View Full Version : Why does Israel get to keep its nuclear weapons?
Simple question. I suspect the answer won't be so obvious.
Why not? Or to put it another way: they get to keep them because they have them.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-19-2014, 14:26
rvg's answer is correct.
Now, for the technicality buffs:
Israel is not "known" to have nuclear weaponry. Unlike virtually every other entity to have developed them, it has made no "we got da bomb" announcement. They have stated that they will not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East" -- whatever that bit of persiflage means.
Who knows, maybe the "President's Book of Secrets" lets each new CinC know that it has always been a hoax put together by Golda and RN to help Israel deter their opponents....
Why will Iran get to keep theirs? Why does North Korea get to keep theirs?
Along with India and Pakistan, Israel never signed the NPT. They get to do what they want, they just get excluded from the non-weapon benefits of the treaty. North Korea signed it, then pulled out using Clause X, although they were probably working on weapons prior to giving notice. Iran is still a signatory, hence the hand-wringing from the West about the state of their nuclear program.
Simple.
So if you haven't signed, you can make them? And no one bats an eye? Let's say that the newly made independent republic of Durkastan decides to make them right now. Nothing official of course, but it's known. Will anyone even act? What's the point in making the other signees not proliferate the nukes if Joe TinPott can make them?
So if you haven't signed, you can make them? And no one bats an eye?
Yeah, that's how treaties usually work: if you didn't sign the treaty, you're not a subject to its restrictions.
HoreTore
03-19-2014, 16:34
Because Jews.
Is that the answer the OP is asking for...?
So if you haven't signed, you can make them? And no one bats an eye? Let's say that the newly made independent republic of Durkastan decides to make them right now. Nothing official of course, but it's known. Will anyone even act? What's the point in making the other signees not proliferate the nukes if Joe TinPott can make them?
I wouldn't say "no one bats an eye", but it does depend on the geopolitical situation of the time. North Korea pulled out and built weapons, but they were protected by China and have a gun pointed at Seoul's head, so nothing happened. Look at the diplomatic wranglings that went on when India and Pakistan armed up.
If the new People's Republic of Durkastan wants nukes, they can make them. However, the treaty forbids signatories from exchanging knowledge and material with non-signatories, so Durkastan will need to do the research, build reactors and enrichment facilities, mine it's own uranium, and pretty much start from scratch which costs an enormous amount of time and money.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-19-2014, 17:28
Because Jews.
Is that the answer the OP is asking for...?
Oh come now, your grammar in English is better than this!
I think America should invade because Israel has WMDs. :creep:
The answer of course, is that they get to keep them because noone wants to take them away, and not everyone could take them away either because they might use them if someone tried.
Papewaio
03-20-2014, 01:21
NPT isnt worth the paper it is signed on.
US has pressured Australia to sell Uranium to India in direct violation of the NPT.
So there is no moral high ground here.
Hooahguy
03-20-2014, 04:34
Because what others have said before, and because AIPAC would freak out if anyone said anything about it, at least in the US.
Also, slight deviation:
Something somewhere was posted on a friend's FB how a good chunk of Europeans don't think that Jews are very loyal citizens, much to the cries of anti-Semitism by my brethren.
I just laugh, because lets face it, with all the internal calls to move back to our "homeland" AKA Israel (and it is a very strong movement), why are my brethren surprised that a lot of people don't think that they are loyal to any country but Israel?
Papewaio
03-20-2014, 04:53
The logical counter for those who are mono-citizen believers is that the ones who are loyal to Israel have gone there and the ones who are loyal to country X are still there.
Those who understand dual citizenship or live in a Union understand the ability to have more then one identity.
US has pressured Australia to sell Uranium to India in direct violation of the NPT.
So there is no moral high ground here.
I was waiting for someone to bring this up, it follows the trend that the post-Cold War US generally has ignored treaties and international agreements. That's not biting us in the ass ever, no sirree!
HoreTore, if you are not going to contribute but just flamebait me please don't post here. You bring nothing of value to this thread.
Anyway, I asked about Israel because they seem to be upholding the "western" values and point of view. I didn't ask about North Korea because I't pretty obvious they don't play by "the rules".
I don't know what to think about India and Pakistan. These two hate each other, and they have almost as many nukes as France and England. Is a complete dismantlement of all nuclear arsenals and a forced non-proliferation international law possible?
