weapons of mass destruction

tell me this..the US has invaded Iraq due to the belief that it harbours Weapons of Mass Destruction...now Syria is (predictably) next on the list. If it was revealed that Isreal had WOMD, would the USA invade this country too?

ho ho ho!

In a nutshell because Israel has never threatened the US or its allies with its weapons.

Edited to add

The same way that the UK has a Nuclear/Biological/Chemical armory - as do most members of NATO



[Edited on 16-11-2003 by Silk]

yeah Ive been thinking of this in the light of debate about WOMD...

surely the answer is Unilateral Disarmament? George Bush should lead the way and get rid of HIS weapons!!!. If he's allowed to have WOMD, why shouldnt other countries? Surely people have the right to protect themselves?

Its like the school bully is allowed to have a knife in the fight, but you have to use your bare hands.

Silk,

good points.

also consider that up to 30 additional countries could build a bomb within months also if desired.

I am Canadian for example, we have numerous nuclear plants in this country and substantial research capability.

We are also producers of uranimum and other elements needed.

We have been in the nuclear game since the 50s in one manner or other.

It would not take long for us to build one, nor for many countries in Europe or Australia or South Africa or other countries I could mention (Korea, Japan too).

But the US has no plans to invade those countries? why not?

ps

and Silk..Iraq has never threatened the US, neither has any other Middle Eastern country.

Isreal is the USA's base and ass kissing lacky in the Middle East. Thats why theyre allowed to harbour WOMD.

Israel is nuclear.
It's had nuclear weapons for years.

Where do you think Einstein, Oppenhiemer and co came from?

(OK, I know Israel didn't exist when they were doing their stuff, but yanno what I mean).

With all due respect Neo

I doubt that Canada would ever present itself as a threat to the US. You have the capability Im sure - but as a threat you are on a scale of -10.

If you want to examine why not Israel - you have to go back much further in history - indeed to understand why Israel is actually considered part of Europe.

Nothing in the world of realpolitik happens without a cause and effect.

To give a real world example - both India and Pakistan have both developed and tested Nuclear weapons - but no one threatens them - why ?

The entire middle east has threatened the US in the past in one way or other (notwithstanding Israel too), unless I am mistaken.

That is ignoring the radical and religious groups that constantly make threats towards the entire western world also.

Mystra - sorry to correct you

Iraq has threatend Israel - in Gulf War 1 - and did actually launch Scud missiles at Israeli airspace.

Threat and delivery - I cant think of a more telling proof than that.

TheNeo

You actually have answered your own question

"notwithstanding Israel"

which the post was asking about

Silk,

agreed that Canada is not a nuclear threat to the US or anyone else but we could have and should have been a nuclear power IMHO. Especially when the soviets would launch nukes over our airspace to target the US, or fly bombers over our airspace to target the US or pilot their nuke subs into our costal space inorder to target the US. But that was not our decision as we were a property of the UK handed to the US while at the end of WWII we were in fact a world power.

In regards to India and Pakistan I have to whole heartedly agree with you in saying that there is some double standard being played out there. The intracasies of south east asian politics even make the conflict in the middle east seem straight forward to me.

Here's an interesting website that tells you a little about Israel's capabilites.
Admittedly, it is biased (just look at the name of the site ) but I reckon it's pretty accurate.

www.geocities.com...

The excuse that the author uses - "Arab states in the region have an inalienable "right" and "obligation" to develop similiar weapons (of mass destruction) to counter this overwhelming threat to their nations and peoples", is pretty pisspoor. For a start, if Israel was going to use nukes it would have done so by now. After all, who in this world would honestly have stopped them? And secondly, Israel is not the nation which is calling for the total disollution and destruction of it's neighbours, whereas some of the Arab countries deny Israel's right to exist.

I'd say that out of all the countries in the world that possess WoMD, Israel's are probably the only ones which actually are a weapon of deterrant.

Give Israel thier due though. They're no North Korea. Every bugger knows they are armed but they don't go blackmailing the rest of the world by using their nukes as a bargaining chip.
If they wanted to, they could make North Korea look like a pussy in comparison.

the right to self defend.

As long as one country has WOMD, every country will strive to follow suit. Its only natural...and we can see it happening...but its insanity too.

The only answer is Unilateral Disarmament. The person who brings this about will be the saviour of humanity. And it certainly wont be George W Bush, who will go down (pun intended) in history as the person ( with his "partner" - ho ho - Tony Blair) who came closest to bringing about the end of life on planet earth, and planet earth itself. Hope they feel proud when theyre getting down to it next week at Illuminati Central next week. Maybe the security is all about keeping the secrets in, rather than keeping the protesters out.

Im sorry - but the concept of Unilateral disarmament is a pipe dream. Look at it this way - 3rd world countries are already up in arms at the way the first world is now telling them to cur carbon emissions or CFC use. The US even uses trade offs on CFCs against countries who dont even manufacture them. If you think the invasion of Iraq is a problem - consider this - what gives a 1st world nation the right to tell a 3rd world nation not to develop its infrastructure - at the same time as telling other 1st world nations its ok we make this much of x because such a country dosent ?.

Thats imperialism - and actually has a damn sight more to do with this planets future than "snark hunts" for supposed weapons.

In the interests of "deny ignorance" - I ask you all to look behind the so called BIG headlines and look to the substantive matters. The AEC already regulates countries nuclear capacity.

Mystra,

nice theory if all we ever have to worry about is each other on the ole' big blue marble.

but I contend that that is not the case.

nobody attacks israel cuz they run the show, and even if they dind't why would usa attack them for sumtin they paid for?
usa doesn't wanna disarm cuz the second they did other countries would bomb the # outa them, i think nuclear weapons are almost whats keeping the world from just fighting the # outa each other haha

Originally posted by mystra


As long as one country has WOMD, every country will strive to follow suit. Its only natural...and we can see it happening...but its insanity too.

The only answer is Unilateral Disarmament.

Agreed. But "unilateral" means "unilateral".
Too many third world countries signed up to the non-proliferation protocol and then went their busy little way of developing secret nuclear programmes.

You only have to look at how Pakistan, India and North Korea suddenly came up with the bomb when they had smilingly told everyone else what good boys they were being.

Unilateralism is just a word at this time in human history. It has no more meaning than the word socialism.
"Disarm every #er else first before you disarm yourself" is the motto nowadays.
Personally I reckon that's a pretty sensible way to go about things. Would you live next door to a psycho and throw your only means of deterrant away with no guarantees?
Show me the guarantee that says "we disarm, you disarm" and I'll go for it. Until then - we've had the bomb for 50 years and not used it (I don't count Japan) but there is absolutely no guarantee in this present day political climate that some crackpot dictator in an undeveloped country won't.
We in the West know what the consequences of nuclear weapons are. Our friends in the East do too - they've been on the receiving end. Those in the middle don't have a clue. And not only that, but their leaders wouldn't give a # about their populations just so long as they and theiir money were buried in a bunker deep enough to withstand the blast.

it's not a pipe dream...its a case of surviving or not surviving on this beautiful, fragile planet. I dont think we have a choice...if we want to survive.

Ohh sorry

Had to add this - actually the person who came closest to ending this 3rd rocks existance was John F Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crises. We have actually never been closer to all out Nuclear War since that time.

quote:

Mystra,

nice theory if all we ever have to worry about is each other on the ole' big blue marble.

but I contend that that is not the case.

---------------------------------------------
what else do we have to worry about..if not each other and the ole big blue marble?????
what else is there? aaagghhhhh!!!! the day we realize this is the day we're saved!!