7 ms·
Wait, Why Is Israel Allowed to Have Nukes?
- Qem 1y agoArchived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20250621153024/https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allowed-to-have-nukes https://web.archive.org/web/20250621153024/https://www.curre... Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_affair
- ranger_danger 1y agoBecause they are allies... at least, that's probably their justification.
- Qem 1y agoIran was also an ally... until 1979. Saddam was another ally... until 1990, et cetera.
- ranger_danger 1y agoNot saying you're wrong, but were the reasons for those alliances failing, because of nukes?
- cultofmetatron 1y agoAIPAC
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mystraline 1y ago[flagged]
- happytoexplain 1y ago> I do know my dad said we should nuke and glass the whole middle east, them included. It'd be the only way the middle east would stop fighting. (He was deployed there, desert storm) > Edit: and -1's poured in less than 1 minute. Re: downvotes, these lines imply immaturity. You should either be explicit about your degree of agreement with your father, or remove the anecdote entirely. And complaining about downvotes is always pointlessly distracting.
- Hikikomori 1y ago[flagged]
- anigbrowl 1y agoWay too many Americans are Biblical literalists and think there's some kind of cosmic destiny that requires the US to defend Israel.
- kcplate 1y agoThat might be and while the government certainly takes advantage of that sentiment to preserve its Israel policies, but the real reason the US government supports israel has more to do with the general region being oil rich and having a reliable and strong nuclear secular ally in the region.
- cbfrench 1y agoThey’re dispensationalists, though. Actual biblical literalists would probably have a hard time reconciling St. Paul with this idea that the modern nation-state of Israel has anything at all to do with the Israel of either the Old or New Testaments.
- IAmBroom 1y agoIt is literally impossible to state objectively what "actual biblical literalists" would believe, as the document is massive, self-contradictory, and written with heavy use of allegory and metaphor. It's not Kearney & Ritchie.
- cbfrench 1y agoThis is true. I’m sure most dispensationalists consider themselves “literalists” even though they require charts upon charts to demonstrate how their “literalism” isn’t just creative interpretation. And besides, “literalism” is just a modern framework; none of the Church fathers (or most interpreters of Scripture for over 1900 years) were literalists in the sense it’s meant today. And heck, read the Sermon on the Mount to see that Jesus himself probably wouldn’t have qualified as a “literalist” lol.
- jalapeno_a 1y agoThe MIC loves expensive constant un-winnable wars and Israel is the devil that provides them. I’m very glad the youth oppose Israel so this nightmare can end in a few generations, hopefully before a million more people die.
- whacko_quacko 1y ago[flagged]
- jordanb 1y agoIf you read the article you find out that it's against American law to provide weapons if Israel evaded treaties to get nukes. So America is knowingly breaking its own law every time it sends more bombs to Isreal.
- whacko_quacko 1y ago[flagged]
- fzeroracer 1y ago[flagged]
- mullingitover 1y agoI'd actually feel safer if Iran just got it over with and developed/tested their own nuclear weapons. Then SA would get theirs, along with Egypt and Turkey, and all this low-grade (and brutal, primarily to civilians) nonstop warfare in the middle east would come grinding to a halt as everyone is forced to treat their neighbors with respect.
- 31337Logic 1y ago[flagged]
- stogot 1y agoThat’s a strange take. Pakistan and India are both nukes and continue to have border wars. Israel has nukes and has had a perpetual war. The UK and Egypt had conflict when UK has had nukes. China had battles with Vietnam, Laos, and the Soviet Union. It’s amazing the restraint these nations have shown. Adding more nations to the pot adds more risk, especially when in the hands of unstable, immature, and emotionally irrational leaders. Russia and NK are threatening nuclear attacks annually. Let’s pray it never comes to that
- mullingitover 1y agoYou’re illustrating my point. Of all the conflicts you listed, only India and Pakistan are at nuclear parity, and their body count in all their conflicts is a rounding error compared to the others.
