Do you believe that Israel will use nuclear weapons to "defend itself" in the Middle East?

[paddypower]

16 hours ago, transam said:

I call them a deterrent..............🤗

agreed. same with Russia, North Korea, China (very unlikely, as they have conventional forces to achieve their aims). This is just aimless thinking: Russia would never drop one on Ukraine even if (I dearly hope) they look like their losing their 'special' war. North Korea has its begging bowl out, as it waves its missiles; but again unlikely, although the country is lead by nutcase #1.

[connda]

11 hours ago, billd766 said:

But you did not answer my post.

 

If Israel is allowed to attack other countries consulates, then it must equally be OK for other countries to attack, murder people and destroy Israeli consulates and embassies and murder the people in them.

Just like nuclear weapons which are 100% a deterrent until the first time they are used, after which the genie is out of the bottle.

The same regarding the international laws regarding embassies, consulates, and diplomatic missions - they are inviolate in the sense that signatories to conventions protecting these institutions understand that the law is only as good as the first time that it is allowed to be transgressed.  Israel has stated by its actions that it will not abide by international law.  It's a terrible precedence to set, especially when all of its transgressions of international law are being formally "excused" and ignored by Western countries especially the US, UK, and France.  It's amazing to listen to the pretzel-twisted rhetoric coming out of Western countries foreign offices and state departments which won't even acknowledge the strike on Iran's consulate in Damascus.  Personally I think the genie is now out of the bottle regarding the sacrosanct nature of embassies, consulates, and diplomatic missions.
Everybody plays the game of diplomacy or nobody plays the game of diplomacy.

Now back to Article 51 of the UN charter which allows a country attacked by another state to a reprisal.
Ok - Israel attacked Iran's embassy, then Iran launched a "failed" reprisal the "did minor damage."  Tit for Tat - this should be over. 

Instead - Israel plans to attack Iran. So they are going to escalate. And Iran has stated that if it's attacked it will launch a counter-attack that will make the April 14th "show" reprisal look like a walk in the park. Then it's "game on" in the Middle East/North Africa and beyond.  It will become "The Suck."  And it will suck the entire world in.

Israel can never deescalate. They will always require to get in the last blow. Therefore, personally, I see tactical nukes being used by Israel.  Once the first tactical nuke explodes? 

The world as we have known it - ends. 

[connda]

2 minutes ago, connda said:

Just like nuclear weapons which are 100% a deterrent until the first time they are used, after which the genie is out of the bottle.

The same regarding the international laws regarding embassies, consulates, and diplomatic missions - they are inviolate in the sense that signatories to conventions protecting these institutions understand that the law is only as good as the first time that it is allowed to be transgressed.  Israel has stated by its actions that it will not abide by international law.  It's a terrible precedence to set, especially when all of its transgressions of international law are being formally "excused" and ignored by Western countries especially the US, UK, and France.  It's amazing to listen to the pretzel-twisted rhetoric coming out of Western countries foreign offices and state departments which won't even acknowledge the strike on Iran's consulate in Damascus.  Personally I think the genie is now out of the bottle regarding the sacrosanct nature of embassies, consulates, and diplomatic missions.
Everybody plays the game of diplomacy or nobody plays the game of diplomacy.

Now back to Article 51 of the UN charter which allows a country attacked by another state to a reprisal.
Ok - Israel attacked Iran's embassy, then Iran launched a "failed" reprisal the "did minor damage."  Tit for Tat - this should be over. 

Instead - Israel plans to attack Iran. So they are going to escalate. And Iran has stated that if it's attacked it will launch a counter-attack that will make the April 14th "show" reprisal look like a walk in the park. Then it's "game on" in the Middle East/North Africa and beyond.  It will become "The Suck."  And it will suck the entire world in.

Israel can never deescalate. They will always require to get in the last blow. Therefore, personally, I see tactical nukes being used by Israel.  Once the first tactical nuke explodes? 

The world as we have known it - ends. 

And what is worse imho?  Look at the AN community as a subset of the Western population.  Then look at the subset of members here who simple parrot their own foreign office and main-stream media talking point as well as openly calling for the use of nuclear weapons as well as the destruction of all countries who challenge their home country's hegemonic and Neo-colonial ambitions.

"Nuke them all and let God sort them out."

Ya'll do understand that will include you too.  I feel sorry for the ideological zealots on ALL SIDES as they will be the death of the rest of us - average people - just trying to live life without hurting others in the process. 

