On 8/22/2014 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:44:37 -0400, KC wrote:

On 8/22/2014 10:42 AM, KC wrote:
On 8/22/2014 10:08 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:51:39 -0400, KC wrote:

There is no such thing as a defensive nuke


Ok, deterrent nukes..

How has that been working out for them?


Pretty good, I haven't seen any of the surrounding armies/nations try to
take the land by military force, no invasion, so I say it's working
perfectly.

Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those
Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on
them.... period.

Then why does Iran want a nuke?


Oh brother....

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:17:41 -0400, wrote:

Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those
Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on
them.... period.

Then why does Iran want a nuke?

===

Because it lessens the risk of a pre-emptive strike by a western
power.

On 8/22/2014 2:15 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:44:51 -0400, KC wrote:

On 8/22/2014 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:44:37 -0400, KC wrote:



Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those
Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on
them.... period.

Then why does Iran want a nuke?


Oh brother....

It is a valid question. If Israelis nukes are such a deferent, why
would Iran want one ... unless it was seen as defensive for them.
You seem to want this both ways.


Why are you being so closed minded, black and white.. I never said the
deterrent was the end all, just a deterrent... Might work, might give
the rest of the world time to stop things, the only thing black and
white here is Iran's clearly stated intent to "wipe Israel into the
sea"... that is well documented, and they are working hard at that end
every day...

On 8/22/2014 2:16 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:43:37 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:17:41 -0400, wrote:

Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those
Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on
them.... period.

Then why does Iran want a nuke?

===

Because it lessens the risk of a pre-emptive strike by a western
power.

At last an honest answer although I really believe it is just a
prestige thing.


So you think my answer was "dishonest" because it wasn't your answer...
oh brother...

On 8/22/2014 2:38 PM, KC wrote:
On 8/22/2014 2:16 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:43:37 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:17:41 -0400, wrote:

Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those
Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using
it on
them.... period.

Then why does Iran want a nuke?

===

Because it lessens the risk of a pre-emptive strike by a western
power.

At last an honest answer although I really believe it is just a
prestige thing.


So you think my answer was "dishonest" because it wasn't your answer...
oh brother...


Paranoia strikes again.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:41:16 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:07:07 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:42:04 -0400, KC wrote:

If we had not given Israel nukes, they would not feel the need to have
them.

===

Interesting assertion. Do you know that for a fact?

The Plutonium came from the US, it is fairly well documented.
The science is not really that big a secret anymore.


That is not the assertion he was talking about I think.

===

Actually it was. According to a number of sources, the US did not
give plutonium to Israel although we helped in other ways. Instead
it was the French which helped Israel build the Dimona reactor back in
the late 50s. That reactor is the source of Israel's plutonium. The
reactor's heavy water which is essential, was supplied by Norway in
1959. In 1963, when the reactor started operation, the United States
supplied more heavy water.

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html


From your article

" Later in the 1960s, Israel was widely thought to have smuggled more
than 100 kilograms of highly enriched uranium out of a nuclear
materials plant in Pennsylvania."

The assumption is that somebody at AEC knew and allowed that to
happen. It would be pretty scary if they didn't.


===

It's quite possible that it was aided by a US insider who had been
co-opted. Our original discussion was about plutonium however.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:08:13 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:15:57 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:34:52 -0400, wrote:



There is no such thing as a defensive nuke

As a matter of fact, part of the planning to stop a Soviet Invasion of Europe through the Fulda Gap
included the use of defensive nukes to form barriers.

That was insanity not strategy.
It sounds like the same people who described Europe as a place where
towns were 2 kilotons apart.

These would have been between 10 tons and 1 kiloton. Itty bitty nukes. Here's some info on same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...ition_Munition

We actually had those down at the Engineer Battalion level.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:17:41 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:44:37 -0400, KC wrote:

On 8/22/2014 10:42 AM, KC wrote:
On 8/22/2014 10:08 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:51:39 -0400, KC wrote:

There is no such thing as a defensive nuke


Ok, deterrent nukes..

How has that been working out for them?


Pretty good, I haven't seen any of the surrounding armies/nations try to
take the land by military force, no invasion, so I say it's working
perfectly.

Oh, and not to mention... once Iran gets it's nukes and it will, those
Israeli nukes will be the *only* thing slowing Iran down on using it on
them.... period.

Then why does Iran want a nuke?

To make a fortune selling it to ISIS/ISIL.