theliq
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #142
Fair Comment....I have always said I am only nearly Perfect Sayit...LOL steveToastie,We STAND or FALL by our posts,on this I STAND and YOU FALL.........you should learn Toastie that Nukes are NO LAUGHING MATTER......be good my friend and listen to your superior ....LOL..........just sayin.......Now that is Funny...steveNo Toastie,Sunni is a very fine and intelligent man,not some two-bit Tosser you try to make him look...........cut the shit-talk and dialogue properly..I know you can.steve
Oh common, you think Sunni Troll could help himself when there is a thread about Israel and nukes?
He probably had a trollgasm when he saw the thread title
Obviously the subtleties of the English language are too complex for TheLiq so I will simplify for him:
Toasty was laughing at the idiotic characterization of the Holocaust denying Sunni Boy as "a very fine and intelligent man."
It was only the idiot Liq who believed Toasty was laughing about nukes.
pinqy
Gold Member
Sanctions? For violating a treaty they're not part of? Really? Israel, Pakistan, and India have never signed the NPT and therefore are perfectly free to have nuclear weapons. Iran did sign and did agree not to have nukes, so they are subject ot their own agreement. North Korea signed, but renounced its signature. That puts it into a gray area as far as I'm concerned.
I
Indofred
Guest
- Thread starter
- #144
Tell me, how many countries have the nations on your list attacked?
Now, how many countries has Israel attacked?
One is known to be run by violent extremists with a thirst for blood - the others are, compared with Israel, fairly peaceful.
pinqy
Gold Member
Completely irrelevant. The question is legality of possessing nuclear weapons...it is legal for the U.S., the UK, France, Russia, and China as agreed in the NPT, it is also legal for Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and South Sudan to possess nuclear weapons because they are not part of the treaty. Everyone else has signed and subject to the NPT. Nothing else is relevant.
I
Indofred
Guest
- Thread starter
- #146
Actually, it is.
If inspectors are backed up with threats of sanctions against Iran and North Korea, why not against Israel?
Israel has proven itself far more violent than the other two, but have no sanctions against them.
RoccoR
Gold Member
pinqy, Indofred, et al,
Well, --- this is a bit harsh. First off, can you point to a specific law, international adopted convention with the force of law, treaty, International Customary Law, or International Humanitarian Law, pertaining to domestic nuclear research and development that Israel had violated?
I don't think so!
Well Article X of the NPT permits a country to withdraw.
The key here is the clause: "jeopardized the supreme interests of its country."
If signing a Treaty would "jeopardized the supreme interests of" Israel to start with, then Israel should not sign the Treaty. Israel is still following the basic Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, by refraining in their international relations from the threat or use of nuclear force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. Israel has neither confirmed, nor denied, its capabilities as a nuclear-weapon State Party. Israel has never undertaken action to transfer to any recipient whatsoever --- nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices --- or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly. Israel has not, in any way --- assisted, encouraged, or induced any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture, otherwise acquire, or control such weapons or explosive devices.
In fact, no country has come forth with any recent and credible evidence to establish a probable cause to believe that Israel has control over a nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
In 2013, Israel did test fire the intermediate-range Jericho III Ballistic Missile (range estimated at ≈ 5,000 km) which has the "potential" to deliver a medium size [1,000-kg (2,204-lb)] nuclear warhead. But that does not mean it has such a warhead. The Jericho III will gradually replace the Jericho II predecessor; which was a two-stage missile with a range of 1,500 km. The Jericho III has a peaceful use as a satellite launch vehicle (SLV). The Jericho III would replace the Comet as the Israeli orbital launch vehicle capable of carrying small satellites into low earth orbit.
Most Respectfully,
R
Well, --- this is a bit harsh. First off, can you point to a specific law, international adopted convention with the force of law, treaty, International Customary Law, or International Humanitarian Law, pertaining to domestic nuclear research and development that Israel had violated?
I don't think so!
(COMMENT)
Well Article X of the NPT permits a country to withdraw.
Article X
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
2. Twenty-five years after the entry into force of the Treaty, a conference shall be convened to decide whether the Treaty shall continue in force indefinitely, or shall be extended for an additional fixed period or periods. This decision shall be taken by a majority of the Parties to the Treaty.
2. Twenty-five years after the entry into force of the Treaty, a conference shall be convened to decide whether the Treaty shall continue in force indefinitely, or shall be extended for an additional fixed period or periods. This decision shall be taken by a majority of the Parties to the Treaty.
The key here is the clause: "jeopardized the supreme interests of its country."
