All this talk and nice Nuclear Free acronyms, will not Israeli disarmament make. Why would Israel want to disarm? Its nuclear arsenal is tacitly accepted by the great powers. Israel is safely Western, righteous and exceptional.

The countries (France, UK, US even Norway) that helped Israel build and fuel the Bomb feel guilty about the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism. Most Israelis would privately agree that Never Again should there be another Holocaust.

The possible nuclear threats to Israel have escalated. Iran is closer to having a nuclear capability than before. Iran is only pausing its nuclear program for 6 months.

Saudi Arabia (which heavily financed Pakistan's nuclear program) is believed to have a long term arrangement with nuclear armed Pakistan to utilise some of Pakistan's warheads in time of need.

The U.S. wants and needs a nuclear-armed Greater Israel. What the rest of the world wants or doesn't want is of no interest to America.

Few nations in the world are aware of how far the Americans have gone in their ambition for global hegemony. Take a look at global maps and see where the Yanks are already.

They have just added Australia to their list of pawns and, it could be said, we are already under American occupation.

There is no escape route from the nuclear shadow over the Middle East unless the world topples the U.S. from its imperial perch.

Perhaps if the world thought about how the world would be if America and Israel were calling the shots, alarm might be felt.

It would be ironic if another totalitarian, fascist nation rose in place of Hitler's Germany, wouldn't it?

But we already know what it would be like. Remember the drones, the cages, the waterboarding, Abu Graib, Obama's assassination squads, the electronic spying, the use of depleted uranium and Agent Orange, the imprisonment without trial, shock and awe, 1% with most of the wealth, 1984, etc, etc.

An interesting post, although high on wishful thinking. I agree that serious discussion on Israel's nuclear weapons program and stockpile is almost entirely absent from the western media, including Australia. This is curious is it not? What purpose is served by refusing to put Israel's nuclear weapons into the mix of a Middle East settlement. I have read estimates that place those weapons in the 400+ range. That is enough to kill everyone on the planet several times over.

Against whom could the weapons be used? Almost certainly not against Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt or Syria because the region would be contaminated beyond habitability and that necessarily means Israel as well.

A more interesting question with regard to the local media is why do they so assiduously report the threats of Netanyahu, or his bluster against the non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons program, but never point out the logical absurdity of his position?

Neither do they point out that Israel is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty (unlike Iran) because to sign up would require submitting themselves to inspections and Israel will never accept that.

Neither does the local media point out Israel's use of chemical weapons in breach of several international protocols. If Seymour Hersh is correct in his latest article (published in a British outlet interestingly enough) then the Israelis where a major force behind the recent false flag operation in Syria using chemical weapons (sarin gas). Again, the phrase "false flag" never passes the proverbial lips of the local media, yet it is a thoroughly documented phenomenon (Tonkin Gulf to use but one example).

As well meaning as Ms Gordon's proposals are I fear they will not be well received in Tel Aviv and Washington. The history of the past 65 years is that Israel has no intention of peaceful co-existence with its neighbours, and having nuclear weapons gives them, in their eyes at least, a get out of jail free card.

@David G
You write, "Perhaps if the world thought about how the world would be if America and Israel were calling the shots, alarm might be felt."
Are you saying that they are not now calling the shots? That they have not been calling the shots for some time now? Or are you just saying that the world is not thinking? If so, I can't argue with that, and not just the world, but more specifically Abbott and his Bishop.
But perhaps all is not lost. Perhaps their assumptions and their arrogance has cost them more than they (or we) realise.
First there was the failure in Iraq. Then Syria became the latest major back-down in the American/Israel agenda. Add Geneva and the six month pause in their war on Iran. Now Turkey is also looking further than NATO.
What have those two built. From where I sit, it seems they only destroy.

Halduell, the Western World seems to be unaware of the machinations of America and Israel as they work together to gain global domination.

I see Australia as being under American occupation already albeit through the servility of our politicians to the American eagle. The Yanks are all over our nation and any semblance of our independence is long gone.

The way the U.S., having surrounded Russia with missiles, is now 'pivoting' into South-East Asia so as to corral and restrict the growth of China is sickening. I am positive it will result in a nuclear war sooner rather than later.

Australia, given its geographical location, will be friendless in a very divided world!

How come we can't see the writing on the wall? Australian stupidity and lack of foresight is infinite!

Nukes are the great equaliser. They are the only way a small country can deter larger neighbours from attacking it.

Consider Indonesia. It is a Muslim country with more than ten times our population. Its economy is growing rapidly. By 2030 it will likely be Indonesia rather than Australia that calls the shots in this region.

At that point Australia may decide to emulate Japan and become a virtual nuclear power. The Japanese could probably deploy nukes within a year, two at most. It is useful to have the nuclear ace in the hole.

You want to know the real difference between Australia and Israel?

The first is "girt by sea". The second is not. That gives Australia the strategic depth Israel lacks. But faced with a huge and powerful neighbour like Indonesia in 2030...

Well, it's obvious, isn't it?

I am sure the Taiwanese regret not having followed the virtual nuclear path. Perhaps with the secret help of Japan they have.

Hi stevenlmeyer

From the mid 60s to the mid 70s Taiwan was fairly secretly half way through a nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) the US found out about this and told Taiwan to stop or the US would not militarily back Taiwan. The US was concerned the PRC would invade Taiwan before Taiwan actually completed some nukes.

Meanwhile Japan and Taiwan distrust each other (due to Japan previously occupying Taiwan-Formosa) making it unlikely Japan would lend a nuclear hand. Both also have a healthy fear of an already H-Bomb armed China.

Cheers

Pete

Thanks for that Pete.

What's your opinion on Australia's nuclear options?

Hi Steven

A nuclear weapons' capability for Australia is a distant possibility dependent on the threat environment against Australia becoming significantly worse.

In the case of Indonesia that country's military is largely focussed on internal security. Australia's conventional forces could handle Indonesia for the foreseeable future. Indonesia, like Australia, rates good relations with the US (the regional pacifier) highly.

If military threats from China, India, Russia, a militarised Japan, or threatening nuclear North Korea, increased Australia would need to consider nuclear counter-measures. Any Australia nuclear capability would need to be placed on the ideal second strike platform (four nuclear propelled submarines) first. We would need to buy or build such submarines first.

Buying or building nuclear propelled submarines by 2040 should be a serious option.

Pete

Hi Pete

Yep I agree with one quibble. For now Indonesia is a non-threat. By 2030 ..? I'm not so sure.

I think Australia should be thinking in terms of a few nuclear submarines as possible second strike platforms by 2025, 2030 at the latest.

I also think we should dump the F35.

This guy explains it better than I could.

THE F-35 IS A LEMON PIERRE SPREY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

Hi Steven

The Pierre Sprey youtube looks on the money. The F-35, in trying to do most missions, can do none of them well and has a high unit cost.

Sprey is right about "money to Lockheed Martin". For Australia it is our money to the US as a premium on US protection insurance.

If we bought 4 Virginia Class SSNs the US would get its money and Australia would feel less compelled to buy the F-35.

I wrote an OLO article about the F-35 "Don't Buy in Haste" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7401 . Though it was written in May 2008 I think its predictions are still accurate.

Regards

Pete