Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1061381,00.html)
Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.
That is a very provocative action , now remember this Israeli action was on October the 12th 2003 . Just 3 months before began the US campaign against Irans supposed Atomic Weapons programme it started with the IAEA Presses Iran to Comply With Nuclear Safeguards (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_07-08/iran_julaug03.asp)
Increasing pressure on Iran to come clean about its nuclear program, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors issued a statement June 19 expressing “concern” that Tehran has failed to report nuclear “material, facilities, and activities as required by its safeguards obligations.”
Of course no one believed it so the ante had to be upped , and a good prod was needed to make Iran do something .
Israel's seaborne nuclear doctrine is designed to place one submarine in the Persian Gulf, the other in the Mediterranean, with a third on standby. Secret test launches of the cruise missile systems were understood to have been undertaken in May 2000 when Israel carried out tests in the Indian Ocean.
And of all places Israel decides to station this submarine is right under Iran in the Persian Gulf . Isnt that an internatioanl action desired to increase tensions and make Iran want to develop a nuclear weapon !

Commonsense tells us such weapons are repulsive and are against humanity . But when normal circumstances are not present and the political climate is dangerous and foreboding such weapons become a possession of security . And faced with such a critical situation at hand Iran has everyright legally to develop the A-Bomb .

What are your feelings regarding the NNPT?

There is no need for Iran to do all this now. All they have to do is buy a few 100 N missiles from N number of countires. Secure the borders with nuclear arms. And then proceed with creation and research of new Weapon of Mass Catastrophe against USA only.

What are your feelings regarding the NNPT?
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a treaty supposedly to restrict the possession of nuclear weapons. However here we have an incident designed to simply provoke Iran into attaining a A-Bomb involuntarily .
There is no need for Iran to do all this now. All they have to do is buy a few 100 N missiles from N number of countires. Secure the borders with nuclear arms. And then proceed with creation and research of new Weapon of Mass Catastrophe against USA only.
Thats hopefully is the idea get Iran to by fear to procure a bomb , therby giving the moral greenlight which justifies an invasion .

Maybe if the United States abided by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, less people would be interested in attainting these weapons. Iran just wants to play the game that most other world powers do.

Originally posted by Brian Foley:
And of all places Israel decides to station this submarine is right under Iran in the Persian Gulf . Isnt that an internatioanl action desired to increase tensions and make Iran want to develop a nuclear weapon !

I think the fact that Iran has for decades supplied Hamas and Hezbollah weapons used against Israel, plus trained those organizations members to use the weapons, is reason enough for Israel to be putting subs off Iran's coast. Iran, remember, is a country that Israel has never attacked or been the aggressor. Did Israel steal Iranian land perhaps? Who is the aggressor between the two countries?

Originally posted by spidergoat:
Maybe if the United States abided by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, less people would be interested in attainting these weapons.

Please remember that the United States has spent billions reducing its own nuclear stockpile, and billions more reducing Russia's stockpile, as well.
The fact that they pulled out of the treaty with Russia in order to create a missle defense system was overly criticized. Why would the U.S. stay in something that they had to pay for anyway? Not to mention the fact that reduction still continued after pulling out of that treaty.

I think the fact that Iran has for decades supplied Hamas and Hezbollah weapons used against Israel, plus trained those organizations members to use the weapons,
According to this US intelligence article it is Syria which funds and arms Hezbollah and Palestinian freedom fighters .
Has American Pressure Sidelined Hezbollah? (http://www.meib.org/articles/0112_l1.htm)
Nevertheless, it appears that the unprecedented level of American pressure on Damascus and Beirut to rein in Hezbollah over the last two months may have produced results - Hezbollah has not launched an attack against Israeli forces since October 22.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11, the Bush administration excluded Hezbollah, along with Syrian-backed Palestinian groups, from its war on terror in order to secure the backing of Arab states.
Sure the Hezbollah are shiite with Iranian ties that is only logical .
is reason enough for Israel to be putting subs off Iran's coast.
There is no reason for Israel to do this other than at Americas behest to provoke Iran .
Iran, remember, is a country that Israel has never attacked or been the aggressor.
Israel last year thraetened military strikes on Iran .
Did Israel steal Iranian land perhaps?
No European Jews stole Palestinian land to set up their zionist squatter shithole . Iran is a completely innocent and blameless nation .
Who is the aggressor between the two countries?
Israel

Originally posted by Brian Foley:
According to this US intelligence article it is Syria which funds and arms Hezbollah and Palestinian freedom fighters .

