UN tells Israel to let in nuclear inspectors

[The Republic of Lanos]

Israel never signed the NPT.

There is no violation.

Maybe read the post I quoted.

Think about it.

Again.

Really really, really hard.

Got it now?

We get it already but if you're not in the NPT, it doesn't apply to you.

[Nazis in Space]

Maybe read the post I quoted.

Think about it.

Again.

Really really, really hard.

Got it now?

We get it already but if you're not in the NPT, it doesn't apply to you.

You're clearly not.

I'm not trying to be funny here. I'm genuinely telling you to read the post I replied to, and then think about it. Really, really hard.

Thus far, you don't appear to do a whole lot of thinking.

It's not actually difficult, though. All you've to do is to actually read the posts in question, as opposed to substituting whatever's written there with what you're imagining.

For that matter, reading the OP would be pretty helpful, too. It should make it blatantly clear just how hilariously beside the point you are.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Israel can do whatever it wants.

Just like any other nation.

But sir, you clearly don't understand. This is a new leftist world order. National sovernghty doesn't mean squat here, only enforcing the will of the majority on the will of the few. And the majority of us enlightened intellects demand Israel do what we say, lest we label them a "rouge nation"

(sarcasm)

Just so we are clear and so you don't seem hypocritical, you were against the war in Iraq then based upon the (false) idea of WMDs posing a threat and totally opposed the whole Rogue nation and new axis of evil rhetoric from the Bush administration?

[IshCong]

We get it already but if you're not in the NPT, it doesn't apply to you.

You're clearly not.

I'm not trying to be funny here. I'm genuinely telling you to read the post I replied to, and then think about it. Really, really hard.

Israel can't do whatever it wants in all cases without violating international law. I'm aware of this. However, how does international law apply to this situation?
International law is rather vast, I'm not reading every last article since forever. Either back up what you said and explain, or just knock off the spammy "read what I wrote". At least three people read it, and apparently don't understand what you are driving at which makes me inclined to say the error lies not with those individuals but with your apparent inability to explain yourself.

Thus far, you don't appear to do a whole lot of thinking.

Oh, that's helpful.

It's not actually difficult, though. All you've to do is to actually read the posts in question, as opposed to substituting whatever's written there with what you're imagining.

For that matter, reading the OP would be pretty helpful, too. It should make it blatantly clear just how hilariously beside the point you are.

You mean the non-binding UN resolution that only encourages Israel to do anything?

[Galla-]

I don't mind them being asked to prove once and for all whether or not they have nuclear weapons. However, I see nonreason for them to join the NPT if they don't want to.

There's nothing to prove.

Literally everyone knows they have nuclear weapons.

[Inyourfaceistan]

But sir, you clearly don't understand. This is a new leftist world order. National sovernghty doesn't mean squat here, only enforcing the will of the majority on the will of the few. And the majority of us enlightened intellects demand Israel do what we say, lest we label them a "rouge nation"

(sarcasm)

Just so we are clear and so you don't seem hypocritical, you were against the war in Iraq then based upon the (false) idea of WMDs posing a threat and totally opposed the whole Rogue nation and new axis of evil rhetoric from the Bush administration?

The rhetoric, yes.

The war in Iraq is debatable, and there is still a lot we don't know. And please specify what you mean by "WMD"... Because one could make the arguement that SCUDs kitted out with radioactive material and mustard gas could easily be considered "WMD"s.

[Tmutarakhan]

You're clearly not.

I'm not trying to be funny here. I'm genuinely telling you to read the post I replied to, and then think about it. Really, really hard.

Thus far, you don't appear to do a whole lot of thinking.

It's not actually difficult, though. All you've to do is to actually read the posts in question, as opposed to substituting whatever's written there with what you're imagining.

For that matter, reading the OP would be pretty helpful, too. It should make it blatantly clear just how hilariously beside the point you are.

I think I speak for just about everyone who has read this thread: we have no freaking clue what the hell you are trying to say. If you have something to say, say it.

[Shofercia]

spoilers: they will say refuse and the U.S. and the posters on this forum will back them up and then go back to chanting BOMB IRAN

No, no, no, it's Liberate Iran. Not bomb, "liberate". Cause nothing liberates like Lockheed Martin!

It would be interesting to have the No voters explain their reasoning.

John Bolton's explanation wasn't enough for you, was it?

The UN and its gang of anti-semitic dictators and other scum can go fuck themselves. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and to defend itself it needs to have a wide arsenal of different weapons that mustn't be revealed to the outside world.

