dreamdancer 0 #26 March 23, 2009 Quote Where did I say I would endorse a nuclear first strike? I think Israel having nukes is a good deterrent for other countries invading. countries that don't have nuclear weapons stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #27 March 23, 2009 Quotebut if they armed them who were they targeted at? who were they threatening with a first strike? They could target them at their discretion...pick a city...depends on the needs of the moment.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 March 23, 2009 Quote QuoteSeymour Hersh reports that Israel developed the ability to miniaturize warheads small enough to fit in a suitcase by the year 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel Did Stephen Colbert write that entry? I saw a George Clooney movie with a suitcase nuke. Very credible stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #29 March 24, 2009 Quote Where did I say I would endorse a nuclear first strike? I think Israel having nukes is a good deterrent for other countries invading. So, using that argument (and donning the devil's advocate hat) should we give nukes to the PA in the West Bank? Maybe Israel would stop invading, I mean "settling" on their neighbor's land. But seriously, I think that the best option with regard to the nuke issue is to throw our resources at solving the fusion question. Do that and you can globally ban fissionable nukes. Of course that would mean that we'd have to give up ours, and save probably $50 billion a year Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #30 March 24, 2009 QuoteBut seriously, I think that the best option with regard to the nuke issue is to throw our resources at solving the fusion question. Whatever country cracks the fusion issue gets to rule to world until the rest of the world catches up. Not just because of weapons but because it solves the energy issue.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #31 March 24, 2009 Quotecountries that don't have nuclear weapons [Smile] Damn straight, nuclear weapons are stupid. The USA public generally don't realise how close the lower half of USA came to nuclear destruction in the Cuba/USSR debacle only a few decades ago. Those that don't know about it should watch' '11 Lessons in the Life of Robert McNamara'. From the horses mouth! Very interesting indeed..."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tonyhays 86 #32 March 24, 2009 QuoteSo, using that argument (and donning the devil's advocate hat) should we give nukes to the PA in the West Bank? Maybe Israel would stop invading, I mean "settling" on their neighbor's land Israels intent is not to completely eradicate them from the earth. The ruling party of the Palestinians and Iran has stated their intent is to do just that.“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #33 March 24, 2009 QuoteQuotecountries that don't have nuclear weapons [Smile] Damn straight, nuclear weapons are stupid. The USA public generally don't realise how close the lower half of USA came to nuclear destruction in the Cuba/USSR debacle only a few decades ago. Those that don't know about it should watch' '11 Lessons in the Life of Robert McNamara'. From the horses mouth! Very interesting indeed... Anything come from the mouth of McNamara isn't worth much. Compare the potential worst case from the Cuban crisis to what happened to all of Europe in WWII. Imagine what a conventional WWIII would have claimed in lives and land. You can assert what could have happened, but we already know what the alternative was like, and it was 5-10x than what we got with the cold war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 March 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteBut seriously, I think that the best option with regard to the nuke issue is to throw our resources at solving the fusion question. Whatever country cracks the fusion issue gets to rule to world until the rest of the world catches up. Not just because of weapons but because it solves the energy issue. I see a spiteful world destroying the fusion holder. One could hope for a Star Trek like ending, but I'm less optimistic, for exactly the reason you suggest. One country would try to make everyone its bitch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 March 24, 2009 Quote But seriously, I think that the best option with regard to the nuke issue is to throw our resources at solving the fusion question. Do that and you can globally ban fissionable nukes. A world where no one is supposed to have any is far less stable than where everyone has a small number. You can't uninvent the nuke, and it's too easy to make them. A country like Japan, who has sworn to never go near nukes, knows that if it ever changed its mind, it could have them in extremely short order. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #36 March 24, 2009 Quote Quote but if they armed them who were they targeted at? who were they threatening with a first strike? They could target them at their discretion...pick a city...depends on the needs of the moment. but always at countries that don't have nuclear weapons stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #37 March 24, 2009 Quote Quote Where did I say I would endorse a nuclear first strike? I think Israel having nukes is a good deterrent for other countries invading. So, using that argument (and donning the devil's advocate hat) should we give nukes to the PA in the West Bank? Maybe Israel would stop invading, I mean "settling" on their neighbor's land. things settled down between india and pakistan once they both got nuclear weapons. perhaps it would work here as well stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #38 March 24, 2009 Quote Quote So, using that argument (and donning the devil's advocate hat) should we give nukes to the PA in the West