The problem with owning WMD's is that it lowers thresholds.
If I have nukes and my meighbour doesn't - I know that I can declare a war and will win that conflict.

Thus I'm not wary about sending war-planes into their territory or engaging in any action that is likely to lead to military retaliation. If they want to declare war on me as a result, I *will* win that conflict eventually, even if my army and air-force is destroyed.

And this is what I mean about the effects that Nukes have on the balance of power.
If both sides have nukes, or neither side has nukes, the neither can't operate with such impunity. Both are more likely to come to the table to talk than take offensive action. Indeed, offensive military action becomes the tool of last resort for all concerned, because even if you are more than capable of winning a conventional war, you *will* get a bloody nose in the process, you will lose lives and see damage to property and equipment.

But at the moment, because of it's WMD's, Israel perceives military action as an option equal to talking and will happily send bombers as a first tool of diplomacy. This is simply a reflection of Britain's 'Gunboat Diplomacy' of the C19th, and Israel acts in the same manner.

Israel's military (all three services) are the most highly trained, well equipped and sophisicated in the region. I have no doubt that it would prevail by itself against an alliance of all arab states - never mind how invincible it would be when it's US ally joined the fray (and the US *would* join on Israel's side in any major conflict). And therefore it's enough for the purposes of self-defence.

[ 06-12-2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

If neither side has nukes your argument is correct, but if you are suggesting that Mutually Assured Destruction would keep the peace in the Middle East or provide balance, I'd have to say you are wrong. Israel reacts because they have something to react to. They may react poorly in the eyes of the world, but in their eyes, it is to defend themselves from those who would happily die themselves, and in fact, sacrifice their own children to see Israel erased from the face of the planet.

MAD worked between the US and USSR, between NATO and the WARSAW PACT, because neither side wanted to be destroyed. In the Middle East, being destroyed in the process of destroying your enemies isn't just acceptable, it is expected.

No, you're missing my point Ronn. It's not that war/military actin would never be option - just that it would become the <u>last</u> option.

Not really, but you missed mine. ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

MAD only works when *both* sides want life more than they want their enemy's death.

[ 06-12-2004, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Is that why nuclear USA was able to win the Vietnam war so easily? Is that why nuclear Russia was able to win the wars in Chechnya and Afgahnistan so easily. Wow. Nukes mean you win? Amazing.

WRONG!! [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I just love the aversion to posting facts to support opinion in this forum.

Is that why nuclear USA was able to win the Vietnam war so easily? Is that why nuclear Russia was able to win the wars in Chechnya and Afgahnistan so easily. Wow. Nukes mean you win? Amazing.

WRONG!! [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]It is certainly a valid argument if you consider the definition of winning as 'survival of the winning state'. America *could* have used nuclear weapons in Vietnam and then undoubtedly they would have won. Russia *could* have nuked Afghanistan, although it has to be said that things could have gone a lot worse than they did anyway. But if you have nukes, you know that you can never lose a defensive war because the other side would be totalled first.

I agree with the points made about deterrent only working if both sides prefer living, but not sure it can be applied to this case. The reason you don't find governments in the middle-east, no matter how hardline, queuing up to suicide bomb Israel is precisely because its a minority group who do this kind of thing.

It undoubedly benefits governments, both by the creation of heroes in the public eye which serves to distract from problems at home as well as hurting Israel, but you won't find government ministers doing it precisely because you need such a distorted Qu'ranic reading to support it. They're not stupid, they know its trash, and the heads of state have lots to live for, so I do not believe they would ignore the threat from a credible deterrent.

Oh it's very clear to me when I read it. And it's not just the Qu'ran, but also countless Hadiths - which are even clearer. Muslim pacifists have reconciled the militant areas of their faith (to their credit) but one can totally understand the militants view with a literal reading of what is written. The Hadiths give clear examples - all military - of what a "struggle" is, and what happens to a warrior when they die, and the esteem warriors are held in in this life, compared to those who do not go to war.

As said, credit to the muslim who walks the road of peace, but you can't mislabel the militants as distortionists. It's simply not true.

Is that why you do it so frequently then? :D

Oh very mature Skunk... sheesh.