To: michael97123 who wrote (198360 ) 8/23/2006 12:04:27 AM From: Bilow Respond to of 281500 Hi michael97123; Re: "I am not advocating this but I am wondering aloud what the world will look like when iran gets nukes. They seem to have no problem in transferring sophisticated weaponry to terrorist groups now. " Tanks and ships are offensive weapons. Israel got a lot of tanks blown up, and had a ship damaged by Hezbollah. At the time that these assets were damaged, they were sitting on Lebanese territory or shooting into Lebanese territory. As far as sophisticated weaonry goes, what happened is that Israel's offensive weapons got damaged by Hezbollah's defensive weapons. What happened as far as unsophisticated weapons go is that Israel got pelted with unsophisticated unguided missiles (which are offensive weapons) and they pelted Lebanon with guided missiles (which are offensive weapons). Right now there is supposedly a cease fire where neither side is supposed to use its offensive weapons. Israel broke that ceasefire by sending helicopters into Lebanon, but the ceasefire seems to be holding anyway. Re: "Arent you concerned? " I'm not concerned for my own welfare because I'm going to stay far away from Israel. In the long run, I'm concerned about the problem in the Middle East, but I see it as likely resolving in a far more peaceful fashion than you. Re: "And if you were Isreali, wouldnt you be worried that this could be directed at you? " Of course. I'm an American and I was worried when the Soviet Union had 10 thousand very large nukes directed at me. What did I do about it? Well if I told you I'd have to kill you. But what the United States did NOT do about it was to start a preemptive war against the Soviet Union. What we did instead was to get involved in minor conflicts like Vietnam and Korea. We lost in Vietnam but we did not lose against the Soviets. In contrast, Israel has far more to lose than we ever did. But if I were an Israeli, it is very hard to tell you whether my comments would be different. Same if I were an Iranian, I suppose. What I'm trying to do is to look at this dispassionately, from the point of view of the simple military balance of power. For people directly involved or very closely connected to the conflict this is nearly impossible. US politicians, for example, were unable to drag us out of Vietnam even though they knew that the thing was going very badly and that the outcome would not directly effect the US at least 10 years before we pulled out. People get started doing things and they just keep doing them because it is more painful to admit error than it is to continue to send someone else's children to die. But I don't see the Israeli leadership as being so disconnected from the victims. It is a small country. I would think that most of the people who live there knows someone who died in Lebanon or had their house hit by a rocket. It is not like the US which is so big that large portions of the population have absolutely no interaction with the war in Iraq. Something like 20% of the Israeli population was displaced or put into shelters. Re: "Also if Iran did in effect nuke Tel Aviv, do you expect israel would stand idly by? " I would expect that Israel would nuke Tehran. Why do you ask? I was saying that Israel wouldn't start a nuclear war, not that they would stand idly by after they got hit. The same thing applied to the United States back during the Cold War. Of course the US would shoot back if hit. But despite the threat, the US did not, in fact, preemptively start a nuclear war with the USSR. I think that the situation between Israel and Iran is similar. -- Carl