- 3,460
- Hollywood
Israel - Palestine discussion thread
- Thread starter Beeblebrox237
- 3,525 comments
- 171,551 views
- 799
- Skuh
No, I don't mean Nuke. Though I have heard some people mention tactiacl Nuke. No. I think it is just the bunker buster bombs. Israel has the capability do get so far into the facility with their bombs but after....say 6 months they believe they will be too far for their bombs and would require american assistance.
- 3,460
- Hollywood
- 799
- Skuh
All the military experts I listen to speaking about this say that the US has bombs with a much greater capacity for penetrating these facilities. I cannot say if this is the truth or not as I don't know. I believe them though as they are all in agreement, US, Israel, British and other foreign experts/military correspondents, as well as Janes which is possibly the most respected resource for military information in the world.
- 3,460
- Hollywood
- 799
- Skuh
'Jewish vote' may have been a bit crude. There is a powerful political jewish lobby in the US ( not just Jewish Lobbies, but that is what we are talking about here) that carries an awful lot of weight. It is why come election time, the road map to peace comes back on the agenda. It is why Presidents who have had little to do with Israel or the middle east, all start to go on about the Israel/palestine conflict as soon as re election comes round.
I'm not saying the only reason that you are allied to Israel is this. I am saying that the reason why you are 'always' so involved and feel the need to constantly be the 'peacemaker' a la camp david agreement is because of how much weight this carries politically back in the US.
It would seem the logical thing to do. Assuming the experts are correct and with secret bombs I imagine there is room for error, it would lead me to think that the US don't want anyone to get their hands on this technolog, even their allies.
Last edited:
- 4,792
- Canada
👍
Edit:
Yep just as you said Gaza is returning fire: BBC
I'm all in. 👍 I'm glad Romney wasn't elected supreme ruler, there would have been some serious conflicts...
- 4,792
- Canada
Yes, but don't we always have to get dragged along in "merica's conflicts?
Edit: I'll post this as it is somewhat relevant to the main topic:
Edit: I'll post this as it is somewhat relevant to the main topic:
- 3,679
- Warwick Uni
- lbsf1 GTP_lbsf1
- obsmu (my brothers acount)
Oh dear, I really hope this doesn't escalate as I think it could genuinely end up being WWIII.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20349280
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20349280
- 3,460
- Hollywood
- 3,679
- Warwick Uni
- lbsf1 GTP_lbsf1
- obsmu (my brothers acount)
Which I don't think is a unrealistic possibility.
Just re checked the bbc page on it and Israel have called up 30,000 reservists to the army, the defence minister said "This escalation will exact a price that the other side will have to pay", so I don't think they are going to let this go lightly.
Last edited:
- 3,460
- Hollywood
It hasn't even reached an open war yet, let's not get too carried away. Nukes being used is an unrealistic possibility because the world as we know it would end.
Nobody, short of terrorist groups who thankfully don't have access to nuclear weapons, would be stupid enough to hit the button. It would be such a phyrric victory due to the inevitable backlash from other nations.
Pretty sure i've seen some members on here from Tel-Aviv and other areas of Israel, stay safe guys.
- 3,679
- Warwick Uni
- lbsf1 GTP_lbsf1
- obsmu (my brothers acount)
Yes at the moment its not open war, however it could easily escalate too that.
Yes its unlikely that nukes would be launched however its not something that I see as a complete impossibility, given some unfavourable turns of circumstance then there is every chance that someone (Iran??) could launch a nuke at someone. Many times during the cold war it was close to nukes being released even though they fully knew the results.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
Even in an open war, there dosent have to be nukes fired.
- 44,185
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
What I find incredible is the range of the rockets, Tel Aviv is so much further than any previously hit targets.
- 19,626
- Alabamamania
Iran is quite a bit more populous and larger than the postage stamp-size of Gaza, and the envelope-sized Israel. It's not a one-day job.
Were it to occur, mutually-assured destruction would be a very real and haunting concept, because many powerful nations would immediately take one nation's (or nations?) side or another.