Hooahguy
03-20-2014, 12:52
The logical counter for those who are mono-citizen believers is that the ones who are loyal to Israel have gone there and the ones who are loyal to country X are still there.
Those who understand dual citizenship or live in a Union understand the ability to have more then one identity.
It goes far beyond simply having dual citizenship. If you live within the Jewish community (which you might for all I know) you would see that there is a very strong worldwide push to "bring you home," citing that where you are living now is not your true home, and that only Israel can ever be considered a true home. Now then, while it is very unfair to say that all Jews want to move to Israel (like me, I have zero desire to ever visit again), I can understand (though disagree with) why some people would think that some Jews can be disloyal citizens.
Pannonian
03-20-2014, 13:32
rvg's answer is correct.
Now, for the technicality buffs:
Israel is not "known" to have nuclear weaponry. Unlike virtually every other entity to have developed them, it has made no "we got da bomb" announcement. They have stated that they will not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East" -- whatever that bit of persiflage means.
I think what it means is that the French were the first to introduce them into the Middle East.
Pannonian
03-20-2014, 13:40
Because what others have said before, and because AIPAC would freak out if anyone said anything about it, at least in the US.
Also, slight deviation:
Something somewhere was posted on a friend's FB how a good chunk of Europeans don't think that Jews are very loyal citizens, much to the cries of anti-Semitism by my brethren.
I just laugh, because lets face it, with all the internal calls to move back to our "homeland" AKA Israel (and it is a very strong movement), why are my brethren surprised that a lot of people don't think that they are loyal to any country but Israel?
I think they're better citizens than a sizeable chunk of Muslims though, in that they at least don't look to actively harm their host countries. But even that particular scourge is far outnumbered by those who are good citizens. Maybe I'm just thankful that there isn't the equivalent of AIPAC in the UK, where a political organisation loyal to a foreign state wields considerable power. Our subservience to the US doesn't count, as it's just a case of me too to the big dog that you'd expect in politics.
Major Robert Dump
03-23-2014, 08:25
Because they murdered Baby Jesus
Because they murdered Baby Jesus
/thread
Because they murdered Baby Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuAUI_0knfk
So if you haven't signed, you can make them? And no one bats an eye? Let's say that the newly made independent republic of Durkastan decides to make them right now. Nothing official of course, but it's known. Will anyone even act? What's the point in making the other signees not proliferate the nukes if Joe TinPott can make them?
I'm sure people bat an eye but what else are they gonna do? ^^
HoreTore
03-24-2014, 20:20
I'm sure people bat an eye but what else are they gonna do? ^^
Once a country has nuclear arms, removing them really isn't an option... That's the reason you get nuclear arms in the first place: it simply means no-one can push you around anymore.
Once a country has nuclear arms, removing them really isn't an option... That's the reason you get nuclear arms in the first place: it simply means no-one can push you around anymore.
To be fair, the power of the payload and the delivery method said country can realistically achieve probably has a lot to do with just how much they can get away with. Best Korea has very weak payloads that can't even cover the center of NYC and their missiles are pathetic.
A single nuclear sub loaded with a MIRV with 6 hydrogen bomb payloads is more frightening than some of the weaker nuclear powers.
The problem with Best Korea is that, theoretically, Kim Jong Un can get his crappy little nukes next door to the Korea that everybody loves.
The problem with Best Korea is that, theoretically, Kim Jong Un can get his crappy little nukes next door to the Korea that everybody loves.
And the fact that NK's neighbors like China and Russia really don't want the headache of dealing with nuclear fallout on their borders.
And the fact that NK's neighbors like China and Russia really don't want the headache of dealing with nuclear fallout on their borders.
His his nukes are so weaksauce that the fallout will be insignificant. Unless he blows up a nuclear power plant with it or something.
And the fact that NK's neighbors like China and Russia really don't want the headache of dealing with nuclear fallout on their borders.
Given the wind patterns, wouldn't Japan and the US to a lesser extent get the worst fallout?
Given the wind patterns, wouldn't Japan and the US to a lesser extent get the worst fallout?
Perhaps, but China wouldn't want any at all. Or even a possibility of it.
To be fair, the power of the payload and the delivery method said country can realistically achieve probably has a lot to do with just how much they can get away with. Best Korea has very weak payloads that can't even cover the center of NYC and their missiles are pathetic.
