The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Revisiting the 'Axis of Evil' - Part I > Comments

Revisiting the 'Axis of Evil' - Part I : Comments

By Dilip Hiro, published 11/8/2008

Given the catastrophic consequences of attacking Iran, the US may have to live with an Iranian nuclear program.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
As we have tried to tell you more than once, Paull, Political Scientists do not practice hate but official causal outcomes.

Just as US Minister of State, Professor Henry Kissinger did warn President Nixon about letting one small power like Israel be allowed the nuclear military means while the rest of the Middle East powers did not, was asking for trouble.

Though you and your Israeli friends might believe you have the right, as I have said before, in a university discussion concerning scientific balance of power theory, you'd all be lucky to get 4 out of 10.

Certainly your low mentality will be proven re' the situation if Condoleeza Rice as Minister of State gives the order to attack Iran.

Cheers - BB, Buntine, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 4:28:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BB, if you are talking tactical nukes (and believe me, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest there are ANY strategic nukes in the ME, other than in the hands of UK/USA/Russia), then the predicating the entire balance of power argument on the fact that only one country possesses Nukes looks particularly shaky.

Given that there is a massive imbalance in the forces in that region, for example at the outset of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, there was something like a 5:1 advantage in favor of the attackers (Syria/Egypt) in terms of both Armor & Infantry (NB the Israeli's were also fighting simultaneously on two fronts, thereby splitting their defensive forces, interestingly, they appear to have adopted a modified 'Schlieffen Plan'; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan, trading territory in the Sinai for breathing space, allowing them to concentrate initially on preventing a breakthrough on the Golan Heights where there was little time to work with; see http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj99/fal99/netfal99.html), the use and/or possession of tactical nuclear weapons would do little more than even out the playing field. That is precisely why tactical nukes were developed, to allow NATO to blunt the advance of Soviet tank armies and to redress the enormous imbalance in conventional forces that was always going to face NATO in such circumstances.

I don't see how anybody could fail to understand this basic concept, unless of course they fail to comprehend the enormous difference between tactical and strategic nukes. One is designed to destroy attacking armoured formations (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapons), while the other is designed as a deterrent, for offensive purposes and/or the destruction of cities. The effect of the two on strategic balances of power is very different.

PS What Iran is trying to build, given the much publicized recent tests of intermediate range rockets/missiles, are strategic nuclear weapons (tactical nukes are normally of only limited range, indeed, they have been designed for use in artillery shells in the past: cf Strategic Nuclear Weapons; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_nuclear_weapon). This is unlikely to have a minimal effect on the balance of power in the region.
Posted by Haganah Bet, Wednesday, 13 August 2008 6:26:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred,

Despite Israels possession of a nuclear arsenal, the Arab armies invaded Israel on Yom Kippur 1973. Clearly Israels possession of these weapons did not deter the Arabs.

Israel managed to beat this larger force without resort to nukes and is a high water mark of Israels conventional power. So HOW has Israels possession of nukes changed things in the region?

Can you honestly claim that if Israel had not acquired nukes things would be ANY different in that region?
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 14 August 2008 11:51:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paull and Hagana Bet, you are both wasting your time.

Our interest as said, is in Middle East power balances which can be confirmed also as said from political science theories.

Your arguments instead seem fully reliant on the premise that Israel needs its huge brace of atomic warheads to allay an Islamic anger.

An anger which in our studies is justified not only through Israel's illegal nuclear rockets - which the Arab nations are not allowed to have - but also from years of Western intrusion into the Middle East based mostly on colonialist-style greed
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 14 August 2008 1:00:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BB, I was in no way seeking to suggest that Israel has to allay anger on the part of anyone, what I was saying is that the 'tactical' nuclear weapons that Israel does have are designed as a sort of super artillery, the purpose of which is to stop enemy armoured formations.

Perhaps instead of simply blaming the whole thing on Israel/America, one should perhaps look a little more closely at the events prior to 1973, where the Soviet largesse in terms of material and weapons was most assuredly not in response to the actions of the USA, or Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. Perhaps the unlimited supply of what was in its day, advanced weaponry, by the Soviets to Egypt & Syria during the period 1948-1968 should be examined? The underlying cause of which most assuredly was not merely a balance of power argument, nor was in response to the USA (which was not then involved). Israel had no nuclear weapons in this period, so the causation was what? That Israel was there? That the Soviet Union traded advanced weapons to the Arabs in exchange for (1) Money; & (2) Oil? That the Soviet Union was seeking to provoke a proxy war in the Middle East?

That is what grabs me, that despite the events being directly comparable, the supposed 'causative issue(s)' did not then exist. If the supposed 'causative issues' of an event or class of events, is correctly defined, then surely it would be the most likely cause of every other event similar to, or of the same class as, that event? Did the USA's involvement and the fact that Israel got hold of nukes, somehow trump the causative issues of the proceeding events? Or did the issues which caused the bad blood, anger and/or hatred, exist long before and independently of, the USA's involvement and Israel's nuclear arsenal?

Please advise, I am not scared of reasonable debate, especially one based upon logic. All you need to do is establish, logically, how these two issues are causative of a problem which predates their existence.
Posted by Haganah Bet, Thursday, 14 August 2008 5:07:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry to be hard, Haganah Bet, but if you were in a political science school your arguments would not wash.

Please remember that Israel with help from the French broke a law, as Professor Kissinger would really let you know.

A further point --

The very fact that Israel is agreeable to do the first strike on Iran, is further criminality also.

Finally, because though not published, it is obviously the US President that grants the allowance for Israel's bomber strikes, rather than the UN, America should go before a Global Court also.

It is because we have such a gutless UN in the grip of a crazy Texan-style America that little Israel has to make the first strike, Haganah, and only wish you and Paull would gain the brains to understand.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 14 August 2008 6:30:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy