Why Israel didn't sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Viruses?

Nukes are good in a sense.If not for nukes India and Pak would have fought another 3-4 wars in the last 10 years itself.Only the threat of Nukes stopped us from going on war against each other on plenty of occassions in the last decade.

Ah, the mutually assured destruction theory. I'm not sure if I'm a huge fan of the rational choice/realism ideom.

Sure, nukes prevent outbreaks of war in a sense, since they're massive deterrents - but to be honest, the same factor of deterrence, in this day and age, could be achieved by mutual economic interest - for example, if Germany invades basically anyone these days, we'd go broke, because our neighbours are the people buying our shit.

Only isolationist countries can really afford wars, and only isolationist countries get targetet by war.

VivaStPauli wrote:Ah, the mutually assured destruction theory. I'm not sure if I'm a huge fan of the rational choice/realism ideom.

Sure, nukes prevent outbreaks of war in a sense, since they're massive deterrents - but to be honest, the same factor of deterrence, in this day and age, could be achieved by mutual economic interest - for example, if Germany invades basically anyone these days, we'd go broke, because our neighbours are the people buying our shit.

Only isolationist countries can really afford wars, and only isolationist countries get targetet by war.

Being practical , economic reasons wont work in every situation.In a scenario like Indo-Pak where the relationship is still unfortunately viewed through the prism of religious fanatics , economic reason will never stop a war.Whereas nuclear war is a huge deterrent.

Whereas in a Indo china relationship mutual economic interest makes more sense.Since China is our biggest exporter so despite all the border tensions our relationship has been stable.Neither of us will attack each other any time soon regardless of nuclear war since both India and China need each other economically.

So unless u are a developed country or atleast a reasonably developing country nuclear is much better option that economy imo.

VivaStPauli wrote:Ah, the mutually assured destruction theory. I'm not sure if I'm a huge fan of the rational choice/realism ideom.

Sure, nukes prevent outbreaks of war in a sense, since they're massive deterrents - but to be honest, the same factor of deterrence, in this day and age, could be achieved by mutual economic interest - for example, if Germany invades basically anyone these days, we'd go broke, because our neighbours are the people buying our shit.

Only isolationist countries can really afford wars, and only isolationist countries get targetet by war.

that's funny, because in the instance of Iran that's likely the reason why they are developing nuclear capabilities--deterrence. the deterrence is from US invasion though, behind this facade of israel opposed to a nuclear iran.

the mutual economic interest (oil) you mentioned is the cause of the impending conflict w/ iran, but the US is going to try strong arm them.

zizzle wrote:No nukes ? how would be defend outselves against Alien attacks

Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, Tome Cruise, Harrison Ford, and Jeff Goldblum will take care of it.

Nah, too much firepower.

Simple bacteria and viruses will do the job.

Most likely STD in origin

Sushi Master wrote:Nah, too much firepower.

Simple bacteria and viruses will do the job.

Most likely STD in origin

Nope, they've developed countermeasures to the diseases, especially STDs. What do you think all the anal probing was for?

Le Samourai wrote:Well what do you expect when you take the most sacred historical place in the middle east and remove it from those who rightfully won it, and then put up an apartheid wall around it.

Seems like a completely valid way to promote peace IMO.

So to clarify:

When Muslims take Jerusalem = "The people who rightfully won it"
When Jews take Jeruslam = Injustice, disgrace, occupiers, zionist scum etc

That also explains why most aliens seem to be humanoids and why they all seem to want to have babies with us.



On topic: There are plenty of countries who could easily develop nukes but haven't due to being generally American allied or pretty much because they don't need them. NATO countries basically share them, anyways.

After Iran gets them (and they will), who else would you predict would want some? Can't see any other country not in the Middle East needing them.

BhritanniaBhlue wrote:

Le Samourai wrote:Well what do you expect when you take the most sacred historical place in the middle east and remove it from those who rightfully won it, and then put up an apartheid wall around it.

Seems like a completely valid way to promote peace IMO.