Thank you Mr. Bolton.

The UN and its gang of anti-semitic dictators and other scum can go fuck themselves. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and to defend itself it needs to have a wide arsenal of different weapons that mustn't be revealed to the outside world.

Hippostania.... the 21st century is calling and wants to now why you keep refusing to take their calls.

He's still partitioning Russia, along with Genghis Khan & Co.

Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has every right to use nuclear weapons and has no legal demand to not build nukes. So Israel should give the UN the finger and tell them to go to hell.

i think no country should have the right to make nuclear bombs

And you're wrong. Nuclear responsible countries, (US, Russia, China, UK, France, and maybe India,) certainly have the right to do so.

The UN and its gang of anti-semitic dictators and other scum can go fuck themselves. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and to defend itself it needs to have a wide arsenal of different weapons that mustn't be revealed to the outside world.

So they openly need/have weapons that mustn't be revealed. I guess logic can fuck it self like the anti-semetic UN right?

For anyone who's played Freelancer, this is very similar to Liberty's Zone 21. "Zone 21, classified, uhh, don't look left when taking XYZ tradelane."

So they openly need/have weapons that mustn't be revealed. I guess logic can fuck it self like the anti-semetic UN right?

Israel is the only nation under existential threat. They want a nuclear deterrent, there is no legal impediment to their having one, and they do.

Well, the problem is that Israel doesn't say that they have nukes, so it can't really be a deterrent if it's hidden. For instance Russia doesn't mess around, and openly states what will happen in XYZ scenario, which serves as a damn good deterrent. US does this too. On the other hand, a hidden deterrent doesn't work.

[Vareiln]

About damn time.

[Shofercia]

You're clearly not.

I'm not trying to be funny here. I'm genuinely telling you to read the post I replied to, and then think about it. Really, really hard.

Thus far, you don't appear to do a whole lot of thinking.

It's not actually difficult, though. All you've to do is to actually read the posts in question, as opposed to substituting whatever's written there with what you're imagining.

For that matter, reading the OP would be pretty helpful, too. It should make it blatantly clear just how hilariously beside the point you are.

I think I speak for just about everyone who has read this thread: we have no freaking clue what the hell you are trying to say. If you have something to say, say it.

It's like a hidden deterrent

[IshCong]

I think I speak for just about everyone who has read this thread: we have no freaking clue what the hell you are trying to say. If you have something to say, say it.

It's like a hidden deterrent

In the case of Israel, since it has long been widely believed they have nuclear arms their refusal to deny it serves as enough of a deterrent. Few people, if any, are willing to risk that Israel doesn't have them, especially as it becomes more and more likely that Israel does indeed have nuclear arms.
Their refusal to outright state that they have nuclear weapons is less politically costly, and in keeping with their stated refusal to 'introduce' nuclear weapons to the area.

[Shofercia]

It's like a hidden deterrent

In the case of Israel, since it has long been widely believed they have nuclear arms their refusal to deny it serves as enough of a deterrent. Few people, if any, are willing to risk that Israel doesn't have them, especially as it becomes more and more likely that Israel does indeed have nuclear arms.
Their refusal to outright state that they have nuclear weapons is less politically costly, and in keeping with their stated refusal to 'introduce' nuclear weapons to the area.

Ok, here's the thing: which Middle Eastern Nation's military can actually fight and defeat Israel on Israeli soil with US aid to Israel? Which one? Which coalition?

[IshCong]

In the case of Israel, since it has long been widely believed they have nuclear arms their refusal to deny it serves as enough of a deterrent. Few people, if any, are willing to risk that Israel doesn't have them, especially as it becomes more and more likely that Israel does indeed have nuclear arms.
Their refusal to outright state that they have nuclear weapons is less politically costly, and in keeping with their stated refusal to 'introduce' nuclear weapons to the area.

Ok, here's the thing: which Middle Eastern Nation's military can actually fight and defeat Israel on Israeli soil with US aid to Israel? Which one? Which coalition?

That...doesn't actually address what was being said. You seemed to suggest that without an over statement on the part of Israel that they possessed nuclear weapons there was no deterrent value. There is a deterrent, because it is believed that Israel has nuclear weapons and the risk of miscalculation is too great.

