Israel - Palestine discussion thread

[Dennisch]

Israel doesn't want to explain the collateral damage coming from such a bomb. The precision strikes are still their main tactic. Unless, like you say they are cornered, but that will only happen when the US doesn't get involved, which will never happen, and the surrounding countries team up for an all out invasion, which I don't see happen either.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I don't think when a country declared a war would care enough to explain about war damages to anyone asking or objecting it. Do they really care now for the thousands of civilian who were killed in rocket attacks, suicide bombings, or shootings between them ?

I just wished the prolonged conflict would end one way or another, it's been many years, I don't think a peaceful ending will ever happen ( too much hatred ingrained into the souls of these poor people ), which only leave one option, war to end it all - only time will tell though.

 

[Dennisch]

The only solution to this is the removal of Israel out of the region. Which will never happen.

This all could have been avoided by simply declaring East Germany as the State of Israel after WW2.

 

[Skuh]

A peaceful ending is the only chance for any ending at all.

 

[Dennisch]

A peaceful ending is the only chance for any ending at all.

And that will never happen. How many allies does Israel have in the region? Turkey? That cooled down quite a bit since the ship raid.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

While we wait for that elusive peaceful ending, more people die everyday, how many more need to die until someone realize, it won't happen soon, so what do we do? End it quick with an all out war or keep going like this for 50 years or more ?

People will still die through the never ending conflict or they die in an all out war that have more chance to end quickly. Tough call, but in my mind, I would go for an all out war to end it all, sick of stalemate while losing more lives everyday. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Dennisch]

If the situation goes on as it does today, the world will do nothing but tapping Israel on the fingers..

 

[Skuh]

A war will not end the dispute. On what basis do you think an all out war will bring an end to the conflict?
By it's very definition, a peaceful conclusion is the only conclusion.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Remember WWII, Nagasaki and Hiroshima ... a tough lesson to swallow, but it end the Pacific war in matter of days. How about Nazi ? A full scale offensive by the Allies won the war and end it before it gets even worse.

 

[Dennisch]

As said before. The removal of Israel is the only solution. Harsh but true.

 

[Skuh]

Remember WWII, Nagasaki and Hiroshima ... a tough lesson to swallow, but it end the Pacific war in matter of days. How about Nazi ? A full scale offensive by the Allies won the war and end it before it gets even worse.

So, your proposal is to nuke, the entire middle east? As that is the only wa to end the conflict. Nuking Palestine would not end the conflict, it wpuld bring in Eqypt, Syria Jordan Lebanon, and the Arabs who live in Israel. So you would have to wipe them all out. Which would leave an outsider to press the button (as israel would be gone too). Who would that be? Let alone a nuke war begin enough to wipe out the entire area is implausible and would bring new problems without curing the first.

 

[Swara]

If we are nuking the entire Middle East, think of the innocent civilians that have a potentiality of getting killed! The drone strikes already had only a 2% accuracy, I don't think Nukes may solve the overall problem.

 

[Skuh]

If we are nuking the entire Middle East, think of the innocent civilians that have a potentiality of getting killed! The drone strikes already had only a 2% accuracy, I don't think Nukes may solve the overall problem.

You're correct. They wouldn't.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

So, your proposal is to nuke, the entire middle east? As that is the only wa to end the conflict. Nuking Palestine would not end the conflict, it wpuld bring in Eqypt, Syria Jordan Lebanon, and the Arabs who live in Israel. So you would have to wipe them all out. Which would leave an outsider to press the button (as israel would be gone too). Who would that be? Let alone a nuke war begin enough to wipe out the entire area is implausible and would bring new problems without curing the first.

You are making too much of a nuclear bomb, the B61 Mod 12 I was talking about is not like for bombing the entire region, I said key strategic locations to ensure ending of resistance or retaliation swiftly. The JDAM B61 can be adjusted in terms of yield ( destructive power ), a 0.3 kiloton bomb is not as big as the ones from Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

Any other method of offensive delivery - conventional bombs, artillery bombardments etc will have the same effect to neighboring countries or allies, they will help, regardless if nuclear device is used or not. But the politics might make differing results.

I think you are assuming that countries who uses nuclear munition would be stupid enough to wipeout a country by raining them nukes all over the place.... I think that is absurd, a common sense would dictate that nuclear munition would be used to maximize impact and minimize aftermath effect, hence the name tactical nuke - selective isolated targets with proper yield to achieve maximum destruction possible within certain area.