A single nuclear sub loaded with a MIRV with 6 hydrogen bomb payloads is more frightening than some of the weaker nuclear powers.
The problem with Best Korea is that, theoretically, Kim Jong Un can get his crappy little nukes next door to the Korea that everybody loves.
I'm sure that doesn't really matter. They're nukes. How crap or how not crap they are is unimportant. I guess no one wants them shot at anything that isn't a deserted island where they can test them.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-25-2014, 11:28
Given the wind patterns, wouldn't Japan and the US to a lesser extent get the worst fallout?
Too many variables to calculate properly. Yes, the prevailing winds do trend that direction -- a fact Japan used in its balloon bombing campaign in WW2 -- but precipitation, specific physical composition of ground zero for particulates, specific type of explosion, etc. would all factor into how much fallout, how dangerous, and how far it would spread.
Look at it this way. A bunch of armed men are sitting in a circle with shotguns. There is no love lost amongst any of them. Would any one of them willingly give up their gun?
Of course nukes are weapons of mass destruction and would probably bring about the end of mankind blah blah blah, but seriously, what country would give up their ace in the hole just to stay on the moral high ground? Specially if the chances of everyone else giving up theirs are non existent....
Personally I think nukes are dangerous and if they ever fall into the hands of suicidal extremists that would be a really bad day. But until then no one who isn't suicidal will actually use one, just because they are so dangerous.
Also China and India follow a no first use doctrine, which many other NPT nations don't.
Kadagar_AV
03-25-2014, 20:56
Look at it this way. A bunch of armed men are sitting in a circle with shotguns. There is no love lost amongst any of them. Would any one of them willingly give up their gun?
Of course nukes are weapons of mass destruction and would probably bring about the end of mankind blah blah blah, but seriously, what country would give up their ace in the hole just to stay on the moral high ground? Specially if the chances of everyone else giving up theirs are non existent....
Personally I think nukes are dangerous and if they ever fall into the hands of suicidal extremists that would be a really bad day. But until then no one who isn't suicidal will actually use one, just because they are so dangerous.
Also China and India follow a no first use doctrine, which many other NPT nations don't.
Doctrines ain't worth the paper they are written on in such uncivilized states.
Doctrines ain't worth the paper they are written on in such uncivilized states.
Umm...Doctrines aren't written on paper. Unlike treaties. To put it simply, they are more like a plan. Or something the plan is based on.
So unless you're basically saying that the uncivilized states don't intend to follow their own plans, your statement makes no sense.
Also I'd rather not get into debating who's civilized or what civilization means because that's moot, and usually ends with arguments which are little more than 'mine is bigger than yours'.
Kadagar_AV
03-25-2014, 23:25
Umm...Doctrines aren't written on paper. Unlike treaties. To put it simply, they are more like a plan. Or something the plan is based on.
So unless you're basically saying that the uncivilized states don't intend to follow their own plans, your statement makes no sense.
Also I'd rather not get into debating who's civilized or what civilization means because that's moot, and usually ends with arguments which are little more than 'mine is bigger than yours'.
Thanks for the lesson, I wasn't aware of that :bow:
And you are right about the second part as well, note however that I rank India FAR above China in that regard *India is still not IMHO quite up to European standards*
Thanks for the lesson, I wasn't aware of that :bow:
And you are right about the second part as well, note however that I rank India FAR above China in that regard *India is still not IMHO quite up to European standards*
They number 1/3 of the world's population. European countries numbering in a dozen million are failing at life and everything else, so I'd cut them some slack.
Papewaio
03-27-2014, 23:21
So why doesn't Australia have nukes then? If all these other nations need them, why don't the majority of the worlds nations not have them?
If all these nations do but don't intend on using them at great cost in production and maintenance. It would seem they have a bunch of white elephants.
HoreTore
03-27-2014, 23:58
Who's going to threaten Australia?
The dingoes?
Who's going to threaten Australia?
The dingoes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTdOQjmbAHY
Tellos Athenaios
03-28-2014, 03:38
So why doesn't Australia have nukes then? If all these other nations need them, why don't the majority of the worlds nations not have them?
If all these nations do but don't intend on using them at great cost in production and maintenance. It would seem they have a bunch of white elephants.
Australia doesn't need any to make its local wildlife any more ... 'interesting'.
Besides, you already have the Uranium mining ...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.