[Galla-]

It's like a hidden deterrent

In the case of Israel, since it has long been widely believed they have nuclear arms their refusal to deny it serves as enough of a deterrent. Few people, if any, are willing to risk that Israel doesn't have them, especially as it becomes more and more likely that Israel does indeed have nuclear arms.
Their refusal to outright state that they have nuclear weapons is less politically costly, and in keeping with their stated refusal to 'introduce' nuclear weapons to the area.

It has not been "widely believed", it's widely known, and has been since the 1970s.

It's very much an open secret.

[IshCong]

In the case of Israel, since it has long been widely believed they have nuclear arms their refusal to deny it serves as enough of a deterrent. Few people, if any, are willing to risk that Israel doesn't have them, especially as it becomes more and more likely that Israel does indeed have nuclear arms.
Their refusal to outright state that they have nuclear weapons is less politically costly, and in keeping with their stated refusal to 'introduce' nuclear weapons to the area.

It has not been "widely believed", it's widely known, and has been since the 1970s.

It's very much an open secret.

Okay, 'widely known' then, Sir Pedant.

[Libertarian California]

Yes! Finally, the UN is doing something that remotely matters.

[Greater Nilfgaard]

Meh.

[Shofercia]

Ok, here's the thing: which Middle Eastern Nation's military can actually fight and defeat Israel on Israeli soil with US aid to Israel? Which one? Which coalition?

That...doesn't actually address what was being said. You seemed to suggest that without an over statement on the part of Israel that they possessed nuclear weapons there was no deterrent value. There is a deterrent, because it is believed that Israel has nuclear weapons and the risk of miscalculation is too great.

Here's the thing: the way that most countries would threaten Israel is groups like Hezbollah. Whether or not Israel has nukes, is not a deterrent for said groups. If Israel's not willing to admit that it has nukes, then, internationally, Israel looks hypocritical, which gives Israel less credibility when it comes to actual threats. Hezbollah, should they begin to operate heavily on Israeli territory, could become a threat, but with all of Israel's antics, they could be met with the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" response.

What does Israel having/not having nukes actually do? Because what it doesn't do, is that doesn't give Israel international credibility. It does the exact opposite.

[Saruhan]

Israel is the only nation under existential threat. They want a nuclear deterrent, there is no legal impediment to their having one, and they do.

Well, the problem is that Israel doesn't say that they have nukes, so it can't really be a deterrent if it's hidden. For instance Russia doesn't mess around, and openly states what will happen in XYZ scenario, which serves as a damn good deterrent. US does this too. On the other hand, a hidden deterrent doesn't work.

I think the current "Do we or don't we, spin the wheel! Alex, tell them what they've won!" approach is working pretty well for now, they won't have all the problems with being a declared nuclear powering with most people other then the most trusting knowing almost exactly what they're packing

[Shofercia]

Well, the problem is that Israel doesn't say that they have nukes, so it can't really be a deterrent if it's hidden. For instance Russia doesn't mess around, and openly states what will happen in XYZ scenario, which serves as a damn good deterrent. US does this too. On the other hand, a hidden deterrent doesn't work.

I think the current "Do we or don't we, spin the wheel! Alex, tell them what they've won!" approach is working pretty well for now, they won't have all the problems with being a declared nuclear powering with most people other then the most trusting knowing almost exactly what they're packing

The reason that it's working, is because no country can afford to declare war on Israel, either today, or even starting with the 1990's. Any country doing so will be hit by US and NATO, while Israel will block the attempts of their allies.

[IshCong]

That...doesn't actually address what was being said. You seemed to suggest that without an over statement on the part of Israel that they possessed nuclear weapons there was no deterrent value. There is a deterrent, because it is believed that Israel has nuclear weapons and the risk of miscalculation is too great.

Here's the thing: the way that most countries would threaten Israel is groups like Hezbollah. Whether or not Israel has nukes, is not a deterrent for said groups.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent for any party contemplating conventional conflict with Israel. Israel's conventional forces and any nuclear capability both serve to deter such a course of action, just as it is with the US, Russia, China, UK, and France.

If Israel's not willing to admit that it has nukes, then, internationally, Israel looks hypocritical, which gives Israel less credibility when it comes to actual threats. Hezbollah, should they begin to operate heavily on Israeli territory, could become a threat, but with all of Israel's antics, they could be met with the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" response.

What does Israel having/not having nukes actually do? Because what it doesn't do, is that doesn't give Israel international credibility. It does the exact opposite.

Israel is only hypocritical in this case if it has nukes, refuses to sign/abide by the NPT, and yet insists other nations not gain nukes and sign/abide by the NPT. Admitting they have nukes and then refusing to sign and abide by the NPT makes them more overtly hypocritical, not less, and sets a more overt precedent of publicly stated nuclear weapons being held in the ME which no one really desires.