Bank? Maybe Israel would stop invading, I mean "settling" on their neighbor's land Israels intent is not to completely eradicate them from the earth. The ruling party of the Palestinians and Iran has stated their intent is to do just that. no, they haven't - you just like to think they have (or you just confuse all your enemies with hitler) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bfilarsky 0 #39 March 24, 2009 Quote Quote Where did I say I would endorse a nuclear first strike? I think Israel having nukes is a good deterrent for other countries invading. So, using that argument (and donning the devil's advocate hat) should we give nukes to the PA in the West Bank? Maybe Israel would stop invading, I mean "settling" on their neighbor's land. But seriously, I think that the best option with regard to the nuke issue is to throw our resources at solving the fusion question. Do that and you can globally ban fissionable nukes. Of course that would mean that we'd have to give up ours, and save probably $50 billion a year We've had fusion bombs for the past 56 years now Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #40 March 24, 2009 Quote no, they haven't - you just like to think they have (or you just confuse all your enemies with hitler) Wow. Really? Are you saying that no ranking government official within Iran has called for the destruction of Israel?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #41 March 24, 2009 Quote Quote no, they haven't - you just like to think they have (or you just confuse all your enemies with hitler) Wow. Really? Are you saying that no ranking government official within Iran has called for the destruction of Israel?? i see, it's time to find the worst quote from some petty functionary in some foreign state and compare him or her to hitler? (and no, iran has not called for 'the destruction of israel' - which sounds very biblical stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #42 March 25, 2009 "Iran's position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region." "It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region." Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - Dec 2000... How's that for 'petty functionary'?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #43 March 25, 2009 [facepalm] Not bomb; energy.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #44 March 25, 2009 Quote "Iran's position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region." "It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region." Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - Dec 2000... How's that for 'petty functionary'?? is that really what he said? who did the translation? what do you think of this plan Quote State of Israel with annexation of Palestinian territories Currently in Israel, in the debate relating to the borders of Israel, "Greater Israel" is generally used to refer to the territory of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories, the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine. However, because of the controversial nature of the term, the term Land of Israel is used. Annexation of the Palestinian territories (the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is part of the platform of the Israeli Likud party, and of other Israeli political parties. On September 14, 2008 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert remarked that "Greater Israel is over. There is no such thing. Anyone who talks that way is deluding themselves,". The same territory, "from the river to the sea", is also claimed as Palestine by the PLO and Hamas. Hillel Weiss, a professor at Bar-Ilan University, preaches the necessity of rebuilding the Temple and of Jewish rule over Greater Israel. Rabbi Meir Kahane, assassinated Jewish leader and Knesset Member who founded the American Jewish Defense League and the Israeli Kach party worked towards this and other Religious Zionist goals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israelstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #45 March 25, 2009 Quote is that really what he said? who did the translation? Kasra Naji - he was an Iranian journalist during the rise of Ahmadinejad Quote what do you think of this plan Not much. Mostly the rantings of dead extremists and foolish academics. That hardly compares to every religious and political leader since the Iranian Revolution calling for the destruction of Israel... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #46 March 25, 2009 Quote Annexation of the Palestinian territories (the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is part of the platform of the Israeli Likud party, and of other Israeli political parties. this doesn't sound like rantings surely the annexation of the west bank and the gaza strip implies the 'destruction' of the state of palestine?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #47 March 25, 2009 Quotesurely the annexation of the west bank and the gaza strip implies the 'destruction' of the state of palestine? Not when in the Lukid's own charter, they state... “The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #48 March 25, 2009 so likud calls for the 'destruction of the state of palestine' but that is ok?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #49 March 25, 2009 So you are saying that Iran's call for the 'destruction of Israel' and Lukid's call for the 'destruction of Palestine' mean the exact same thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #50 March 25, 2009 Quote surely the annexation of the west bank and the gaza strip implies the 'destruction' of the state of palestine? What state of Palestine is this that you refer to? Oh, lame dodge citing "translation problems" with Iran. Nope, it wasn't a problem with the translation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