Appartently you have forgotten about the 50 ton arms shipment Israel caught coming from Iran...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1741862.stm


Shaul Mofaz, Israeli Chief of Staff, said commandos had boarded the boat 500 kilometres (300 miles) from the Israeli port of Eilat on Thursday.

He said the arms had come from Iran, an allegation which the Iranian government later denied.


Here is your own source stating the same thing...

http://www.meib.org/articles/0308_l3.htm

Hezbollah was involved in three major attempts to smuggle arms to the territories. In January 2001, Israel intercepted a ship carrying a large load of weapons, the San Torini, that had embarked from Lebanon. A year later, Israel intercepted the Karine A, which embarked from Iran with a Hezbollah-trained crew. In May 2003, Israel seized an Egyptian fishing boat, Abu Hassan, attempting to deliver explosives from Lebanon to Gaza. One member of its crew, Hamad Masalem Mussa Abu Amra, was a Hezbollah explosives expert. Other efforts were made to smuggle weapons into the West Bank via Jordan.

Notice the comment "From Iran with a Hezbollah-trained crew"

Now are you going to deny the credibility of the web-site you used as your own source for this thread?

Appartently you have forgotten about the 50 ton arms shipment Israel caught coming from Iran...
An assertion which has yet to be proven , perhaps you could do a follow up on this story for me . Conveniently you fail to provide these quotes from your source .
But the Palestinian Authority says it knew nothing about the shipment, which included rockets, mines and anti-tank missiles, and has accused Israel of trying to sabotage the envoy's visit with propaganda.
And
He said the arms had come from Iran, an allegation which the Iranian government later denied.
You are picking flyshit out of pepper here .
Notice the comment "From Iran with a Hezbollah-trained crew"

Now are you going to deny the credibility of the web-site you used as your own source for this thread?
My own source was provided by me to validate my claim that Syria and not Iran was Hezbollah and HAMAS's main backer . I have already stated quite clearly .
Sure the Hezbollah are shiite with Iranian ties that is only logical .
That is an open admission from me of Iranian ties , however your claim was very clear here .
I think the fact that Iran has for decades supplied Hamas and Hezbollah weapons used against Israel, plus trained those organizations members to use the weapons, is reason enough for Israel to be putting subs off Iran's coast.
And I provided a link which clearly states Syria is the political backer , armourer and financier of HAMAS and Hezbollah . Now I would like from you a link which clearly contradicts that assertion with Iran being HAMAS and Hezbollah's political backer , armourer and financier .

And Hezbollah is a genuine resistance movement against Israeli occupation as Lebanon was an object of an illegal Israeli invasion , so in effect any arms shipments from Syria is legal and moral aid against an aggressor .

Arms supplies are a weak argument. Everyone and their mother supplies arms to other countries, even their enemies all to make a quick buck. So long as it's not top-of-the-line equipment, head haunchos couldn't care less. We all supply arms to these so-called "evil" countries, whether you realize it or not.

- N

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a treaty supposedly to restrict the possession of nuclear weapons. However here we have an incident designed to simply provoke Iran into attaining a A-Bomb involuntarily .
Congratulations, you know what NNPT stands for.

So, do you believe it is a noble goal to curb the spread of these weapons?

The fact that they pulled out of the treaty with Russia in order to create a missle defense system was overly criticized.
That wasn't the NPT, that was the ABM treaty (Anti-Ballistic Missile). The US is still a signatory to the NPT.

Here is why IRAN should develope a BOMB

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/nation/3632894

That wasn't the NPT, that was the ABM treaty (Anti-Ballistic Missile). The US is still a signatory to the NPT.

USA is still a signatory to ABM afaik? A statement of intention to withdraw was made some time ago, but did it happen?