- 2,891
- Scotland
- cphbullet
I suppose, are you sure about the last part though?
In the very unlikely event of america having done all the nuking i can't see putin being all that fussed. I know if i were him i wouldn't be and if russia had i imagine there'd be a few people in america annoyed but overall i think the most part of the government would be happy to be rid of an enemy and a nation that keeps picking fights and playing the 'big brother' card.
Or did you mean 'more powerful nations' but not that sort of powerful?
Yay 2,500th post
- 3,460
- Hollywood
I imagine that earth would look like a huge empty car park as the nuclear powers of the world let loose. The last people left alive would be sailors and, of course, submariners who would likely fire the final few missiles.
Which is why nobody who has anything to lose will ever launch a modern nuke. Not even the overly-paranoid Soviet Union of the Cold War.
- 10,835
- Belgium
- bramturismo
Imagine the nuclear weapons that could've been in development if the nuclear treaty wasn't found in 1963.
The Tsar bomb still blows my mind of how powerful it was, and that was 51 years ago. Just imagine the kind of horror that this world could've seen this day if they went on with nuclear research. Strange to think that the Tsar bomb will most probably be the most powerful device ever created to see the face of this earth.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,980
- Mile High City
That's a pretty bad idea... it would require immorally annihilating Israel and they will exact their toll. They have a lot of military strength. It would be a humanitarian disaster, it would be immoral, aggressive, and counter-productive.
No, we should definitely not be sending money to protect them, they can do a wonderful job all on their own. I think we should stop interfering and let Israel be... which would mean Israel will probably seize territory by military force.
Israel has a right to exist in the first place. It's foundations are solid. The land was seized immorally, and then seized morally by the allies. It then became a sanctuary from the horrific damage done to the Jews during WWII. There is nothing wrong with modern Israel's foundation, the problem is us getting involved in a holy war over territory. Israel is more than equipped to defend itself at this point, and we should let it.
- 799
- Skuh
Not saying the don't, but it isn't that simple. The state of Israel exists only exists because of the collonialism that went on after the first world war. Lord Arthur Balfour, was the first to voice a safe state for Jews in Palestine, which the British were in control of. The British had several deals over this land though. At the same time they were making deals with France to carve this land up and had already done a deal with the Arabs, that palestine would be theirs if they helped in the war. They fullfilled their end of the bargain with aplomb. You can see why they may not be too happy that the land they were promised and defended was turned into Israel instead.
It is immoral to promise one thing, get what you want then double cross someone.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,980
- Mile High City
opelgt1969
Premium
- 2,235
- Bristol,Va USA
- opelgt1969
- 799
- Skuh
hmmmm, not sure you got my point. My point is that it wasn't really britains to begin with, It was the people of Palestine. Britain had no right to be in control really (but thats another discussion), certainly had no right to do 3 different deals and had no right to treat the Arabs the way it did.
I do agree that the Arabs were betrayed by America, the league of Nations, France (in my opinion, in that order of magnitude) and Most importantly Britain. It isn't Britain who is in charge of the Gaza Ghetto though. That would be Israel.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,980
- Mile High City
Definitely not. Although the Native Americans didn't own much land in America since they were nomadic. In almost no case did they mix labor with natural resources in such a way as to create property ownership.
That's actually the discussion I'm having. Britain did have a right to be in control. It was taken immorally, for Britain to seize it from people who had taken it immorally was moral - especially given the timescale involved.
Here's what happened in a nutshell.
Thug shoots thug and steals his money.
Thug gets shot by another thug and the same money gets stolen.
Thug tries to shot innocent bystander, gets shot instead.
Money belongs to bystander - original owner doesn't exist, is dead, is unidentifiable.
That's true, but that's not Israel.
- 799
- Skuh
Skipping over that we promised the land to the Arabs, and we took over as colonialists..no as I said, it was Britain who went back on the deal.
Israel is the one that has created the Gaza Ghetto, and is in charge of it now.
Do you think the palestinians are firing rockets at Tel Aviv because the British went back on a deal they made nearly a hundred years ago?