[spidermike007]

Absolutely not, the leadership of Israel may be ignorant but they're certainly not stupid. They know that one nuclear weapon and they would be erased from the map permanently. It wouldn't take much, Israel is not that large, and it doesn't have a lot of main cities. 

[AgMech Cowboy]

The nuclear weapons, which Israel have are a deterrent.  They would only use them if a nuclear attack is made against them.

[superal]

If the question had been , will Iran use nukes on Israel , I would say a possibility . If Israel retaliates over the recent drone invasion , Israel will annihilate Iran . The only way to react would be for Iran to nuke Israel . They are crazy enough to do it , are believed to hold an arsenal of nukes and will not care about the consequences . 

[NanLaew]

17 hours ago, zhounan said:

Israel right wing was a problem, is a problem, will be a problem for all the neighbours.

Those Irgun-like psychopaths must be stopped.

 

Totally agree, but radical right-wing zealots are a threat in EVERY political theater where they get bandwidth, not just the ones in the Knesset.

 

So, how do we stop them? Third-party mediation that's NOT overtly Judeo-Christian (America) or overtly Muslim (Qatar). Maybe the Chinese could do more? Banging on about Palestinian genocide is an alignment with Hamas, Assad and other proxies of Iranian extremism, and is NOT the way.

[NanLaew]

16 hours ago, Thailand said:

The Americans did and saved a lot of lives!

 

They saved 'a lot' of American and Allied forces lives against an already defeated Japanese military.

 

That's why the nuclear option is also known as 'overkill'.

[newbee2022]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Israel and Ukraine have great resources in different fields. Sontheir dept will be paid, also.with bilateral deals.

 

Isreal I think is the 3. Greatest weapon exporter before the ladt war without looking it up.

53% of delivered weapons come from US, 47% from Germany.

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

 

They saved 'a lot' of American and Allied forces lives against an already defeated Japanese military.

 

That's why the nuclear option is also known as 'overkill'.

 

   The Japanese refused to surrender and a ground invasion would have resulted in many casualties.

Even one nuclear bomb didn't convince Japan to surrender , after the seond Nuke , Japan finally surrendered 

[placnx]

23 hours ago, connda said:

It is widely accepted that Israel has nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to send them to their targets.  According to The Center For Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, "Israel is widely believed to possess 90 plutonium-based nuclear warheads and to have produced enough plutonium for 100-200 weapons."

Given the current Geo-political state of affairs in the Middle East, the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damacus, Syria, and Iran's military response to the bombing, and Israel's signal that it plans to attack Iran in retaliation - do you believe that Israel will use its nuclear stockpiles to "defend" themselves against their Arab neighbors?

Please include your rationale to support your position and your vote. 
As well, if Israel does use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear Arab countries in the region, what do you believe will be the outcome and the future for the Middle East as well as the entire world and humanity - and - how will it affect your decision to remain in Thailand?

You should have given us the choice "probably not". Never say never.

[NanLaew]

12 hours ago, billd766 said:

But you did not answer my post.

 

If Israel is allowed to attack other countries consulates, then it must equally be OK for other countries to attack, murder people and destroy Israeli consulates and embassies and murder the people in them.

 

I did answer your post.

 

You have a differing opinion and, in my opinion, a propensity to incorrectly and selectively define the ones who are committing 'murder'. Both Israel and Iran's proxies recognise this as a war. Military conflicts are historically chock-full of "acts of war", and the IDF are at war with Hamas.

 

Hamas uses hospitals and ambulances and Palestinian civilians as camouflage. Since they are at war, the Palestinian civilian's killed as a result of their deceit are also being murdered. Who's murdering them?

 

The IDF is NOT the correct answer.

[placnx]

18 hours ago, BE88 said:

The leader of the opposition of the current government in Israel said that the government is made up of religious fanatics who want to go to great lengths to bring in the Lord, so yes the danger is very real.

Don't forget the Christian Zionists at their back egging them on, so these selfish "christians" can have their rapture moment at the end of the world.

[Hanuman2547]

Israel will not use their nuclear weapons.  They know that in doing so a whole host of other nuclear weapons would be simultaneously launched and many countries in that region would be erased from the face of the earth.  

[connda]

58 minutes ago, superal said:

The only way to react would be for Iran to nuke Israel . They are crazy enough to do it , are believed to hold an arsenal of nukes and will not care about the consequences . 

