Sniper, what are they going to do with a nuclear weapon? Threaten Israel? Israel recently purchased two nuclear submarines. They are poised right now with the ability to hit Iran, and Iran knows it.

1. If I were Iran, I would want the nuclear capability to protect myself from Israel, and B. Even if they get the capability, Israel's military positioning keeps them from having the ability to use it against Israel without repurcussions.

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
Sniper, what are they going to do with a nuclear weapon? Threaten Israel? Israel recently purchased two nuclear submarines. They are poised right now with the ability to hit Iran, and Iran knows it.

1. If I were Iran, I would want the nuclear capability to protect myself from Israel, and B. Even if they get the capability, Israel's military positioning keeps them from having the ability to use it against Israel without repurcussions.

Again, only have 30 seconds (wireless PDA's are great).

You're quite wrong here. Israel just purchased two more diesel submarines that carry conventional weapons. Neither submarine will be delivered until 2010.

"The government of Israel recently ordered three German Dolphin Class 800 submarines. Israel will then have a second strike capability with nuclear cruise missiles, and this capability could well change the nuclear arms race in the Middle East."

- Burrows, and Windrem The Irish Times

You're right. I misspoke. There's a difference between a "nuclear submarine" and a submarine with the capability to launch a nuclear warhead.

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
Sniper, what are they going to do with a nuclear weapon? Threaten Israel? Israel recently purchased two nuclear submarines. They are poised right now with the ability to hit Iran, and Iran knows it.

I think the "problem" here is you're trying to put yourself in Iran's shoes. Can you also place yourself in Atta's shoes? "I will spend months learning to fly an airplane. I will then walk through airport security carrying a box cutter, and shortly after takeoff, I will kill the flight attendant near me. I will then charge the cockpit, and kill the pilots. I will then take control of the airplane and fly it, along with all passengers aboard, into the World Trade Center."

You say, "If I was Iran, I'd use it in self-defense". Problem is, you're not Iran. I'm not saying Atta is Iranian either ('cause, well, he wasn't) but you're trying to use "rational reasoning" while others are quite certain there is nothing rational there.

But, this is off topic from the voting conspiracy...

No, I'm trying to differentiate between radical extremist individuals, and an entire country.

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
"The government of Israel recently ordered three German Dolphin Class 800 submarines. Israel will then have a second strike capability with nuclear cruise missiles, and this capability could well change the nuclear arms race in the Middle East."

- Burrows, and Windrem The Irish Times

You're right. I misspoke. There's a difference between a "nuclear submarine" and a submarine with the capability to launch a nuclear warhead.

That article is incorrect. The German made Dolphin class submarines are the same type that Israel already has several of. They are conventional weapons platforms and not nuclear. Those submarines do nothing to change the balance of power.

As you say, there is an extremely large difference between a nuclear submarine and a nuclear weapons platform. The Dolphin class submarines are non-nuclear platforms.

It should also be noted that Israel's cruise missiles are fitted out for conventional payloads only.

And it's impossible to fire a nuclear warhead from them, is that right?

Referring to these specific submarines? According to the Germans who manufacture them, yes. Could it be possible to successfully modify a conventional cruise missile to carry a nuclear warhead? Also yes, but with greatly reduced efficacy and highly increased risk. That renders doing so pretty much useless.

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
Sniper, what are they going to do with a nuclear weapon? Threaten Israel? Israel recently purchased two nuclear submarines. They are poised right now with the ability to hit Iran, and Iran knows it.

1. If I were Iran, I would want the nuclear capability to protect myself from Israel, and B. Even if they get the capability, Israel's military positioning keeps them from having the ability to use it against Israel without repurcussions.

The problem with your supposition is that Israel has never given ANY cause to even REMOTELY believe that they have any territorial ambitions outside of self-defense requirements.

Israel has never given ANY her neighbors they SLIGHTEST reason to believe that Israel would harm them in anything other than self-defense.

The same cannot be said for Iran, eh??

You mean other than creating a state where there once was none?

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
You mean other than creating a state where there once was none?

Yes, other than that...

Again, we're back to what happened in the far past...

You never addressed the issue of the US taking land from native Americans and whether or not you would feel they were justified in committing terrorist acts to win back their land..

Why is that??

Where do you get, "justified in committing terrorist acts"? Yes, I believe the United States stole this land from the Native Americans (and others). And yes, I would agree that they would all be justified to feel infuriated about the genocide that our military inflicted upon them. I would not, however, deem any terrorist acts justified, nor did I infer that I believed that in the first place.

