Worm Was Perfect for Sabotaging Centrifuges

[Wezil]

Yeah, sorry. See my edit x-post.

[Wezil]

Would you have done it if it required using a poison gas attack?

[Asher]

Does it not strike anyone in Israel to be a stupid idea to continue to **** around with other countries when they value their own security at all?

If they keep doing this ****, no one should help them defend themselves. Let them dig their own grave.

[Wezil]

Any sort of preemptive action is politically dangerous.

Israeli has worn the "Trust us, we had to" card a little thin.

[Kuciwalker]

Does it not strike anyone in Israel to be a stupid idea to continue to **** around with other countries when they value their own security at all?

If they keep doing this ****, no one should help them defend themselves. Let them dig their own grave.

I suspect the threat to Israeli security from Iranian nukes is much, much larger than the threat that people will get fed up with them because they use computer viruses to destroy said nukes without killing anyone.

[Kuciwalker]

edit - I'm not sure of the point to your question Kuci... Is it that tanks are dangerous in malicious hands or that acquiring them was in violation of treaties? Both could apply to pre-WW2 germany and current day Iran.

The former, mostly.

[Wezil]

Okay. So how far would you go to destroy pre-WW2 Nazi tanks? No rolling across borders yet. No death camps.

[Asher]

I suspect the threat to Israeli security from Iranian nukes is much, much larger than the threat that people will get fed up with them because they use computer viruses to destroy said nukes without killing anyone.

I suspect you're wrong.

I suspect the chance of Iran nuking Israel to be infinitesimally small. I suspect the threat to the Israeli people in the form of suicide bombings, missile strikes, etc. to be higher as a result of this constant meddling and covert attacks on other countries.

Israel is, supposedly, in a constant state of siege. Little **** like this is one huge reason why. You keep prodding and poking your enemies, sooner or later they're going to swing at you.

There's a certain level of insufferable arrogance Israel is guilty of. Combine that with the wounded pride of the countries they target with **** like this, and it should be quite obvious that these actions only ratchet up tension between the countries rather than solving any real problem.

[Kuciwalker]

In general I don't see a problem at all with the "hypocrisy" of letting some countries have nukes and not others. Ideally, no countries would have nukes (or perhaps a few powerful ones would have just enough nukes to avert World War 3). But that future is no more plausible than one in which the world spontaneously becomes an anarcho-socialist utopia. So when choosing between two relatively plausible future - one in which only a few countries are permitted to have nukes, or one in which every country is permitted to have nukes - I see the former as a vastly preferable option.

[Asher]

No one cares who has nukes anymore except those with small national penises.

No one is going to use a nuke. The world is too small for that. All of the people that have died over this **** is just retarded.

Continuing to use nukes to drive further conflicts in the world is ridiculous as well.

[Asher]

To my knowledge, only the Americans have ever nuked civilians so there's a further supreme annoyance in their obsession in controlling who gets access to nukes. Because you never know when they might DO SOMETHING CRAZY with it, like nuke civilians. Twice.

[Wezil]

Kuci - I think that is the realpolitik answer given by gribbler earlier. It's hard to argue against in practical terms. I just ask for some intellectual honesty when we talk out of both sides of our mouth. It is hypocritical.

For the record, I'm not a lover of the current Iranian regime and would prefer they not have nukes. Sadly, I think Iran has learned from the Iraq/NK situation. Having a few nukes on hand keeps the Americans at bay. The deterrent effect is lost if they actually use one however. Are the Mullahs that insane? I doubt it.

[Kuciwalker]

I suspect you're wrong.

I suspect the chance of Iran nuking Israel to be infinitesimally small. I suspect the threat to the Israeli people in the form of suicide bombings, missile strikes, etc. to be higher as a result of this constant meddling and covert attacks on other countries.

Iranian nukes don't have to be used for them to harm Israel.

Israel is, supposedly, in a constant state of siege. Little **** like this is one huge reason why. You keep prodding and poking your enemies, sooner or later they're going to swing at you.

Your own language belies how ridiculous this is. If they are already Israel's enemies, things aren't going to be all flowers and sunshine just because Israel unilaterally quits the field.

[Asher]

Iranian nukes don't have to be used for them to harm Israel.

Your own language belies how ridiculous this is. If they are already Israel's enemies, things aren't going to be all flowers and sunshine just because Israel unilaterally quits the field.

It's not ridiculous unless you mistakenly assume states become enemies with eachother and that status never changes. If you've ever taken a history course, you'd realize what a ridiculous assumption that is.

Tensions die down over time. Enemies slowly become neutral and potentially even friends, if circumstances warrant. If one state constantly pokes at the testicles of another state, the circumstances will never warrant that.

[Asher]

Simply, Israel is trapped in a perpetual cycle of feud. They will never be at peace.

And it's their own damn fault.

They demonstrably make no reasonable efforts to defuse conflict. In fact, they're frequently guilty of stoking conflict.