 

[opelgt1969]

The solution is simple, one of them has to win and obliterate the other until there's no more resistance. Since both can not coexist with each other peacefully, the only way to achieve peace is total supremacy in a war. I would wish Israel wins, my personal thought of course, I don't care about politics, war is run by military, whatever it takes to achieve the mission goals, even tactical thermonuclear ordnance like B61 is also fine, as long as it gets the job done swiftly without further conflict.



From Wikipedia, if this is true, dropping 10 or more B61 Mod12 JDAM on strategic locations should end any conflict quickly. Israel should have these.

I agree let's send Israel several of these "Airborne"👍

 

[Skuh]

You are making too much of a nuclear bomb, the B61 Mod 12 I was talking about is not like for bombing the entire region, I said key strategic locations to ensure ending of resistance or retaliation swiftly. The JDAM B61 can be adjusted in terms of yield ( destructive power ), a 0.3 kiloton bomb is not as big as the ones from Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

Any other method of offensive delivery - conventional bombs, artillery bombardments etc will have the same effect to neighboring countries or allies, they will help, regardless if nuclear device is used or not. But the politics might make differing results.

I think you are assuming that countries who uses nuclear munition would be stupid enough to wipeout a country by raining them nukes all over the place.... I think that is absurd, a common sense would dictate that nuclear munition would be used to maximize impact and minimize aftermath effect, hence the name tactical nuke.

No you missed my point entirely. I said unless you nuke the entire region you wont solve the issue and that i am not convinced would solve it either, plus as I say. It is implausible to nuke the entire region.
Just to be clear as I said this earlier too.
Nuking key locations or Palestine would not solve the issue. It would worsen it by bringing in every Nation around Israel into the conflict. Either from the people as an armed resistance as is demonstrated all the time in the area or worse still as a state. Iran retaliating, Lebanon, Eqypt, Jordan joining in. An Arab uprising in Israel itself.

BTW you brought in tge nuking of Japan as a compairson of how it could work. They were not in anyway tactiacl nukes and were designed to bring the absolute maximum devastation to the area and people.

 

[Swara]

Going back to Ridox2JZGTE's argument of how we should just nuke them like as if nothing happened, you clearly display no comprehension of the AFTERMATH of a nuke.

1- Radiation effects. This is a huge problem. If you were to nuke the entire Middle East, well it would not go well.

2- Rebuilding the Middle East.- we are currently allies with 8 Non-NATO countries in the Middle East, what makes you even IMPLY that we should bomb the Middle East? (The 8 source is from Wikipedia, I will find a legitimate source for this). If someone were to nuke us, how would we react? Our national security will be undermined, our people will be affected both mentally and physically (They are not safe anymore), and there are just too many issues to list out.

Here is a website which tells the major side effects of radiation from the Japan bombing.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp22.shtml

 

[Tornado]

A strategic nuclear strike would accomplish nothing but destroy all of Israel's international support.

 

[Dennisch]

A strategic nuclear strike would accomplish nothing but destroy all of Israel's international support.

Which could be the beginning of the end of the solution!

 

[Tornado]

Well, yeah. But probably not in a way Israel would order.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Then these conflict would never cease until one of them took drastic measure or surrender their cause - a deadlock in my opinion. I am not objecting for peaceful ending, but how long will that take ?

 

[Skuh]

Then these conflict would never cease until one of them took drastic measure or surrender their cause - a deadlock in my opinion. I am not objecting for peaceful ending, but how long will that take ?

No, they continue until all sides come to a peaceful solution. It is the only way to end it. How long will that take, well..............

In my opinion, we may see the start of a peaceful solution before the end of my life but I doubt it will be finished. Of course, really, it is anyone's guess.

I'm 38

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Going back to Ridox2JZGTE's argument of how we should just nuke them like as if nothing happened, you clearly display no comprehension of the AFTERMATH of a nuke.

1- Radiation effects. This is a huge problem. If you were to nuke the entire Middle East, well it would not go well.

2- Rebuilding the Middle East.- we are currently allies with 8 Non-NATO countries in the Middle East, what makes you even IMPLY that we should bomb the Middle East? (The 8 source is from Wikipedia, I will find a legitimate source for this). If someone were to nuke us, how would we react? Our national security will be undermined, our people will be affected both mentally and physically (They are not safe anymore), and there are just too many issues to list out.

