|
Stupid Jews! (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
yes but even if the Arab states became nuclear powers 25-50 years from now MAD would likely keep peace in the region the same way it did in Europe during the cold war. As much as the Islamic nations may hate Israel none of them hate them enough to make getting rid of them worth watching their largest cities and millions of their people wiped out in a nuclear fireball. |
Don't get confused here... no Arab state is likely to become a nuclear power, Iran is. The problem facing Israel is that their nuclear advantage keeps them safe from conventional war; however, if the Salfist take control of the Arab states, and they have a friendly nuclear power or two on their side then they would likely be emboldened to start a conventional or (more likely) guerrilla war against Israel without fear of Israel responding with nuclear weapons. Israel's advantage now is that they can saber rattle the big in' bombs but that advantage gets nullified if someone else in the region can rattle back.
| quote: | | The Islamic nations would not invade with conventional forces because a victory would mean an almost certain nuclear attack by Israel. |
Your argument here is flawed in that it presumes complete defeat of Israel would be the Salfist goal... more likely their goal would be to reduce Israel to the pre-67 boarders, which would not likely prompt an Israeli nuclear attack as pre-67 is better then being turned into a scene from Terminator.
| quote: | | the major wildcard is what we would do. Islamic nations overrun Israel, Israel nukes them, Islamic nations retaliate, what a perfect excuse for us to get rid of all our enemies in that part of the world in a massive nuclear attack. |
25-50 years from now the US will be significantly divested from the middle east as to not risk the wrath of the world by interceding in a nuclear conflict they do not have a direct interest in.
| quote: | | Pakistan would do nothing because they are well aware that the US would not take kindly to them escalating a nuclear conflict they have no business in and one or two Ohio class sub could destroy all major population centers and all major military/industrial sites in their country. |
Whether or not Pakistan would actually get involved is moot, what's important is that the probability exists, which is would be sufficient to keep Israel's nuks grounded (especially if it is only the post 67 territories in dispute, which seems likely).
I recommend you read Gwynne Dyer's "The Mess They Made." Dyer is a military historian with a great track record of predicting future military scenarios and he offers some fantastic analysis of what will come of the Mid-East following the US withdraw from the region. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by akalouda
Have you seen any plans or proof, to confirm they are verging against nuke weapons? Or is this just your logic... |
Verging for... it's a strategy of being prepared to make nuclear weapons in short order if required. The best evidence for this is the amount of centrifuge capability they are building, which is in excesses of what they would need to build a sustainable civilian energy program. Again, there is no evidence that they are actually seeking to make a nuclear device, just that they are putting the infrastructure in place in case they feel the need to. Given their position in the world I really don't blame them for it, it's a good strategy. The long and short of it is they have done nothing that violates the non-proliferation treaties they are part of. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Don't get confused here... no Arab state is likely to become a nuclear power, Iran is. The problem facing Israel is that their nuclear advantage keeps them safe from conventional war; however, if the Salfist take control of the Arab states, and they have a friendly nuclear power or two on their side then they would likely be emboldened to start a conventional or (more likely) guerrilla war against Israel without fear of Israel responding with nuclear weapons. Israel's advantage now is that they can saber rattle the big in' bombs but that advantage gets nullified if someone else in the region can rattle back.
|
I mostly agree here, if nukes are possessed by both sides it eliminates the possibility of both nuclear and conventional war. That leaves terrorism and guerrilla war, something that has been going on there for decades. The Israeli army and its people are no stranger to this type of conflict. No guerrilla war or terrorist campaign is ever going to result in the end of Israel.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Your argument here is flawed in that it presumes complete defeat of Israel would be the Salfist goal... more likely their goal would be to reduce Israel to the pre-67 boarders, which would not likely prompt an Israeli nuclear attack as pre-67 is better then being turned into a scene from Terminator.
|
Rolling Israel back to pre-67 borders would require a conventional war and invasion. With Israel in possession of nukes this is highly unlikely given Israel's history of over-retaliation, what Islamic state is going to tempt fate by invading? What leader wants to make martyrs out of millions of his people in a matter of seconds thanks to a bad assumption that Israel won't launch?