This is the exact reason why Israel has not confirmed they have nukes, especially as I highly doubt they have any intention of signing the NPT. Again, this preserves some measure of political capital and credibility, among other purposes.

[IshCong]

I think the current "Do we or don't we, spin the wheel! Alex, tell them what they've won!" approach is working pretty well for now, they won't have all the problems with being a declared nuclear powering with most people other then the most trusting knowing almost exactly what they're packing

The reason that it's working, is because no country can afford to declare war on Israel, either today, or even starting with the 1990's. Any country doing so will be hit by US and NATO, while Israel will block the attempts of their allies.

That the nuclear deterrent is not the only deterrent does not mean the nuclear deterrent does not exist, nor does it mean the nuclear deterrent does not remain valuable.

[Shofercia]

Here's the thing: the way that most countries would threaten Israel is groups like Hezbollah. Whether or not Israel has nukes, is not a deterrent for said groups.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent for any party contemplating conventional conflict with Israel. Israel's conventional forces and any nuclear capability both serve to deter such a course of action, just as it is with the US, Russia, China, UK, and France.

If Israel's not willing to admit that it has nukes, then, internationally, Israel looks hypocritical, which gives Israel less credibility when it comes to actual threats. Hezbollah, should they begin to operate heavily on Israeli territory, could become a threat, but with all of Israel's antics, they could be met with the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" response.

What does Israel having/not having nukes actually do? Because what it doesn't do, is that doesn't give Israel international credibility. It does the exact opposite.

Israel is only hypocritical in this case if it has nukes, refuses to sign/abide by the NPT, and yet insists other nations not gain nukes and sign/abide by the NPT. Admitting they have nukes and then refusing to sign and abide by the NPT makes them more overtly hypocritical, not less, and sets a more overt precedent of publicly stated nuclear weapons being held in the ME which no one really desires.

This is the exact reason why Israel has not confirmed they have nukes, especially as I highly doubt they have any intention of signing the NPT. Again, this preserves some measure of political capital and credibility, among other purposes.

If this helps Israel's political capital, why's Israel spending it to prevent UN's nuclear inspectors from going in?

[IshCong]

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent for any party contemplating conventional conflict with Israel. Israel's conventional forces and any nuclear capability both serve to deter such a course of action, just as it is with the US, Russia, China, UK, and France.



Israel is only hypocritical in this case if it has nukes, refuses to sign/abide by the NPT, and yet insists other nations not gain nukes and sign/abide by the NPT. Admitting they have nukes and then refusing to sign and abide by the NPT makes them more overtly hypocritical, not less, and sets a more overt precedent of publicly stated nuclear weapons being held in the ME which no one really desires.

This is the exact reason why Israel has not confirmed they have nukes, especially as I highly doubt they have any intention of signing the NPT. Again, this preserves some measure of political capital and credibility, among other purposes.

If this helps Israel's political capital, why's Israel spending it to prevent UN's nuclear inspectors from going in?

Oh, Israel was going to do that anyway. It looks worse if they say they have nukes and don't permit the inspectors access than it does if they don't confirm that they have nukes and tell the inspectors that they don't have access. Thus, it would cost less political capital. Less, not none, and the situation may change if more pressure is brought on Israel, which is, of course, the whole point of this resolution.

[Saruhan]

I think the current "Do we or don't we, spin the wheel! Alex, tell them what they've won!" approach is working pretty well for now, they won't have all the problems with being a declared nuclear powering with most people other then the most trusting knowing almost exactly what they're packing

The reason that it's working, is because no country can afford to declare war on Israel, either today, or even starting with the 1990's. Any country doing so will be hit by US and NATO, while Israel will block the attempts of their allies.

Even if the entire middle east spontaneously unfucks itself, and declares war on them. Israel could probably still kick them back a province or two towards their capital. I mean they've done it a few times already with more enemies then they would face now. I mean Egypt is the only conceivable threat, and even they're going to be a pushover compared to the last time they fought. They wouldn't even have the rest of the Arab states that they had in '73 and '67. Jordan and Lebanon are moving to the west, Iraq is on the brink of civil war, Syria is actually in civil war Iran is too far away, and the Sauds can't really do shit like normal. I see no reason for NATO and American intervention (besides some minor arms trading) as Israel can destroy any threat currently