Article

2004-05-14 Israel-Palestine

Strategists call for Israeli strikes against expanding WMD threat

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-05-14 4:12:34 PM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I think that Israel is better suited to continue their activities within their borders with limited excursions into Lebanon. We need to continue to nail down the proliferation sources. I think they can handle the nuclear threat at a time of their choosing but they are going to be living within chem bio attack range for the forseeable future so they would be smarter only to strike if an American administration takes over that is ambivalent to proliferation.

Posted by Anonymous4828 2004-05-14 4:57:29 PM|| 2004-05-14 4:57:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Let's just say it. Israel is considering a first strike nuclear force.

Posted by Shipman 2004-05-14 5:04:28 PM|| 2004-05-14 5:04:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 A counter-argument I've heard is that it would only inflame a nationalism that would hurt the democratic anti-mullah movements ...

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-05-14 6:26:11 PM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-05-14 6:26:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 and those movements are oh, so successful to date...Israel has no alternatives to winning - EVERY BATTLE, EVERY WAR

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-14 6:58:41 PM|| 2004-05-14 6:58:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 "There is no operational need for low-yield nuclear weapons geared for actual battlefield use," the report said. "There is no point in spreading â and raising costs â Israelâs effort on low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons given the multifaceted asymmetry between Israel and its adversaries."

This says it all. Mutual Assured Destruction is one of the few concepts Islamist mullahs might conceivably understand. One hit on Israel results in a glassed and Windexed Middle East. 'Nuff said.

A counter-argument I've heard is that it would only inflame a nationalism that would hurt the democratic anti-mullah movements ...

This too closely parallels the traditional "humiliation" arguments. Of late, merely enjoying a good meal seems to "humiliate" Arab sensibilities. What sort of Israeli stance is there that would avoid inflaming Arab nationalism whilst still maintaining a sufficiently puissant threat?

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-14 9:47:42 PM|| 2004-05-14 9:47:42 PM|| Front Page Top

19:41 Faisal the Goyem
17:34 Faisal the Goyem
16:42 Gentile
16:42 Gentile
08:58 B
13:09 Evert V. in NL
13:07 Bulldog
04:15 Super Hose
03:31 Super Hose
01:00 Anon666
00:23 Frank G
00:21 Frank G
00:03 Lucky
23:46 Laurence of the Rats
23:45 Pappy
23:13 Super Hose
23:12 Eric Jablow
23:08 Robert Crawford
23:01 Anonymous4828
23:01 mojo
22:58 Eric Jablow
22:58 Anonymous4828
22:54 Anonymous4828
22:50 Super Hose