UN Resolution: Israel Must Renounce Nuclear Arms

[hmm 979]

Russia of all countries :megaflop: 

 

When was this mess of a treaty signed?

Not sure of exact dates but presumably sometime near the end of the cold war, which explains Russia and the USA's presence on the list

Yes, and but if both places don't have nuclear weapons that won't happen

That's true but as can be seen with North Korea, it's hard to ensure that states aren't continuing on a path of gaining nuclear weapons :shrug:

[hmm 979]

We Jews learnd we should trust no b---h.

We're not even a "rough" state. The Americans are aware of what happens in Dimona, The French took part of building it and the Germans provide us with nuclear submarines. It's like the world knows about it for decades and it seems to bother only Arab states.

Probably, the world has selective memory when it comes to politics :Emma:

[ByeBye49 161]

But why only Israel?  

[hmm 979]

But why only Israel?

Presumably resolutions against the other non-signatories were passed years ago.

[bumblebee 2,528]

Yes, and but if both places don't have nuclear weapons that won't happen

 

If both places didn't have nuclear weapons, then they would freely use simple troops and simple weapons, because a war without nuclear weapons would have a winner. 

 

There is no point for two countries with nuclear weapons to get into a state of war because the nuclear war can produce no winner. 

 

Military conflicts without nuclear weapons have been taking place ever since the 1950s: Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq and many other places. If there were no nuclear bombs, the "big" countries (USA, UK, Russia, China, France) would also likely confront each other. 

 

The nuclear bombs were probably the only thing which kept the USA and the Soviet Union from open military confrontation. The politicians knew there would be no winner in the war between them, that's why they just kept on increasing the nuclear weapons for the case of protection of their national borders.

 

Ironically these nuclear weapons kind of bring a balance to the world which is more often sharpened by the tensions due to many countries trying to pursuit solely their own national interests in the foreign policy, not willing to seek a compromise. 

[Morphine Prince 109,938]

If both places didn't have nuclear weapons, then they would freely use simple troops and simple weapons, because a war without nuclear weapons would have a winner. 

 

There is no point for two countries with nuclear weapons to get into a state of war because the nuclear war can produce no winner. 

 

Military conflicts without nuclear weapons have been taking place ever since the 1950s: Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq and many other places. If there were no nuclear bombs, the "big" countries (USA, UK, Russia, China, France) would also likely confront each other. 

 

The nuclear bombs were probably the only thing which kept the USA and the Soviet Union from open military confrontation. The politicians knew there would be no winner in the war between them, that's why they just kept on increasing the nuclear weapons for the case of protection of their national borders.

 

Ironically these nuclear weapons kind of bring a balance to the world which is more often sharpened by the tensions due to many countries trying to pursuit solely their own national interests in the foreign policy, not willing to seek a compromise.

Smartest post in this thread. Although I don't like these weapons and think it's scary that they exist, they ARE keeping a balance in the world.

[HANZ 4,380]

If both places didn't have nuclear weapons, then they would freely use simple troops and simple weapons, because a war without nuclear weapons would have a winner. 

 

There is no point for two countries with nuclear weapons to get into a state of war because the nuclear war can produce no winner. 

 

Military conflicts without nuclear weapons have been taking place ever since the 1950s: Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq and many other places. If there were no nuclear bombs, the "big" countries (USA, UK, Russia, China, France) would also likely confront each other. 

 

The nuclear bombs were probably the only thing which kept the USA and the Soviet Union from open military confrontation. The politicians knew there would be no winner in the war between them, that's why they just kept on increasing the nuclear weapons for the case of protection of their national borders.

 

Ironically these nuclear weapons kind of bring a balance to the world which is more often sharpened by the tensions due to many countries trying to pursuit solely their own national interests in the foreign policy, not willing to seek a compromise. 

this tbh

[Melech 9,900]

If both places didn't have nuclear weapons, then they would freely use simple troops and simple weapons, because a war without nuclear weapons would have a winner. 

 

There is no point for two countries with nuclear weapons to get into a state of war because the nuclear war can produce no winner. 

 

Military conflicts without nuclear weapons have been taking place ever since the 1950s: Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq and many other places. If there were no nuclear bombs, the "big" countries (USA, UK, Russia, China, France) would also likely confront each other. 

 

The nuclear bombs were probably the only thing which kept the USA and the Soviet Union from open military confrontation. The politicians knew there would be no winner in the war between them, that's why they just kept on increasing the nuclear weapons for the case of protection of their national borders.

 

Ironically these nuclear weapons kind of bring a balance to the world which is more often sharpened by the tensions due to many countries trying to pursuit solely their own national interests in the foreign policy, not willing to seek a compromise. 

Big countries? Germany,Japan,Italy are missing

[brizoda 4,197]

Israel is not Iran, our leaders never threatened to destruct a whole nation. We are surrounded by enemeis and it is necessary for us.

the Israeli government denies that they have nuclear capacities, but what about Dimona?

[Luc 4,776]

the question is what countries were forced to sign that?

 

Anyway I'm still in the opinion that no one should have nuclear arms.

Some countries, like Israel, DPR Korea and Iran can't be trusted. If they say they don't have them, it's still uncertain. In case some country ever uses them, these big five can help.

[Goosey 3,017]

good luck with that!

 

Why doesn't America put her nuclear arms under UN international oversight? America's the only one who's actually used them on people.

[Luc 4,776]

Russia of all countries :megaflop: 

 

When was this mess of a treaty signed?

It'd be extremely unfair if only pro-West nations had access to these imo. Russia can be trusted with them.

Big countries? Germany,Japan,Italy are missing

Can we trust these 3, after WW 2 :spin:

[Dolev 867]

the Israeli government denies that they have nuclear capacities, but what about Dimona?

False. The Israeli government neither confirmed or denied it.

 

"(We) built a nuclear option not in order to have a Hiroshima but an Oslo." - Shimon Peres, former president of Israel.

 

Some countries, like Israel, DPR Korea and Iran can't be trusted. If they say they don't have them, it's still uncertain. In case some country ever uses them, these big five can help.

Israel never threatened to use its capabilities. Chill.

[brizoda 4,197]

False. The Israeli government neither confirmed or denied it.

 

"(We) built a nuclear option not in order to have a Hiroshima but an Oslo." - Shimon Peres, former president of Israel.

 

Israel never threatened to use its capabilities. Chill.

Israel maintains a policy known as "nuclear ambiguity" (also known as "nuclear opacity"). Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that it would not be the first country to "introduce" nuclear weapons to the Middle East, leaving ambiguity as to whether it means it will not create, will not disclose, will not make first use of the weapons or possibly some other interpretation of the phrase

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

 

and also from Wikipedia : The United States was concerned over possible Israeli nuclear proliferation. US intelligence began to notice the Dimona reactor shortly after construction began, when American U-2 spy planes overflew the reactor.[92] which lead to a diplomatic clash

[Dolev 867]

Israel maintains a policy known as "nuclear ambiguity" (also known as "nuclear opacity"). Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that it would not be the first country to "introduce" nuclear weapons to the Middle East, leaving ambiguity as to whether it means it will not create, will not disclose, will not make first use of the weapons or possibly some other interpretation of the phrase

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

 

and also from Wikipedia : The United States was concerned over possible Israeli nuclear proliferation. US intelligence began to notice the Dimona reactor shortly after construction began, when American U-2 spy planes overflew the reactor.[92] which lead to a diplomatic clash

Ok... That's basically what I've said.