The USSR cheated with their deployment of 'Galosh' anyway, it didn't comply to the strict rules set out in the ABM, as it used Radars deployed outside the allowed boundaries.

At least the Soviet version worked though.

Originally posted by Neildo:
Arms supplies are a weak argument. Everyone and their mother supplies arms to other countries, even their enemies all to make a quick buck. So long as it's not top-of-the-line equipment, head haunchos couldn't care less. We all supply arms to these so-called "evil" countries, whether you realize it or not.

Supplying arms and training the soldiers who lead the attack is no different then attacking with a regular army. It is just easier to conceal. Iran's president has called for the end of Israel, and its nation supplies and trains guerrillas to attack it directly. It is different then say, Russia supplying Vietnam with weapons to combat U.S. troops, and Russia supplying Vietnamese with weapons and training to attack U.S. citizens on American soil. The latter would have led to nuclear war.

Iran has been attacking Israel for years. Israel is not training guerrillas to attack Iranian civilians are they? Who is the aggressor here?

Iran has been attacking Israel for years. Israel is not training guerrillas to attack Iranian civilians are they? Who is the aggressor here?
Didnt I provide a link which clearly stated that Syria was the armourer and trainer of Hezbollah and the Palestinian Liberation armies ? Yet you still pig headedly carry on insisting that Iran is the culprit !

Originally posted by Brian Foley:
Didnt I provide a link which clearly stated that Syria was the armourer and trainer of Hezbollah and the Palestinian Liberation armies ? Yet you still pig headedly carry on insisting that Iran is the culprit !

You article only mentions Syria's role in Hezbollah, but does nothing to disprove Iran's role. It would be like writing an article about Cheney's role in the march to war with Iraq, and just because the story is focusing on Cheney, you discount Bush's role entirely.

I gave you a well known and proven capture of Iranian weapons going directly to Palestine on a boat carrying members of Hezbollah, and you still ridiculously deny Iran's involvement.

As for the Hezbollah/ Iran connection, news sources are endless, but here is one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm

I could see a reasonable argument against close ties of Iran and Hamas, but denying Iranian ties to Hezbollah? Are you kidding?

Besides the boat caught supplying the Palestinians, Iran does not do much to hide their opinion of Hamas...

http://www.rferl.org/reports/iran-report/

Iran's former president, Hojatoleslam Mohammad Khatami, sent a congratulatory message to Mishaal on 30 January, adding that the pro-reform Militant Clerics Association, which he heads, was also pleased with the outcome of the elections.

"We are happy about Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections," Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, on 1 February. He said that the countries that back democracy in the Middle East -- "including America which tries to establish it in the region within its greater Middle East plan" -- must support Hamas.

Asked whether Iran provides financial support to Hamas, Larijani said "there is no doubt that we give Hamas moral support. Hamas is our friend."

Again, here is your middle east organization making reference to it..

http://www.meib.org/articles/0404_pal1.htm

Hezbollah has long been a central intermediary in Iranian and Syrian sponsorship of Palestinian terrorism. This is partly due to pragmatic considerations - Hezbollah training camps in Lebanon are closer to the Israeli-Palestinian theater than IRGC camps in Iran and Hezbollah commanders have direct operational experience fighting Israel that the IRGC lacks. In addition, it is much easier for Hezbollah to smuggle weapons and explosives to the Palestinian territories from Lebanon than it for Iran or Syria to do so directly (and it allows them to more plausibly deny involvement).

Ideological considerations also made Hezbollah a valuable intermediary. Since many Palestinian militants reflexively distrust non-Arabs, dealing with Hezbollah was more palatable to them than dealing directly with Iran.


So now your own source makes a connection between Hezbollah, Iran and Hamas. Still deny?

Maybe if the United States abided by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, less people would be interested in attainting these weapons. Iran just wants to play the game that most other world powers do.
Brian can't answer my question, but somehow I missed this gem.

Ignoring the fact that this is a blatant ad hominem to quoque fallacy, answer me this: How, exactly, is the United States failing to adhere to its obligations as a signatory to the NNPT?

Congratulations, you know what NNPT stands for.

