.


lalala something unites us.... antisemitism, antihellenism, and what's that? anti..popism

[Sava]

If Saddam fires a scud with a WMD, Israel will retaliate. Would it be justified IMO with using nukes? Yes... But the consequence will be that the entire Arab world would go to war with Israel. Officially anyways, not this cowardly terrorist BS. Then, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to WORLD WAR 3!!

Iraq launches WMD on Israel
Israel responds with WMD
Arab world attacks Israel
US responds with help
US and Israel vs Arab Nations

what would Pakistan do?? Would this activity spread to India and Pakistan? I think that's very likely. And Pakistan has already said it would respond to a conventional attack from India with a tactical nuke. The house of cards known as human civilization will be come crumbling down.

I'll be in my car headed towards Idaho or some damn remote place out of the way of fallout (with foil wrapped around my balls).

[orange]

who would be seen as the 'cause' of ww3 in that case? US? Israel? Iraq? Arab world?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Its a lose - lose situation for Israel. Nukes are strategic weapons, which means that you can't actually use them and then expect to 'win.' If Israel gets attacked by nukes/bio/chem it should not respond unconventionally, because otherwise, it may get attacked by all the other arab countries. Go you seriously expect the US to support them in a war? I don't. Would the US be willing to trade lower oil prices for Tel-Aviv? I doubt it.

[Ming]

paiktis22... one more spam post in the this thread, and you are toast...

[Alexander's Horse]

I used to work for Richard Butler. He's always been a panic merchant.

[Kepler]

Assessment: Israel would only use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means.

Assessment: If attacked by plain Scad missiles carrying no extra load, Israel will abstain from retaliating, for as long as public opinion allows. Retaliation would be a missile or aircraft strike.

Question: Is it acceptable for Israel to use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means?

Once you use nukes there's no going back. The only way I can imagine escaping a nuke exchange under these circumstances would be if the Arab world immedaitely recognized Israel and declared war on Iraq. If the whole Arab world did this in concert they would provide a lot of mutual cover. If only one country like Egypt or Lebanon did, their leadership would have a life expectancy of about 20 minutes.

If Mossad is so all-powered amazing, why haven't they slit Saddam's throat yet?

Question: Will Saddam use non-conventional means?

He'll use everything he's got. If he's got germs or chemicals or radiation weaponry, he'll use it.

Question: If so, will Israel use nucler weapons?

If it's the current Israeli government then yes they will.

Question: What will be the actual consequences for Israel and Iraq?

Megadeath. The worst possible damage to Israel would be the complete destruction of Tel Aviv (nobody's going to nuke Jerusalem since it's a holy city for the Moslems as well), with casualties in the many, many thousands.

Iraq would likely lose their entire military to a large scale Israeli nuclear bombing.

Question: What will happen in the region?

Dogs and cats living toether. Mass hysteria.

[Robert]

what *should* happen:
- If Sadam uses ABC weapons israel should do nothing and the USA / british forces should invade Iraque and eliminate every militairy / governamental person who was more or less connected to the sadam regime.

No reaction from israel should happen because the Iraq people are not responsible for their dictators actions. Pherhaps a counter attack would be justified, but it would help nothing, since the responsible people won't be hitted and it will only raise the hate against israel.

- If the palestinians should use the war to uprise against israel even more, and large terracts or ABC weapons will be used against israel, Israel should finally *solve* the problem.

Which is a simple word for a very cruel thing, which is removing all arabs from israel, and force the surrounding countries (Joran most of all) to accept the palestinians. Again: this should only happen in case of large terracts and ABC weapons.

I don't like that way to solve the problem, but splitting the israelis and the arabs is the *only* way to solve it for the future.

Of course the americans should drop a big bomb on the temple mountain, to destroy both the sacred jewish wall and the all asqua thingy.

Eventhough I prefer diplomacy, I think we run out of the time for the ME conflict. We should not let it grow longer, it should end now. And there's only one way to end it:
1. eliminate the iraq govermanemtn
2. split up the israelis and the palestinians.

Since there's plenty of room for arabs to go to, the only solution is that the palestinians have to go. It's hars, it's unjust, but again: there is no other solution.

If you close your eyes for that, you will face an even bigger war within 20 years, in which much of the involved countries will have larger weapons, and the entire world will be drawed into war.

Solve it, or let humanity finish itself within 50 years.

The decision is on you.
Pascifists who think the problem can be solved by diplomacy are plain idiots. I wish they were right, but it's so very stupid to think that any conversation can end to problem. You just close your eyes for reality.

Again: I wish they were right though.