A UN General Assembly resolution calling for a nuclear-weapons free Middle East passed last week on - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Flapadar;46674344]I really don't like the idea of all out nuclear war just because some greedy people in the middle East took land that wasn't theirs to begin with. If the US wants to prevent people attacking them, not an issue. The US isn't going to use its nukes in a first strike. Israel would. That's what worries me. [/QUOTE] So you're worried that in the case Israel is invaded and on the verge of being overrun it might use nuclear weapons? Is that something you think is likely to happen? Ever? Because apparently so does Israel. Which is supposedly why we have nukes, I guess.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;46674384]So you're worried that in the case Israel is invaded and on the verge of being overrun it might use nuclear weapons? Is that something you think is likely to happen? Ever? Because apparently so does Israel. Which is supposedly why we have nukes, I guess.[/QUOTE] You're backing up my point. The only reason to have nukes is if you're actively worried of being strongarmed by a nuclear power. Israel is not. Israel is worried about neighbours. Neighbours who don't have nukes or have signed the treaty. Nukes serve no purpose there unless israel is looking to start a nuclear war. I don't plan on dying just because you lot are going to make a bad decision with your nukes.

[QUOTE=Flapadar;46674406]You're backing up my point. The only reason to have nukes is if you're actively worried of being strongarmed by a nuclear power. Israel is not. Israel is worried about neighbours. Neighbours who don't have nukes or have signed the treaty. Nukes serve no purpose there unless israel is looking to start a nuclear war. I don't plan on dying just because you lot are going to make a bad decision with your nukes.[/QUOTE] You're still missing the point. Israel hasn't ever used nukes, even when it invaded on all sides and appeared to be on the verge of defeat during the 1973 Yom Kippur war. So again, assuming Israel will not (as it has not so far) use its nukes except on the verge of total destruction by invading enemy forces, meaning these nukes exist solely to deter this very specific situation, how is this any different than, say NATO keeping neutron bombs to counter Soviet tanks from overrunning Europe? And with all due respect, the world came much closer to nuclear annihilation thanks to the US and USSR waving their atomic dicks at each other, and all the chances for "bad decisions" that gave everyone involved.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;46674481]You're still missing the point. Israel hasn't ever used nukes, even when it invaded on all sides and appeared to be on the verge of defeat during the 1973 Yom Kippur war. So again, assuming Israel will not (as it has not so far) use its nukes except on the verge of total destruction by invading enemy forces, meaning these nukes exist solely to deter this very specific situation, how is this any different than, say NATO keeping neutron bombs to counter Soviet tanks from overrunning Europe? And with all due respect, the world came much closer to nuclear annihilation thanks to the US and USSR waving their atomic dicks at each other, and all the chances for "bad decisions" that gave everyone involved.[/QUOTE] If you really aren't going to use nukes as a final "fuck you" to your neighbours, why have them? You aren't being threatened by a nuclear power so what's the point? They won't deter shit because if what you're saying is true everyone will know it's a bluff anyway. Why not just use your technological superiority to keep your neighbours at bay instead of the threat of nukes?

[QUOTE=Flapadar;46674495]If you really aren't going to use nukes as a final "fuck you" to your neighbours, why have them? You aren't being threatened by a nuclear power so what's the point? They won't deter shit because if what you're saying is true everyone will know it's a bluff anyway. Why not just use your technological superiority to keep your neighbours at bay instead of the threat of nukes?[/QUOTE] You do realize MAD is literally about destroying the other side if he ever manages to destroy you, right? That's exactly why the US and NATO have nukes. The only difference is we're using nukes to deter against any kind of destruction, and not just a nuclear one. And seriously, our technological edge can't guarantee our safety from a combined invasion. You heard about the 1973 war, right?