So to clarify:

When Muslims take Jerusalem = "The people who rightfully won it"
When Jews take Jeruslam = Injustice, disgrace, occupiers, zionist scum etc

the difference is that when muslims conquered Jerusalem from the Byzantines they did not displace or slaughter the christian population

" In 638 the Islamic Caliphate extended its dominion to Jerusalem.[90] With the Arab conquest, Jews were allowed back into the city (after being banned from the city by the christian byzantine rulers).[91] The Rashidun caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab signed a treaty with Monophysite Christian Patriarch Sophronius, assuring him that Jerusalem's Christian holy places and population would be protected under Muslim rule"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Middle_Ages


but when Zionists took over, thousands of palestinians were murdered and more than a million were misplaced



ps: im assuming Le Samourai meant to say own not won

i have a question...

how many of the current Israel Jews really have ancestry from that location?

If your ancestors or family converted, then they have no right to call Jerusalem theirs.....

Who knows how many of the current Palestinians had ancestry who were Jews during that time and now are converted to Islam or Christainty?

the ancestry argument is just an endless loop that leads to no conclusions because before the jewish tribes moved to palestine the land was already inhabited by Canaanites. If we're looking for the original owner of the land then we might as well look for the ancestors of the first cave man who lived there and solve the problem.

The entire process of Israel's formation bothers me. They fought their wars sure....but why was this location even considered as site by the UN.

Ancestry?-give me a break
Religion ?
Hitler?

These wars begun after the 2nd world war.They're an anomaly, that persisted during the process of decolonisation.

Would Israel have won the wars without UN support and why did they have UN support in the first place?

You can't simply take a portion of a countries land without expecting retaliation.I mean....how does an International organisation do that....what gives them the right to authorise Israel occupation

When the 2nd World War ended , the most valuable lesson learned was that appeasement is the worst route possible in promoting peace.So why in gods name did a mere 3 years later (and from then onwards) has all interaction with Israel by international powers been met with appeasement?.It's unbelievably easy to mirror the extended History of Israel to that of the short history of Nazi Germany , yet no one can be bothered to do anything about it.

When the UN and the British mandated this, they had to know exactly what was going to happen .

The worst part is .....there was land all over the world where and Israeli state could've been built.But who cares ? Avoiding 50 years of warfare was not as important as some passage in the Torah 's dictation of the anno domingo political and geographical Borders. Promised land....It could've been anywhere....and they went ahead and tried to cram it into rhe middle
Eastern equivalent of the Balkans.

Grande UN
Grande.

lol i can only imagine how prosperous israel would be without this long history of wars, but then again if it wasnt for this strategic position the US wouldnt bother with their aids, if Israel wasnt that close to the oil reserves would the US still support it ?

Bhends might be able to provide us with the opinion of the mainstream american on why the US is carrying the burden of israel

BeautifulGame wrote:Being practical , economic reasons wont work in every situation.In a scenario like Indo-Pak where the relationship is still unfortunately viewed through the prism of religious fanatics , economic reason will never stop a war.Whereas nuclear war is a huge deterrent.

That's exactly my point though. They built an arsenal of f*cking nukes but can't be assed to foster trade relations? TBH to me it seems that networking the global economies would be the cheaper, more efficient, and less possibly-world-ending way of achieving lasting peace. It worked for Europe, and we loved killing the shit out of each other for about 4000 years.

Whereas in a Indo china relationship mutual economic interest makes more sense.Since China is our biggest exporter so despite all the border tensions our relationship has been stable.Neither of us will attack each other any time soon regardless of nuclear war since both India and China need each other economically.

So unless u are a developed country or atleast a reasonably developing country nuclear is much better option that economy imo.

I don't agree, since the money that Pakistan has funnelled into their nuclear program (same goes for India) could've just as well made their economies grow. Sure, Pakistan going for Nukes kind of makes sense, with India being a couple times larger and whatnot, but TBH the historic course in these events hasn't always been a war with conventional warfare until one side ran out of soldiers, but the weaker nation giving the f*ck up. It's ridiculous. I get that Kashmere has scenic views of mountain sides, but that really doesn't matter if both sides count on only roaches being able to enjoy the view if shit goes down.