So, do you believe it is a noble goal to curb the spread of these weapons?
Curb the spread of nuclear weapons ! Its irrelevant , the world is awash with atomic weaponery , the very nations which developed and built atomic arsenals are the ones fueling the arms race . If the Iranain goverment in power was that of the Shah the US would be helping him build a bomb . I believe the goal is to dismantle the global arms industry period .

... I believe the goal is to dismantle the global arms industry period . I think the goal should be to handover all weapons arms and soilders all over the world to UN, and take UN out of USA.

I think the goal should be to handover all weapons arms and soilders all over the world to UN, and take UN out of USA.
But the USA created the U.N itself , I believe we should move the U.N to New York , we in the world do not need this dinosaur of American manipulation in our nations .

I believe we should move the U.N to New York

Do you even know where the UN Headquarters is located? :P

- N

^^ Nice.

Curb the spread of nuclear weapons ! Its irrelevant , the world is awash with atomic weaponery , the very nations which developed and built atomic arsenals are the ones fueling the arms race . If the Iranain goverment in power was that of the Shah the US would be helping him build a bomb . I believe the goal is to dismantle the global arms industry period .
"Awash in atomic weaponry"? Ok dude.

Tell me how many sovereign nations exist on the planet.

Now tell me how many are nuclear-capable.

Awash in atomic weaponry"? Ok dude.
Yeah how much is enough ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/730000/images/_733162_world_map_nuclear.gif

That is a rather clumsy dodge. I expect better, even for you.

Brian can't answer my question, but somehow I missed this gem.

Ignoring the fact that this is a blatant ad hominem to quoque fallacy, answer me this: How, exactly, is the United States failing to adhere to its obligations as a signatory to the NNPT?
I was referring to the Bush Administration seeking funds for a new "bunker buster" 70 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb in its FY 2006 budget.

I was referring to the Bush Administration seeking funds for a new "bunker buster" 70 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb in its FY 2006 budget.

Strategy and tactics wise, that is a brilliant decision. Obviously, Bush's agenda includes confrontation with Iran, and then who knows who else? Since the bunkers and underground tunnels have been an issue in the past, America plans to shock-and-awe the opposition into submission. So basically it's the first non-nuclear WMD that is specifically designed for warfare in the Middle East. I'm not sure what they plan on blowing up with these things, but I pity tha foo' who finds himself in a bunker somewhere when one of these explodes.

AmishRakeFight

That is a rather clumsy dodge. I expect better, even for you.
Could you for Christ sake explain yourself ?

So basically it's the first non-nuclear WMD that is specifically designed for warfare in the Middle East. I'm not sure what they plan on blowing up with these things, but I pity tha foo' who finds himself in a bunker somewhere when one of these explodes.

And people are worried about nukes? Hell, if there's non-nuclear weaponry 70x more powerful than the a-bomb, I'd worry more about that. Yet, you're fine with them being used on the field of battle all because they're not "nuclear"?

My, the logic.

:rolleyes:

- N

I was referring to the Bush Administration seeking funds for a new "bunker buster" 70 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb in its FY 2006 budget.
I figured this is what you were referring to but I wanted to be sure. That isn't proliferation.

Could you for Christ sake explain yourself ?
Go back and read my post again, slowly this time.

nu nu nuw New World ORDER http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=127242&region=6

Go back and read my post again, slowly this time.
O.K I will do it r e a l s l o w
^^ Nice.


"Awash in atomic weaponry"? Ok dude.

Tell me how many sovereign nations exist on the planet.
237 nations.
Now tell me how many are nuclear-capable.
Let me see , America , Russia , China , India , Pakistan , France , Britain , North Korea and Israel which makes 9 nations which accounts for 3.7% of the worlds sovereign nations . Gee I see what you mean I soooo misunderstood you !

However if we did not play semantics and got to the real statistics we would see that the combined population of those nations which have atomic weapons is 3,184,823,447 which accounts for some 49% of the worlds 6,499,696,392 population which means this world is awash in nuclear weaponery .

Oh better yet please explain to me how 35,000 atomic warheads which can destroy our world and kill every living human being on Earth some 7 times over is not a case of overkill and oversupply ?