If signing a Treaty would "jeopardized the supreme interests of" Israel to start with, then Israel should not sign the Treaty. Israel is still following the basic Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, by refraining in their international relations from the threat or use of nuclear force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. Israel has neither confirmed, nor denied, its capabilities as a nuclear-weapon State Party. Israel has never undertaken action to transfer to any recipient whatsoever --- nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices --- or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly. Israel has not, in any way --- assisted, encouraged, or induced any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture, otherwise acquire, or control such weapons or explosive devices.
In fact, no country has come forth with any recent and credible evidence to establish a probable cause to believe that Israel has control over a nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
In 2013, Israel did test fire the intermediate-range Jericho III Ballistic Missile (range estimated at ≈ 5,000 km) which has the "potential" to deliver a medium size [1,000-kg (2,204-lb)] nuclear warhead. But that does not mean it has such a warhead. The Jericho III will gradually replace the Jericho II predecessor; which was a two-stage missile with a range of 1,500 km. The Jericho III has a peaceful use as a satellite launch vehicle (SLV). The Jericho III would replace the Comet as the Israeli orbital launch vehicle capable of carrying small satellites into low earth orbit.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, we know Muslim extremists have a thirst for blood.
Why do always ask how many countries ISrael attacked without asking why they attacked them and how many countries attacked Israel?
Looks like you're scared of the truth, as we already knew.
"Israel has proven itself far more violent"
Load of crap Fred. How many times has Israel been attacked in the last 67 years by how many countries compared to Iran and N . Korea.
I
Indofred
Guest
- Thread starter
- #150
An invading force has to accept being attacked.
Whoever attacks Israel has to accept being attacked.
Problem with your logic however is that Israel was attacked in 1948 by 5 Arab countries that Israel had not invaded. Same thing in 1967.
Not to mention being attacked By Iraq during the gulf war, Lebanon AFTER Israel withdrew from there etc....
So your logic fails...as usual..
Israel is attacked because she is surrounded by blood thirsty warmongering Islamic savages ....
I
Indofred
Guest
- Thread starter
- #152
Please post a map of Israel from 1945.
Given Israel's thirst for blood in their attempts to steal land, you can hardly blame other countries for attacking that bastard state.
pinqy
Gold Member
Which is why I put North Korea in a gray area. Their interests threatened by the NPT was the risk of being caught illegally enriching uranium.
Israel was founded in 1948 you idiot.
Given the fact that so many Muslims in the ME are bloodthirsty savages who take pleasure in killing others, it's no surprise that they have attacked Israel so many times.
Oh, and since Israel never stole any land, your comment is full of shit , as usual...
fanger
Gold Member
Poppycock, The Dolphin class is actually two related sub-classes of diesel-electric submarine developed and constructed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG (HDW), Germany for the Israeli Navy
Each Dolphin-class submarine is capable of carrying a combined total of up to 16 torpedoesand SLCMs.The cruise missiles have a range of at least 1,500 km (930 mi) and are widely believed to be equipped with a 200-kilogram (440 lb) nuclear warhead containing up to 6 kilograms (13 lb) of plutonium
Dolphin-class submarine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
and there you have it, conventionally powered submarines believed to be nuclear armed
Some people mix up nuclear powered subs and nuclear armed subs, LOL
RoccoR
Gold Member
fanger, et al,
This is still guess work.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, firm physical evidence of the Israelis having a nuclear weapon. Yes, they have delivery systems that could launch a nuclear payload, but no one has ever proven that a warhead exists.
Most Respectfully,
R
This is still guess work.
(COMMENT)
There is not now, nor has there ever been, firm physical evidence of the Israelis having a nuclear weapon. Yes, they have delivery systems that could launch a nuclear payload, but no one has ever proven that a warhead exists.
Most Respectfully,
R
fanger
Gold Member
no one has ever proven that God exists. Yet many people believe it
montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,127
- 280
For their numbers, the Jews are even more bloodthirsty and savage than the Muslims. And, the European Jews did steal the land. It belonged to the Christians and Muslims and now they have it and they did not purchase it, hence they stole it.
And Fanger , diesel smeisal , I think that I have always said that the Israelis have NUKE LOADED subs . And that's an assumption of mine because as RoccoR says no one knows if Israel has nuke weapons for the DOOMSDAY subs . Ij ust hope that they do !!
RoccoR
Gold Member
fanger, et al,
Yes, and maybe the Supreme Being has a hand in this???
Their is a difference between "evidence" to hold and evaluate in reality, and a faith based system of possibilities.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, and maybe the Supreme Being has a hand in this???
(COMMENT)
Their is a difference between "evidence" to hold and evaluate in reality, and a faith based system of possibilities.
Most Respectfully,
R
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
1 man dead after being shot during ‘No Kings’ protest in Salt Lake City- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 9
-
Trump curbs immigration enforcement at farms, meatpacking plants, hotels and Restaurants
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 1
-
-
King of the trolls. Fortunate Son played at Trump's parade.- Started by pknopp
- Replies: 2