I totally get that the nukes in place work as a deterrent, I just think that an economic deterrent would've been more beneficial, and wouldn't endanger the life of the human species.

lenear1030 wrote:that's funny, because in the instance of Iran that's likely the reason why they are developing nuclear capabilities--deterrence. the deterrence is from US invasion though, behind this facade of israel opposed to a nuclear iran.

the mutual economic interest (oil) you mentioned is the cause of the impending conflict w/ iran, but the US is going to try strong arm them.

Don't even argue with Iran, Iran doesn't even work on the scale of MAD - the regime is so fundamentalist, has so little checks and balances in place, that it barely registers as a rational actor on the international political landscape.

Forget about them. Them building nukes will accomplish nothing but getting the shit bombed out of them by NATO. And TBH I'll be on Nato with this. The Iranian people simply deserve better than their current regime, but I just don't want to trust fundamentalists with weapons that could actually bring about Judgement Day.

That's also why American fundamentalists scare the shit out of me - and they got a couple of mechanisms within their democracy to stop the crazy - Iran doesn't. If their head honcho wants to press the big ol' red button, he just f*cking does.

And there's no reason for nukes anyway. Just give up that ridiculous isolationist agenda, start obeying the UN charta and be done with it. It's not like there's a huge anti-muslim bias or anything - it worked for Turkey who are perfectly fine operating within a frame work of the Geneva convention while being a predominantly muslim country. Hell, they're, by law, more secular than the US of A.

And sure, Turkey still doesn't take human rights seriously enough to be a real contender for joining the EU, but they sure as hell show you how to be a modern state without abolishing all traditions of religious heritage.

Speaking of Turkey:

Blame the UK and Us for the mess in Iran everything happening there is part of the blow back of 60s... the extremists would have never been in power of they hadn't backed the coup, and it all started due to one thing OIL

imalegend wrote:Blame the UK and Us for the mess in Iran everything happening there is part of the blow back of 60s... the extremists would have never been in power of they hadn't backed the coup, and it all started due to one thing OIL

WTF? The West opposed the coup, they backed the Shah, mate.

Edit: That didn't help either though, point taken. But you can't blame it all on the 'Mericans. They sure wreak havoc everywhere, but it's not like Persians are incapable of independent thought.

I don't put all the blame on them but they haven't made it any better they backed Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war even though he was using things like chemicals, which had made anything better for relationship with them

Btw the west didn't oppose the coup both CIA and mi6 played a big part in giving him his power...and the shah wasn't a good guy he was a autocract.... they overthrew a Democratic leader....

I know the Shah was a dictator, the entirety of the German left-wing went apeshit in the late '60s when he visited West Germany. I was just pointing out that, technically, the West mostly supported the evil asshole that ruled before the current league fo evil assholes.

And yes, the West did ridiculous shit, "we" also backed Mubarak in Egypt, Pinochet in Chile... And I'm still sort of surprised we intervened in the Iraq-Kuweit war.

VivaStPauli wrote:

lenear1030 wrote:that's funny, because in the instance of Iran that's likely the reason why they are developing nuclear capabilities--deterrence. the deterrence is from US invasion though, behind this facade of israel opposed to a nuclear iran.

the mutual economic interest (oil) you mentioned is the cause of the impending conflict w/ iran, but the US is going to try strong arm them.

Don't even argue with Iran, Iran doesn't even work on the scale of MAD - the regime is so fundamentalist, has so little checks and balances in place, that it barely registers as a rational actor on the international political landscape.

Forget about them. Them building nukes will accomplish nothing but getting the shit bombed out of them by NATO. And TBH I'll be on Nato with this. The Iranian people simply deserve better than their current regime, but I just don't want to trust fundamentalists with weapons that could actually bring about Judgement Day.

That's also why American fundamentalists scare the shit out of me - and they got a couple of mechanisms within their democracy to stop the crazy - Iran doesn't. If their head honcho wants to press the big ol' red button, he just f*cking does.