I would be most interested in your answer .

O.K I will do it r e a l s l o w

237 nations.

Let me see , America , Russia , China , India , Pakistan , France , Britain , North Korea and Israel which makes 9 nations which accounts for 3.7% of the worlds sovereign nations . Gee I see what you mean I soooo misunderstood you !Yes, yes you did. Congratulations on rectifying your error.

However if we did not play semantics and got to the real statistics we would see that the combined population of those nations which have atomic weapons is 3,184,823,447 which accounts for some 49% of the worlds 6,499,696,392 population which means this world is awash in nuclear weaponery .
Irrelevant. Domestic population has no bearing in this case.

Oh better yet please explain to me how 35,000 atomic warheads which can destroy our world and kill every living human being on Earth some 7 times over is not a case of overkill and oversupply ?

I would be most interested in your answer .Where did I ever say it was not? Quote please.

Why would Iran develop an A-Bomb?

Simple! So they can bomb Hiroshima.

Why would Iran develop ANOTHER A-Bomb?

So they can bomb Nagasaki.

:(
Triste!

Trieste! :cool:


p.s. En attendant Cousteau - Jean-Michel Jarre

Pakistani's built their new idol!

What a funny looking god! :D

This man with the shovel is digging graves for the sacrificed children.

http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/10/04/2003-10-04__inter01.jpg

Well, maybe he's just hitting the dirt. BAD DIRT!!! BAD!!!!!!!

I figured this is what you were referring to but I wanted to be sure. That isn't proliferation.


I thought there was an issue with the NNPT specifics and the 'bunker buster', over what was classed as 'new' weaponry, and developing 'new' weaponry was prohibited under the NNPT? A nit pick, sure, but some people love getting antsy over the small print.

Yes, yes you did. Congratulations on rectifying your error.That’s ok Irrelevant. Domestic population has no bearing in this case. Considering those nations I listed excluding Israel and Nth Korea consist 70% of world trade and finance as well as 90% of the globes military I would venture to say that this is not irrelevant . Where did I ever say it was not? Quote please. Well could you for Fucks sake explain what point you are attempting to arrive at because I sure as hell cannot figure your very evasive posting .

I thought there was an issue with the NNPT specifics and the 'bunker buster', over what was classed as 'new' weaponry, and developing 'new' weaponry was prohibited under the NNPT? A nit pick, sure, but some people love getting antsy over the small print.
Yes, the NNPT is rather explicit about forbidding the development of new weaponry. However, the RNEP, or "bunker buster" is nothing more than a hardened steel case to fit around existing warheads. It is the same W81 warhead we've been using for the B61 tactical bomb since its inception in 1971. If we went about making further modifications to the actual physics package of the weapon itself, that would be a decided no-no, but putting existing weapons in new cases isn't the same thing.

But yeah, this is probably splitting more hairs than it's worth.

Considering those nations I listed excluding Israel and Nth Korea consist 70% of world trade and finance as well as 90% of the globes military I would venture to say that this is not irrelevant . Yes it is. National sovereignity bears no regard to GDP, population or the size of one's military. A nation is equal to a nation, regardless of these specific attributes (or others). The sovereign nation of Fiji is just as much of a national entity as the sovereign nation of Spain, Singapore, or Iran is.
Well could you for Fucks sake explain what point you are attempting to arrive at because I sure as hell cannot figure your very evasive posting .
I suggest re-reading the thread more closely. I never made any statement regarding the size of national nuclear stockpiles, for better or for worse. Yet you moved on to attack me as if I did. Rather than strawmanning me, you should either address my arguments or ignore them. When you take blithe potshots, you only end up hitting yourself.

I believe we should move the U.N to New York
I see that Neildo already pointed this gem out, but once more for those who missed it.

:D

Yes, New York would be a good place for it, maybe in a majestic slightly curved building or something? Maybe with some flags around it?

Stokes,
Designing new and tactical uses for old atomic weapons are definately against the spirit of non-proliferation if not the wording of the treaty. It goes along with the cons cutting funding for securing nuclear material in the former soviet union.

No I meant the entire global UN complex should be moved to America we have no need for it .