Can you source your assertion that Iran "are believed to hold an arsenal of nukes."

Here's the 2024 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community.  Download the publication and look at the section on Iran on page 19 under the topic heading WMD:  https://www.odni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2024/3787-2024-annual-threat-assessment-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community

"Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities necessary to produce a testable nuclear device. Since 2020, however, Tehran has stated that it is no longer constrained by any JCPOA limits, and Iran has greatly expanded its nuclear program, reduced IAEA monitoring, and undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so."

I'll leave it at that although you can find numerous assessments, including from the IAEA, stating that Iran neither has nukes nor is currently working on developing nuclear weapons.  Nuclear weapons development and testing leaves "fingerprints" (e.g., seismic and atmospheric) that intelligence agencies actively look for. If they had nuclear weapons in development - the Western intelligence agencies would know, and they would not be quiet about the fact. 

 

 

Edited April 18 by connda

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

I don't buy your story.

From the

beginning Israel was built on stolen land.

And instead of finding an arrangement with their neighbours, (inside and outside) Israel was going to grab more land.

They are not Westerners but belong to Middle East. They should understand it. 

It's a fatal mistake to support that artificial state with more and more weapons and accept to grow as nuclear power.

There is no reason for me to assist Israel in any way, even Blinken and Kushner (and Trump) and others will favour that. 

 

 

Ah, the 'stolen land' trope.

 

2 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

I can understand your fear.

But...how can you be sure it's going downhill?

Under pressure Israel will have to agree to a solution, not by eradication of Muslims. Maybe 2 state or even 1 state solution?

And Ukraine? In my opinion a corrupt lost state. It will be a bit smaller soon. But survive by consent of Russia. Russia is EU's neighbour and it's not wise not to talk to Putin.

 

Since when has Israel stated they seek the 'eradication of Muslims'? Agreed that there's always been an influential group that wishes to expel them, but not to eradicate them. Are you using the correct verb?

 

e·rad·i·cate

/əˈradəˌkāt/

verb

verb: eradicate; 3rd person present: eradicates; past tense: eradicated; past participle: eradicated; gerund or present participle: eradicating

1. destroy completely; put an end to.

   "this disease has been eradicated from the world"

 

Has Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian mullahs ever said that Israel has a right to exist? Have they ever suggested that anything less than the total extermination of the Jews is acceptable?

 

ex·ter·mi·na·tion

/ikˌstərməˈnāSH(ə)n,ekˌstərməˈnāSH(ə)n/

noun

noun: extermination; plural noun: exterminations

1. killing, especially of a whole group of people or animals.

   "the near extermination of the buffalo herds"

[Hummin]

24 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

53% of delivered weapons come from US, 47% from Germany.

I see now I was horrible wrong

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, transam said:

Not enough options in the poll.

I would say that Israel would not use nuclear weapons unless they were stuck in a corner to be overrun.  🤗

 

 

Do you honestly see any way that they will ever be "stuck in a corner to be overrun"?

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, paddypower said:

Northern Ireland? - read your history books, bro. History has shown that most colonialist/conquering nations have left a trail of destruction, behind them,, due to political ignorance or, just plain ego. African countries, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh to name but few examples,are prime examples of  conquering nations dividing up lands that left them disfunctional.

 

After all is said and done, are you over it now? The 'Troubles' I mean?

[transam]

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

 

Do you honestly see any way that they will ever be "stuck in a corner to be overrun"?

It is doubtful, but possible......😉

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

Because EU is done and US might have a convict as POTUS. 

 

Colossal hypothetical straw clutch there.

[transam]

36 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

53% of delivered weapons come from US, 47% from Germany.

53% +47% = 100%

What happened to all the other supplier countries in your supply equation........?  🤔

[NanLaew]

 

44 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

47 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

They saved 'a lot' of American and Allied forces lives against an already defeated Japanese military.

 

That's why the nuclear option is also known as 'overkill'.

 

   The Japanese refused to surrender and a ground invasion would have resulted in many casualties.

Even one nuclear bomb didn't convince Japan to surrender , after the seond Nuke , Japan finally surrendered 

 

Correct, but there would have been no need to invade a militarily defeated, blockaded and totally isolated island nation.

 

Maybe the humanity of only killing between 129,000 and 226,000 versus starving the greater part of 76,000,000 to death was a factor in their decision?

 

But I doubt it.

Edited April 18 by NanLaew

[billd766]

39 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

I did answer your post.

