I’m not certain that that’s true, at least for Iranian fighters. What fighters does Iran have that could reach all the way to Israel and get back to Iran again? Do they have any aerial refueling capability? Or were you envisioning a one-way trip (which is probably what it would end up being anyways)?
Taking Israel out of the equation for a second, countries can work on the hostilities instead of weapons. Make that hostile enemy your friend. Have an alliance with them, or get them to join a mutual one under a larger protective umbrella.
Or, develop something even more dangerous than nukes. Bio and chemical weapons. Some futuristic neutron bomb. Super soldiers.
I think this sounds easier in practice than it is in reality. The Philippines has something that China wants (the Spratley Islands). The Philippines doesn’t seem able to make China cease wanting the Spratley Islands, so their choices seem to be either give them up to China, or defend them (in legal and political arenas, and possibly one day militarily). Making concessions to an aggressive neighbor has gotten a bad rap since at least 1938.
I feel the suggestions that Israel’s best course would be to unilaterally disarm and then hope hostile neighboring nations would choose to follow their example are highly unrealistic.
No cite for this, but I understand alternative energy research is very high up on Israels research priorities. Not for domestic use, but because they want to avoid a “peak oil” future where oil dependent nuclear armed nations like China, with few domestic oil reserves, might be desperate enough to trade nuclear weapons for oil with Saudi Arabia.
I think the OP answered his own question. Those seem to be a pretty good list of methods one could use. I suppose you could add other layers of counter-espionage as well, but you seem to have covered the bases in your OP as to ways countries could use to stop a hostile neighbor from getting nukes. Finally, I suppose, you could just accept the risk as the US accepted the USSR, China and North Korea getting the nasty things, and just make it clear that any use against you would result in a MAD situation that, hopefully, no one wants.
:dubious: Why would Iran give a shit about the Palestinians still in Israel? Hell, why would any other Arab power? They haven’t cared enough to do more than arm and agitate groups like the PLO or Hezbollah, and they do that more to get at Israel than for the Palestinians themselves.
As for the later, you have a really skewed view of the region and Israel’s history. None of its neighbors is afraid that Israel is going to invade them and take their territory. In the past they were afraid that if they tried to invade Israel they would lose again and THEN have some of their territory snatched, but as long as Israel is left alone they will leave their neighbors be. This, of course, doesn’t go for the Palestinians, but they are a different case than the folks you are talking about.
If Israel is so eager to attack and invade Arab countries, why hasn’t it invaded its oldest enemy, Syria? For decades, the Syrians maintained a massive army expressly designed to halt an Israeli invasion. That army no longer exists. Why hasn’t Israel taken Damascus?
Because Israel does not want to take Damascus.
Exactly.
China wants it because of the oil right? Maybe some kind of joint oil agreement? Or team up with another country and tap the well first, disincentivizing China from trying to take them over.
Speaking of Israel again, I don’t think its all that unreasonable for Israel to disarm its nukes. Not because I think the surrounding countries will instantly trust them, but because nukes make everything more volatile and Israel can beat them all in a conventional war. Israel wants nukes because it acts as a safety net. But Israel is strong enough not to need a safety net. If they disarm, maybe Iran or Iraq or Syria won’t be so eager to pursue nukes themselves. And in the long run, I don’t think it matters anyway, Israel will just beat back whoever tries to attack them
What happens if Israel disarmed and then it turned out neighboring countries didn’t follow up by adopting new policies of peaceful co-existence with Israel?
The Middle-East may be held in check by a regional version of MAD. Countries aren’t attacking Israel because it has the threat of a nuclear counter-attack. And Israel isn’t using its nuclear weapons against its neighbors because it has chosen not to do so. So the situation is relatively stable.
Remove Israel’s nuclear weapons from the situation and that could destabilize the region. The region may become more volatile rather than less.
I disagree. I see the region as afflicted with 2 types of volatility, one ever-present, and one created by nukes. Given the differences between Israel and the surrounding countries, there will always be some low lying tension that explodes occasionally in a border skirmish, a terrorist attack or 10, or a small military engagement. That stuff isn’t going away unless the situation radically changes.
The other tension is one created and exacerbated by nukes. If we assume that Israel’s neighbors see the state as an existential threat because they have nukes, then it makes sense that they will go for nukes. That’s just pragmatic. There’s no reason they wouldn’t try for nukes. On the other hand, yes, if Israel disarms its nukes, these countries still can go for nukes, but you’re switching a 100% MAD strategy for the chance that other countries won’t be as eager to get nukes. So if you’re Israel, I think the calculation is this: you can either have nukes and your neighbors can have them too, or you can not have them and maybe your neighbors won’t have them either. Which is worse? For an outside observer, Israel should disarm
:dubious: Can you cite some sources that regional powers are worried about Israel’s nukes from the perspective of Israel using them to attack their neighbors? Hell, even a cite that they are worried about them at all? The only reason any of Israel’s neighbors would worry about Israel’s nukes is if they attacked Israel and, counter to history did well enough that they threatened the existence of Israel. Of if they attacked Israel with a nuke, of course.
And yet, most in the region aren’t trying for nukes and have, in fact, signed the NNPT and gotten the benefits of signing that treaty. The only country in the region who IS trying for nukes isn’t doing so because they feel threatened by Israel.