Here is a website which tells the major side effects of radiation from the Japan bombing.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp22.shtml

I know the aftermath effect issue, and I never said to nuke the entire middle east. I said strategic key locations and not all targets can be viable for tactical nuclear attack. If the war broke out in the region, it won't mean that Israel would use all of it's nuke inventory to rain on all of them nor I suggest them to do so. A few bomb used would be more than enough.

When I said about the B61 example, I am aware of the radiation issue, if I were to be the decision maker, I would still do it, I can live with the risk, even if it may make me a bad man like the ones who decided to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima.


Some will not like my thinking or point of view, some wanted peace talks, some wanted to use guns and ordinary bombs, while I am fine with someone using tactical nuclear. I may be wrong, but I will stay true to my mind.

 

[Danoff]

As said before. The removal of Israel is the only solution. Harsh but true.

The only moral solution is for Palestine to just give up. Israel exists properly, and they need to stop attacking it in a ridiculous holy war.

That is the only proper solution. Yes, it would be a solution to nuke Israel, or nuke the entire region, but it would not be a moral solution.

 

[Skuh]

Some will not like my thinking or point of view, some wanted peace talks, some wanted to use guns and ordinary bombs, while I am fine with someone using tactical nuclear. I may be wrong, but I will stay true to my mind.

That's not the argument. The argument is that nukes wouldn't work. As we have pointed out to you.

The only moral solution is for Palestine to just give up. Israel exists properly, and they need to stop attacking it in a ridiculous holy war.

That is the only proper solution. Yes, it would be a solution to nuke Israel, or nuke the entire region, but it would not be a moral solution.

Who decided this. Did I miss a memo?
Source?

 

[Skuh]

delete

 

[Dennisch]

while I am fine with someone using tactical nuclear.

I don't think you fully understand what the consequence would be. Please stop talking about nukes and such, as this does nothing for the situation or discussion.

Danoff.

Tell that to the Middle east. I'll bet they disagree.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

That's not the argument. The argument is that nukes wouldn't work. As we have pointed out to you.

How do you know if no one ever used them ? They have the same purpose just like ordinary bombs - to destroy/obliterate. They are more powerful of course, and with it comes a price of radiation fallout, but a "clean" nuclear bomb can still be used instead of "dirty" bomb in exchange of lower yield.

"On the average, about 50 percent of the power of an H-bomb results from thermonuclear-fusion reactions and the other 50 percent from fission that occurs in the A-bomb trigger and in the uranium jacket. A clean H-bomb is defined as one in which a significantly smaller proportion than 50 percent of the energy arises from fission. Because fusion does not produce any radioactive products directly, the fallout from a clean weapon is less than that from a normal or average H-bomb of the same total power. If an H-bomb were made with no uranium jacket but with a fission trigger, it would be relatively clean. Perhaps as little as 5 percent of the total explosive force might result from fission; the weapon would thus be 95 percent clean. The enhanced-radiation fusion bomb, also called the neutron bomb, which has been tested by the United States and other nuclear powers [1 kt, 500 metres altitude air burst] is considered a tactical weapon because it can do serious damage on the battlefield, penetrating tanks and other armored vehicles and causing death or serious injury to exposed individuals, without producing the radioactive fallout that endangers people or structures miles away."

Source :
http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/clean-nuclear-weapon-tests-navajo-and.html

Not all nuclear weapons are "dirty", I would stop discussing this, nobody agrees with me, that is fine. Please continue with the topic at hand.

 

[Skuh]

Read the reasons we have stated above. This thread is ull of the reasons why it wouldn't work.
What if we try it a different way.....


What makes you think it will work?

You have to take into account our earlier reasons why it wouldn't work in your explanation.

 

[Tornado]

How do you know if no one ever used them ?

For a whole variety of reasons you've been ignoring and contradicting yourself on (if they can lower the yield so much that it would be a true surgical strike, why use nuclear weapons in the first place?), but I'll bring up another one: If Israel starts lobbing nukes, their open secret would no longer be a secret. They have nuclear weapons, they are willing to use them when they don't need to, and they don't care about the international pressure against even having them (including against countries that are only a stone's throw away). If Israel started using nuclear weapons against insurgents against them, even if it doesn't just glass every country surrounding them, the political fallout would be immense everywhere. Countries, (not pseudo-terrorist sects like Hamas) that currently don't have a beef with Israel would line up to declare war. All of their backing by the West would vanish. Not even the U.S. would be able to keep support up.




And for what? To accomplish something that wouldn't be any more effective than normal missiles and artillery? To destroy the very land that they kinda want to have in the first place?