Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (195498)	8/7/2006 8:53:45 AM
From: kumar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

nukes and other WMDs wont be an option IMHO - the fallout and windshift will affect all in the region - these things do not recognize national boundaries and say "hey I'm crossing a national border, I should reverse track"...

To: michael97123 who wrote (195498)	8/8/2006 7:39:46 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi michael97123; Re: "At some point, given your dark view of the future for israel, the Israelis will use their nukes on someone that flattens Tel Aviv." I doubt that Israel would ever use its nukes. They're there for defense against conventional forces. If they used them against Hezbollah they'd be setting themselves up for counter strikes from Iran if not Pakistan. People who live in expensive and delicate glass houses do not start stone throwing contests with neighbors who have much less to lose. In this case, the advantage in war is to the party whose life already includes much suffering. Re: "Neither of us want this outcome i know but truth be told there would be no hizbolla if south lebanon was nuked and personally I think israel would do this rather than see Tel Aviv levelled by cruise missiles." Funny that the topic should come up on FADG just a day or so before the media picked up on it: Besides Hezbollah's rocket arsenal, Israel also is facing new threats. On Monday, the Israeli air force shot down a Hezbollah drone for the first time, sending its wreckage plunging into the sea, the army said. Israeli media reported that the unmanned aircraft had the capacity to carry 90 pounds of explosives, nearly as much as the more powerful rockets Hezbollah has been firing into Israel. Unlike the rockets, the drone has a guidance system to for accurate targeting. news.yahoo.com As far as Israel using its nukes, what do you think the citizens would vote for, (a) use nukes and eventually see their tiny country a nuclear wasteland, or (b) agree to give full and complete citizenship rights to all Palestinians. I would think that before they did a "Masada", they would go for plan (b). Let me remind you that faced with total annihilation, even the warlike Japanese chose unconditional surrender in preference. You can say that the US is a much kinder and gentler nation to surrender to than Hezbollah, but I doubt that the Japanese at the time would have agreed. Especially after the fire storms in their cities and those two that we nuked. I have no doubt that the Israelis would choose plan (b). Would plan (b) work? That I can't tell you, but I think that there is at least a chance. And whether it would work or not, I am quite certain the Israelis would choose it. Re: "This is the other side of assymetric warfare that folks forget. Same goes for the US in its wars and some of the left already claims that use of nukes have been under discussion by the Bush admin." Several comments. First, these things were never seriously contemplated, except to the extent that stupid ideas get contemplated by stupid people in the military. Second, the US is a "big dog" and can do what it likes. For example, at the beginning of WW2 we accused the Germans of war crimes when they bombed civilian targets and then we went and did the same thing, (but much more effectively). No one complained until years later. Third, the US is not subject to easy retaliation. These last two points distinguish the US from Israel. -- Carl