Horseshit. What do you base this fantasy on? Can you give some cites backing up this assertion? The only country that is actively trying for nukes is Iran…can you cite that they would give up their program if only Israel disarmed their un-acknowledged and un-specified nuclear weapons program for the un-known number of nukes they might or might not have? :dubious:
No because its pretty obvious Israel’s neighbors don’t like Israel having nukes
Its working, sure. I’m all for nuke agreements. But the area would be overall less tense without Israel’s nukes in the equation
You seem to be taking this very personally for some reason.
Iraq has a history of trying for nukes. Saudia Arabia has had plans of acquiring or somehow getting under a nuke umbrella. We know about Libya’s plans after they gave it up, and Pakistan is close enough to be a factor though they’re more likely to attack India. Again, its a matter of what Israel would consider worse: that everybody has nukes, or that they give it up (and are still the dominant military force in the region) and maybe others won’t be so quick to go for it
To put it another way, other than paranoia, what does having nukes really do for Israel? They are not going to be taken over. They can repel any attack from a combination of their hostile neighbors. The nukes are useless except to add tension
Israel giving up its nukes is a complete political nonstarter, domestically. **Alessan **can probably set us straight on this issue, but if I’m not mistaken, it would be virtually impossible to get the Israeli electorate to agree to Israel giving up its nukes and that any politician who seriously promoted the idea would be doomed, election-wise.
Second, Israel wants nukes for the reason that they provide the ultimate deterrent. It’s easy for us, sitting at our comfortable homes, most of us far removed from Israel, to lecture Israel and say “Hey, even though you are a tiny nation surrounded by Arab enemies, you should give up nukes because we say so.”
Frankly, I think that some of the posters in this thread who have called for Israel to give up nukes are doing so out of a perverse “I like to insist on something that is impractical just because I want to throw gasoline on the debate fire” incentive.
That’s a pretty fanciful version of pragmatism. Here’s the real pragmatism:
From the point of view of other countries, there’s no realistic reason to see Israel’s nuclear weapons as a threat. Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades. If it was planning on using its regional monopoly on nuclear weapons, it would have done so long ago. So no country needs to worry about an Israeli nuclear attack unless that country chooses to provoke one.
From the point of view of Israel, its nuclear policy has worked. Israel still exists as a country. Your calculation ignores the third and worst possibility: Israel disarms and other countries choose to develop nuclear weapons. Israel’s existence would be endangered if hostile nations had nuclear weapons and Israel did not. So Israel should keep its own nuclear weapons and that way guarantee it will at least have nuclear parity.
There’s also the unspoken path you’ve ignored; if neighboring countries want to seek Israeli disarmament, they can take the initiative. The first step would be recognizing Israel, opening diplomatic relationships, and then trade relationships - you know, start treating Israel the same way you treat other countries. Once a normal relationship has been established, there would be opportunities for discussing issues of mutual interest like regional disarmament.
And have you ever asked yourself why that’s true?
As I pointed out, Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades and hasn’t used them. So Israel’s neighbors have no reason to worry about an Israeli nuclear first strike.
What other reason is there for neighboring countries to not like Israel having nuclear weapons? The only reason left is that Israel’s nuclear weapons make it impossible for those countries to attack Israel.
I think you are making a very sizable assumption here: that these countries wanted nukes because Israel had them.
This sort of thinking - that things in the ME are ‘all about Israel, pro or con’ - is pretty widespread, but very misleading.
Iraq and Saudi Arabia, for example, have always been far more concerned about Iran than they ever were about Israel.
Point being that Israel giving up - or for that matter, keeping - nukes isn’t the main issue in the calculus as to whether (say) Saudi Arabia gets nukes. Israel could give up nukes, it wouldn’t mean those other countries would just decide they don’t want them.
But you offer no cites, so I don’t know whether A) it’s only in your own mind and B) WHY they wouldn’t like Israel to have nukes. And, of course, C) whether it would make any difference at all in whether, say, Iran wants nukes if Israel did or didn’t have them. My own WAG is it wouldn’t make any difference at all, since Iran isn’t trying to get nukes because Israel has them, but for other reasons that have to do with Iran’s plans to become the regional superpower.
Again, I asked you for a cite but you just assert this is so. What do you base your assertion on? Surely you have a basis, right? I’m asking you what that is.
You think me asking you to back up your assertion is me taking things ‘very personally’? You have to have seen at least a few of my posts in the past and know I always want cites for stuff, especially if it’s not as intuitively obvious to me as it is to, say, you. To me, this is NOT intuitively obvious, since I don’t think it’s the case that other powers in the Middle East are worried about Israel purportedly having nukes and aren’t trying to get nukes to counter those purported Israeli nukes, but instead are trying to get nukes for other regional/political reasons that have little or nothing to do with Israel. So, I’m asking you to back up your assertion to show me where you are getting your impression from.
The strightline distance between Tehran and Jerusalem, and there is no requirement that fighters leave from Tehran, is 964.44 mi (1,552.11 km). The F4 phantom fighter jet, which we sold to Iran during the era of the Shaw, according to fighter-planes.com they have a maximum range of 4180 km. So they could easily make the trip and expect to make it home, they wouldn’t make it home but not due to lack of fuel.