[QUOTE=Flapadar;46674406]You're backing up my point. The only reason to have nukes is if you're actively worried of being strongarmed by a nuclear power. Israel is not. Israel is worried about neighbours. Neighbours who don't have nukes or have signed the treaty. Nukes serve no purpose there unless israel is looking to start a nuclear war. I don't plan on dying just because you lot are going to make a bad decision with your nukes.[/QUOTE] MAD only applies when both parties are armed with nuclear weapons. Maybe the only purpose nukes in US, UK or French arsenals serve are to act as a second-strike capability in the event of a nuclear first-strike by an aggressor also armed with nuclear weapons, but that doesn't mean the same is true of nuclear weapons full stop. Israeli nuclear weapons are an effective deterrent to an attack using conventional arms by its neighbors because those neighbours know they have no second-strike capability and they know that Israel knows they have no second-strike capability. Israel has to be pushed far less hard than most other nuclear powers because of the non-existence of a commensurate retaliation and this deters its neighbours from bothering to push in the first place. Who knows whether or not we'd have had a repeat of the Six Day War by now if not for Israeli nuclear weapons, but the fact remains we haven't.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;46674510]You do realize MAD is literally about destroying the other side if he ever manages to destroy you, right? That's exactly why the US and NATO have nukes. The only difference is we're using nukes to deter against any kind of destruction, and not just a nuclear one. And seriously, our technological edge can't guarantee our safety from a combined invasion. You heard about the 1973 war, right?[/QUOTE] I didn't hear about nukes being of any use there. Surely the better way to protect Israel is to stop fucking with the international community so more people are on your side - rather than having nukes.

[QUOTE=darunner;46670456]No other country there is being asked for this. Such as Iran.[/QUOTE] Iran signed the NPT in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. Iran has also signed treaties repudiating the possession of weapons of mass destruction including the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46672760] Name one country that would let itself get attacked and then say "oh well, it's fine, just don't do it again".[/QUOTE] Canada. They will even say sorry.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;46670791]So what are we going to do, declare war on them? No, we're not, so we can't really do anything.[/QUOTE] Well, Europe is the n.1 commercial partner of Israel, and sanctions would not hurt us that much (or at least not more than the russian ones). So..

[QUOTE=Flapadar;46674406]You're backing up my point. The only reason to have nukes is if you're actively worried of being strongarmed by a nuclear power. Israel is not. [/QUOTE] Neither was Ukraine, which is why they gave away their entire cold-war arsenal after the fall of the Soviet Union. If you don't have nuclear weapons, you are an easy target. If the US lost prominence on the world stage, Russia could invade Israel from the Black Sea without much difficulty. Any number of things could happen. Israel is a responsible and stable power which has armed itself in self-defense, and nobody has the moral authority to tell them to disarm.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46672824]Because it's unenforceable and is a level playing field. If we're banning Israel from having nukes then we should be banning Russia, the US, and China from having nukes too. It's not like they're using them, and they make a much better deterrent to using WMD's against them then "don't use WMD's against us, or we'll come fite you".[/QUOTE] By that logic, countries looking to aquire nuclear weapons should be given the ok.

[QUOTE=Adarrek;46671042]Micronesia and Palau are pretty much owned by the US so no surprises there. I'm also not surprised at Israel, the greatest ally of the US, but i'm surprised at Canada.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=01271;46672807]Canada is anti-nuclear weapons and we've got the best medical radioisotopes in the world, why tell israel to keep their bombs?[/QUOTE] Blame [URL="http://www.ctvnews.ca/harper-will-defend-israel-whatever-the-cost-1.572202"]Stephen[/URL] [URL="http://www.vancouverobserver.com/opinion/why-stephen-harper-behaved-strangely-israel"]fucking[/URL] [URL="http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/04/stephen-harpers-rigid-support-for-israel-based-on-idea-foreign-affairs-should-be-fought-on-moral-grounds/"]Harper[/URL]. [QUOTE=Dark RaveN;46675146]Canada. They will even say sorry.[/QUOTE] We burned the White House down the last time someone attacked us.

[QUOTE=Flapjacks;46670473]Friggin' Palau! Always flexing their superpower muscles & strutting around like they own the world![/QUOTE] [I]m-maybe if I vote "no" US-sempai will notice me![/I]