- stogot 1y agoYou’re forgetting that the US and Soviets /Russians fought multiple proxy wars with high body counts, even most recently in Syria. It doesn’t have to be direct confrontation
- ffsm8 1y agoYou actually want a theocracy whose religion considers non-muslims to go sub-humam to have nukes and would even feel safer? The only thing that would make this constant war stop would be to cut all nations participating in these wars entirely off from the modern world. Revoke any travel permits, and stop any and all goods traveling to/from their borders, including to any nations ignoring such a ban. The only reason why that's not am option is because of the vested interests of billionaires which procure oil from that area But if we did, that would actually stop the wars, within a very short period of time. It just can't be done passively like with NK, because China likes to ignore such initiatives
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bell-cot 1y agoAnswered in the first 5 words of the subtitle: > According to our elected leaders, we should be very scared of the possibility that Iran could get a nuclear bomb. But Israel already has them, and ... For the past 80 years, it's been all-but-guaranteed that you won't win an American election if you seem insufficiently pro-Israel. Yes, there are plenty of objective arguments for America's foreign policy being far less pro-Israel than it has been for 8+ decades. US Sec. of State (and former US Army General) George Marshall made those arguments to US President Harry Truman back in 1948 - and was overruled. Truman had staked out a pro-Israel position before his previous election (which he had won), then won another election 6 months after overruling Marshall. - If your real priority is sounding sophisticated, you can make fancy arguments about America being far too pro-Israel. - If your real priority is understanding why America is so pro-Israel, then you need to shut up with the fancy arguments, and analyze the American electorate's strong preference for that. - And if your real priority is winning American elections, then you need to present as "obviously" pro-Israel. And ignore the idiots making fancy arguments.
- BrandoElFollito 1y agoCould you elaborate on the reasons for this pro Israel preference? I thought that it was mostly because Israel is backed by evangelists who have a large electorate + lobby from the people with Jewish roots or faith.
- yencabulator 1y ago> analyze the American electorate's strong preference Electorate or lobbyist and entrenched power? Losing funding is a way to lose votes, but doesn't imply anything about voter preference.
- jfengel 1y agoArguably, the last Presidential election was lost because the candidate was insufficiently anti-Israel. I heard a number of people claim that the incumbent's support for Israel during the Gaza conflict was sufficient to reject his hand-picked successor. It's impossible to know for sure, of course. I do not trust people's claims about their reasons. If she had somehow taken a position that would attract their votes, I can't know how many votes that position would have lost. Nonetheless... AIPAC didn't make an endorsement in the last election. I don't think that she could have taken an even-more-pro-Israel position and gotten their endorsement. So it may well be that the only path forward is to hope that the anti-Israel crowd would vote if they were pandered to. (I'll note that I don't believe that they will. I am quite certain they will find some other reason not to vote. But options are becoming thin on the ground.)
- andrewinardeer 1y agoWhy is North Korea?
- gmuslera 1y agoThe elephants in the room are always hard to spot.
- cpill 1y agoI don't know what the point of nukes are anymore. They will never be used. You'd figure giving Ukraine long range missiles would provoke Russia into using theirs, but they haven't. What would it take other than another nuclear strike to cause Russia or anyone with nukes to actually use them? Separately, if Israel nukes Iran, will we be OK with it? Is there anything Israel can do that would make us say "Stop"?
- tim333 1y agoI'm not sure there was ever a nuke permitting board deciding which countries are allowed nukes. I mean Russia and N Korea having them isn't ideal. It's just some countries got hold of them and some the west tries to stop getting them for strategic reasons.
- incomingpain 1y agoWhile it's generally estimated that Israel has nukes, there's actually no evidence that they do. They've never tested one and you're never going to hold something in your pocket for defense that's untested. 1998 India/Pakistan was a rough year; but every nuclear power has tested their bombs to make sure they work. There are detection systems that were able to detect sub kiloton explosions in NK from across the world; with triangulation that's quite precise. We would know if Israel has tested. If they havent tested, they really dont have anything. Now lets assume they do in fact have some; perhaps smuggled or sourced plans from some other nuclear power. Why are they allowed to? Well what are you going to do about it? They'll nuke you to keep them.
- StochasticLi 1y agoI guess it's the same reason why the genocide is allowed.
- neurostimulant 1y ago> They've never tested one and you're never going to hold something in your pocket for defense that's untested. Vela Incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident
- tguvot 1y agothere is a list of 6 possible countries there
- neurostimulant 1y agoWith Israel as the most likely country that did the test with SA permission. It's very unlikely that the Soviet, Pakistan, India or France to do nuclear test there.
- tguvot 1y ago"most likely" is very bad evidence.
- hackeraccount 1y agoI think the deal is that any country is allowed to have nukes or give up having nukes. No country without nukes is allowed to get nukes - unless they already have them of course.
- afroboy 1y agoWell it considered the 51 state, it's an extension to USA. Every horrible thing done by them is just what USA want and not the other way around. Strong country can pose any rules what ever they like this is history repeating it self, The US regime has it's racist roots and colonialism run in their blood, seeing millions of Muslims getting killed is what make them happy. They allow themselves to have the best weapons but not for the people they kill so they can't retaliate this the real answer here. I always prey for the day that Rome will fall.