And there's no reason for nukes anyway. Just give up that ridiculous isolationist agenda, start obeying the UN charta and be done with it. It's not like there's a huge anti-muslim bias or anything - it worked for Turkey who are perfectly fine operating within a frame work of the Geneva convention while being a predominantly muslim country. Hell, they're, by law, more secular than the US of A.

And sure, Turkey still doesn't take human rights seriously enough to be a real contender for joining the EU, but they sure as hell show you how to be a modern state without abolishing all traditions of religious heritage.

Speaking of Turkey:

i agree that's what's going to happen. when i said we're going to try to strong arm them i didn't mean that it will work. the sanctions imposed on them are apparently crippling (according to our media, but i take their info cautiously) but they wont stop the nuclear program.


but they really shouldn't stop it either... the most important point is that Iran is in a catch-22 situation (damned if you do, damned if you don't). strategically, they'd be crazy not to try attain nuclear weapons capabilities as a deterrent. iran has to look no further than iraq as evidence that they can and would be invaded by the US without any legitimate cause of war.


they're going to be invaded because of a larger and truer cause which is, oil pipeline competition in the middle east with details i dont feel like explaining atm....

oil isn't the only valuable thing in Iran, there is a abundance of Gas there estimated to around 15% of all the world's reserves.

Pakistan recently made a deal with Iran and has been getting alot of slag from US...

imalegend wrote:oil isn't the only valuable thing in Iran, there is a abundance of Gas there estimated to around 15% of all the world's reserves.

Pakistan recently made a deal with Iran and has been getting alot of slag from US...

that's actually EXACTLY what i was referring to. the reason we're giving that deal slag as you said is because it's a competitive threat to the TAPI pipeline

VivaStPauli wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:Being practical , economic reasons wont work in every situation.In a scenario like Indo-Pak where the relationship is still unfortunately viewed through the prism of religious fanatics , economic reason will never stop a war.Whereas nuclear war is a huge deterrent.

That's exactly my point though. They built an arsenal of f*cking nukes but can't be assed to foster trade relations? TBH to me it seems that networking the global economies would be the cheaper, more efficient, and less possibly-world-ending way of achieving lasting peace. It worked for Europe, and we loved killing the shit out of each other for about 4000 years.

Whereas in a Indo china relationship mutual economic interest makes more sense.Since China is our biggest exporter so despite all the border tensions our relationship has been stable.Neither of us will attack each other any time soon regardless of nuclear war since both India and China need each other economically.

So unless u are a developed country or atleast a reasonably developing country nuclear is much better option that economy imo.

I don't agree, since the money that Pakistan has funnelled into their nuclear program (same goes for India) could've just as well made their economies grow. Sure, Pakistan going for Nukes kind of makes sense, with India being a couple times larger and whatnot, but TBH the historic course in these events hasn't always been a war with conventional warfare until one side ran out of soldiers, but the weaker nation giving the f*ck up. It's ridiculous. I get that Kashmere has scenic views of mountain sides, but that really doesn't matter if both sides count on only roaches being able to enjoy the view if shit goes down.

I totally get that the nukes in place work as a deterrent, I just think that an economic deterrent would've been more beneficial, and wouldn't endanger the life of the human species.

pakistan going for nukes makes no sense lol, since its india's foreign policy that we never attack first ,never attacked anyone in our history lol

kargil and the wars earlier werent started by us .. but in an hostile environment like this , you have to get nukes in order tobe prepared against pakistan or china, otherwise we would also lose a lot of our sovereignity if they could dictate terms to us


and our non development expenditure isnt that much tbf , despite the recent inflation our economy has had terrific growth . cant say the same for pakistan

India needed nukes once China had them. Pakistan needed nukes once India had them. It's really not that hard. And India never having attacked another country isn't that big an argument when there's a dispute about a region both Pakistan and India claim as their own - since technically attacking Kashmere wouldn't be "invading foreign soil" on either part.

Also, if your opposition has nukes, and you don't, you can't attack them. If both sides have nukes, there's a good chance neither side will use them.