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
25-50 years from now the US will be significantly divested from the middle east as to not risk the wrath of the world by interceding in a nuclear conflict they do not have a direct interest in.
Whether or not Pakistan would actually get involved is moot, what's important is that the probability exists, which is would be sufficient to keep Israel's nuks grounded (especially if it is only the post 67 territories in dispute, which seems likely).
I recommend you read Gwynne Dyer's "The Mess They Made." Dyer is a military historian with a great track record of predicting future military scenarios and he offers some fantastic analysis of what will come of the Mid-East following the US withdraw from the region. |
This is assuming the US withdraws from the region. Until we no longer need oil from the middle east we will be involved in what goes on there. I have little hope that in 25 years we will no longer need a drop of middle eastern oil.
Your argument about Pakistan applies to the US as well. Whether or not we get involved is moot as well, the probability exists and that will keep Pakistani nukes grounded also. Do you think Pakistan would launch and involve themselves in the conflict if there was even a 1% chance that doing so would result in 500 warheads heading their way 10 minutes later? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
Rolling Israel back to pre-67 borders would require a conventional war and invasion. With Israel in possession of nukes this is highly unlikely given Israel's history of over-retaliation, what Islamic state is going to tempt fate by invading? What leader wants to make martyrs out of millions of his people in a matter of seconds thanks to a bad assumption that Israel won't launch? |
I would have agreed with you prior to the Lebanon war. Israel's poor showing in that war has emboldened those that would seek war from Israel as the casualty rate was not nearly as lopsided as would have been expected; moreover, not nearly as lopsided as would be necessary for Israel to win a war of attrition against much more heavily populated neighbours. As for who would want to make martyrs of their people... Salfists... look them up, they have a long history of martyrdom and self sacrifice.
| quote: | | This is assuming the US withdraws from the region. Until we no longer need oil from the middle east we will be involved in what goes on there. I have little hope that in 25 years we will no longer need a drop of middle eastern oil. |
The US has no choice really. The existing regimes in the area have come to realize that it is their friendly relations with the US that has worsened the Salfist movements in their own countries. They need the US to leave in order to have any hope of surviving (even at that it is unlikely). Saudi Arabia has asked the US to leave, Quatar has petitioned the US to leave, Kuwait has, Bahrain has... this was part of the reason for the Iraq war... to secure a bases for US operations when they pull out from the other Arab states. Alas, this will fail for the US too as it now seems a foregone conclusion that Iraq will push them out of there too. Moreover, the approach the US has taken to the middle east and oil is a cold war strategy, which is no longer relevant as oil trading is completely open market now and countries will not limit their markets by military alignments.
| quote: | | Your argument about Pakistan applies to the US as well. Whether or not we get involved is moot as well, the probability exists and that will keep Pakistani nukes grounded also. Do you think Pakistan would launch and involve themselves in the conflict if there was even a 1% chance that doing so would result in 500 warheads heading their way 10 minutes later? |
Nope, my argument about Pakistan applies to the US TODAY, not in 25-50 years... oddly, my Pakistan argument DOESN'T apply to Pakistan today, only once the Islamists have control over it. 25-50 years from now the US will not stick it's neck out for Israel. |
|
|
| Frenchie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Viber
What do you know?? you're just a stupid american.:stongue: |
Uh oh! Beef! |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| @ Moral Hazard: Israel is not a colony to begin with. By definition calling a state which was based on a fair and square UN resolution, succeeding a partition plan granting both people a state, is ludricous. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| What the ? How did this thread turn into this? |
|
|
| akalouda |
| It was my fault! I triggered it:disbelief :disbelief :disbelief and I did it, just for the sake of being an ...I guess. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| quote: | Originally posted by akalouda
It was my fault! I triggered it:disbelief :disbelief :disbelief and I did it, just for the sake of being an ...I guess. |
Ther thread starter did a good enough job already. It is cor rules that elFreak is the resident and troll, so don't with him. |
|
|
| zoogla |
| lol nice bait thread!!! :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| UmmiE |
| Guys you have turned a joke thread into a boring thread shame on all of jew.:whip: |
|
|
|
|