 

You have a differing opinion and, in my opinion, a propensity to incorrectly and selectively define the ones who are committing 'murder'. Both Israel and Iran's proxies recognise this as a war. Military conflicts are historically chock-full of "acts of war", and the IDF are at war with Hamas.

 

Hamas uses hospitals and ambulances and Palestinian civilians as camouflage. Since they are at war, the Palestinian civilian's killed as a result of their deceit are also being murdered. Who's murdering them?

 

The IDF is NOT the correct answer.

I am sorry that I missed your post, my apologies.

 

If that is what you believe, fair enough.

 

I look at the numbers of killed and wounded on each side and I find that far more Palestinian men women and children have been killed than Israeli's, coming up to 100 to 1, Palestinians v Israeli's. A vastly disproportional ratio, especially given that about 60% or more were unarmed women an children. That is of course discounting those Palestinian men, women and children still buried in the rubble of their houses and apartment blocks.

 

Then of course who knows how many people will die of starvation, dehydration (no water), no medicines, no hospital care, no electricity etc.

 

But it will be reasonably certain that none of those will be Israeli.

Edited April 18 by billd766
added extra text

[billd766]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

53% +47% = 100%

What happened to all the other supplier countries in your supply equation........?  🤔

It seems that according to my government (UK), they only supply 0.42% of weapons to Israel.

[superal]

24 minutes ago, connda said:

Can you source your assertion that Iran "are believed to hold an arsenal of nukes."

Here's the 2024 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community.  Download the publication and look at the section on Iran on page 19 under the topic heading WMD:

"Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities necessary to produce a testable nuclear device. Since 2020, however, Tehran has stated that it is no longer constrained by any JCPOA limits, and Iran has greatly expanded its nuclear program, reduced IAEA monitoring, and undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so."

I'll leave it at that although you can find numerous assessments, including from the IAEA, stating that Iran neither has nukes nor is currently working on developing nuclear weapons.  Nuclear weapons development and testing leaves "fingerprints" (e.g., seismic and atmospheric) that intelligence agencies actively look for. If they had nuclear weapons in development - the Western intelligence agencies would know, and they would not be quiet about the fact. 

 

 

Iran was on the verge of nuclear bombs a couple of years ago . It is shrouded in secrecy . Speculation has it that Iran already has the bomb . Testing might not have happened to prevent detection . There are many opinions and conjecture but Iran is known to have all the tools , skills and ingredients to make nuclear weapons / bombs . One opinion link below .

       https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/feb/19/does-iran-already-have-nuclear-weapons/

[NanLaew]

9 minutes ago, billd766 said:

15 minutes ago, transam said:

53% +47% = 100%

What happened to all the other supplier countries in your supply equation........?  🤔

It seems that according to my government (UK), they only supply 0.42% of weapons to Israel.

 

That's correct. In fact Israel manufactures and exports more essential military-related assemblies, parts and components to the UK than vice versa. That's why the UK's, short-lived, mail-order keffiyeh-wearing "Stop Selling Weapons to Israel!!!" protesters looked (even more) stupid.

Edited April 18 by NanLaew

[transam]

14 minutes ago, billd766 said:

It seems that according to my government (UK), they only supply 0.42% of weapons to Israel.

I was right then.......🤗

[newbee2022]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

 

Ah, the 'stolen land' trope.

 

 

Since when has Israel stated they seek the 'eradication of Muslims'? Agreed that there's always been an influential group that wishes to expel them, but not to eradicate them. Are you using the correct verb?

 

e·rad·i·cate

/əˈradəˌkāt/

verb

verb: eradicate; 3rd person present: eradicates; past tense: eradicated; past participle: eradicated; gerund or present participle: eradicating

1. destroy completely; put an end to.

   "this disease has been eradicated from the world"

 

Has Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian mullahs ever said that Israel has a right to exist? Have they ever suggested that anything less than the total extermination of the Jews is acceptable?

 

ex·ter·mi·na·tion

/ikˌstərməˈnāSH(ə)n,ekˌstərməˈnāSH(ə)n/

noun

noun: extermination; plural noun: exterminations

1. killing, especially of a whole group of people or animals.

   "the near extermination of the buffalo herds"

Genocide or eradication makes no difference in the outcome.

[newbee2022]

1 hour ago, transam said:

53% +47% = 100%

What happened to all the other supplier countries in your supply equation........?  🤔

Ask your balls.... I mean your crystal ball