Further, wouldn't you agree that the United States' acts against the Mexican / Spanish and Native Americans might be deemed as terrorism by said peoples?

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
You mean other than creating a state where there once was none?

You mean like most of the Middle East? Transjordan? Syria? Iraq? Ever heard of Sykes-Picot?

That reasoning fails on even the most basic level. Israel is more legitimate than most of those other states since partition was voted on and passed by a body of nations rather than by a single nation. If the argument is about a Jewish nation that also fails since the general argument is to one of tenancy and there have been Jews in that land far longer than any other group. The Muslim claim is a wholly religious one based on their religion while the Jewish claim has substantial historical backing.

Be that as it may, the reality is what we deal with and Israel is a reality.

Do you have these same problems with other nations?

The Partition Plan was adopted by the UN General Assembly, but the Arab League rejected it. This is my point. You say, their legitimacy is based on approval by a body of nations. However, you fail to mention the disapproval by a body of nations. Thus, the argument is valid that their legitimacy is questionable, depending on who you ask.

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
The Partition Plan was adopted by the UN General Assembly, but the Arab League rejected it. This is my point. You say, their legitimacy is based on approval by a body of nations. However, you fail to mention the disapproval by a body of nations. Thus, the argument is valid that their legitimacy is questionable, depending on who you ask.

Hardly. The Arab League as a body is of the same level as NATO, the Warsaw Pact, African Union and Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (if you don't realize it that last one is somewhat tongue in cheek). It is by no means seens as an equivalent world body.

Are we really going to go round and round with this same issue? Oh well, here goes absolutely nothing....

BY WHOM, Geist? WHO does not see the Arab League as equivalent? (Yawn)

Also, the UN has recognized the Arab League.

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
1. If I were Iran, I would want the nuclear capability to protect myself from Israel, and B. Even if they get the capability, Israel's military positioning keeps them from having the ability to use it against Israel without repurcussions.

There is a big assumption you are making here and it is a patently false one. Israel has time and time again proven that despite attacks from its neighbors it has not sought the annihilation of them.

I am not talking about terrorist bombing here, I am talking about all out war. Look back to 1948, 1967, and even in Lebanan in 1982. In every case Israel would have been justified in moving in and occupying the land, and at each time at the end of the conflict or soon after the land was withdrawn from. This is not the type of behavior that is indicative of a hostile nation that is looking to occupy their neighbor's land.

On the contrary each war was initiated by Isreal's enemies, and the rhetoric to this day is that the complete annihilation of Israel is the objective.

I think your view of Israel's arab neighbors is far to kind and gentle when viewed through the proper lenses of history.

My view, that Iran should feel threatened by a neighbor having a nuclear weapon, is skewed? How so?

How would you feel if your neighboring country had a nuclear weapon and you did not? Threatened perhaps? "Well, they have never tried to take your land, so don't worry". Well, I've never changed the oil in my car. Does that mean it will run forever?

The rational argument is that no country would use nuclear weapons because it would result in nuclear retaliation and total destruction.

A country would use a nuke to stave off disastrous defeat or elimination. A country might also use nukes if they thought they could survive a nuclear attack.

A larger country like Iran or China could survive such an attack more so than a small country like Israel. Which means that they might feel that a pre-emptive attack was necessary, depending on the circumstances. That would be a very dangerous situation.

quote:

Originally posted by ROT_Danger:
My view, that Iran should feel threatened by a neighbor having a nuclear weapon, is skewed? How so?

How would you feel if your neighboring country had a nuclear weapon and you did not? Threatened perhaps? "Well, they have never tried to take your land, so don't worry". Well, I've never changed the oil in my car. Does that mean it will run forever?

I'm sorry to say but your view is skewed. Iran has already openly expressed the desire to see the complete and utter destruction of Israel. Israel has never uttered this type of rhetoric that its surrounding neighbors have.

Isreal has returned control of land that it conquered AFTER being attacked, more than once in conflicts started by its neighbors. What was the aim of the past conflicts? To rid the Middle East of Israel of course. When has Israel ever engaged in an all out war with its neighbors in order to conquer land as their neighbors have done to them?

Consider what Israel was doing right before the Hezbollah rocket attacks. Were they not in the process of pulling OUT of settlements? Who supplied the rockets?

There is a huge difference between the two sides, and Iran is clearly the hostile nation.