Topic: Mordechai Vanunu, Israeli Nuclear Technician against Zionism

[History]

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." – Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 in N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1.

Being Jewish, even a Rabbi, does not peclude one from being an idiot nor saying something stupid at times.
There are similar incidents among Muslims, even Muslim clerics, won't you agree?

Respectfully,
History

[silkworm]

Not like this one Bro, and if you have any doubts, present us any statement of any Moslem leader similar to this one in hate and arrogance and as intense.
 
 

[History]

Deterrence is effective if your enemy knows you have a weapon or merely suspects it is likely you have a weapon.

I'm aware of that concept, but this doesn't apply here IMO

.
Yes, it does.

It applies in the case of the star wars missile defense program for instance when The US claimed their "Nuclear Umbrella" will make a nuclear attack by the USSR ineffective. Which was why the USSR build thousands of nuclear warheads and was a factor in the... you know the rest.

I do.  But it does apply.
The US "star wars nuclear umbrella" was a deterrant based on a claim that was false (no such umbrella existed).
The Israeli denial of nuclear weapons was a deterrant based on the fact that Israel had a known "civil" nuclear program and a strongly suspected military capacity.
The latter is actually the wiser position--Teddy Rooseveltian "Walk softly and carry a bnig stick."
The American "nuclear umbrella" deterrant was (is) not the Star Wars nonentity, however, it is its existing nuclear arsenal.
In both cases, American and Israeli effective deterrance is M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction).

Here and according to most historic documents, and although there is no way of getting the Zionist government to admit it, the Zionist government  armed 2 nuclear weapons in 1967 and was willing to use them if the war(6 day war) took a certain turn. That was far back and no Arab country had any idea about even Daimona(at a certain point, Egyptian planes flew very near Dimuna and gave the Zionist war machine a big scare, but the Egyptians were obviously in the dark). It was also 20 years before Vanunu leaked the photos.

It is good practice to post your sources.
However, Israel's nuclear capabilities was public knowledge since 1960, following an expose in The New York Times on December 21st of that year.
Israel's Dimona facility underwent yearly US inspections while Israel sought, unsuccessfully, to have the US include Israel under its "nuclear umbrella" as it had done for NATO nations and Japan.  This failure likely led to Israel create its own nuclear military deterrant and they may have had one maybe two weapons by the time of the Six-Day War.  It is not certain, but it is certainly understandable.  And as more public suspicion arose during the 1970's and 1980's, it served Israel's interests as a deterrant. Even foreign nation support was gained, such as during the 1st Gulf War when Saddam Hussein carelessly threatened chemical missile weapons against Israel.  Israeli nuclear retaliation would have had disasterous effects, not only locally but on world oil supplies--all based on the suspicion of Israel's nuclear weapon capabilities.
There have been no wars between Israel and its neighboring states since 1973, and there have been peace treaties with the two neighbors who compose over the majority of its border, Egypt and Jordan. 

Besides, how much a country is willing to use nuclear weapon is a variable issue. And although you may think Iran will drop a fission bomb on Tel Aviv and risk rrradiating the land which is holy to them too plus risking a nuclear retaliation from the Jewish government and possibly other super-powers. I and others like me, strongly beleive, based on previous military operations by the Zionist war machine, namely the recent operations of Lebanon and Gaza. That the Zionists have no regard for civillian lives, except the lives of their own civillians namely Jewish civillians. Therefore they are more likely to use a weapon of mass destruction.

Every nation's 1st responsibility is the security of its people.
There would have been no war in Gaza nor Lebanon, if Hamas and its pigeons had not continued to indiscriminately fire rockets at Israeli civilians for years; nor if Hezbollah had not attacked cross border and killed and kidnapped (and then killed) Israelis nor indiscriminately fire their rockets at Israeli civilians.
The IDF is not perfect, but comparatively they take more precautions to prevent civilian casualties than any other nation--including the US, Russia, China, and definitely any Muslim terrorist groups.
Hamas and Hezbollah also bear responsibility for civilian casualties in their practice in fighting from and hiding among civilians and civilian centers.  This is despicable, but the sick logic is they are not match for the IDF in open battle.  They also strategize civilian casualties as helpful to their cause and have little disregard for any civilian life, not their fellow Palestinians and definitely not Israeli.

Certainty of possessing a terrible weapon creates significant political repercussions
Uncertainty permits forestalling those repercussions while maintaining a deterrence against one's enemies.
An insightful Op-ed:  http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4751
regarding War and Israel, Hamas and Hexbollah, and Israel's neighbors.

.
No kidding Iraq was invaded based on suspecion. Iran is being pressured on on the basis that they maybe get one bomb in 5 to 10 years. Anyway, the difference is not that big in the case of the Zionists. wheather they deny or confirm, everyone knows that they do have Nukes and are acting accordingly. But explain the difference if you can. I want to know how this works in their case. In other words: what more reprecaussions they are to expect if they go public?

Using the word "Zionists" instead of Israelis doesn't make a difference, btw. 
I do find it amusing to bring up Iran.  Because Iran is similar proceding with claims of a solely civilian nuclear program, which based on the evidence is an example of implausible deniability.  Iran may have a nuclear weapon as early as 2011.  Regardless, it is Iran and not Israel making claims to "wipe (the other) nation of the map."  Such a statement coming from the Iranian President, no less, is what is concerning in he face of developing nuclear capabilities.  Threatening an offensive use rather than a defensive one.
The repercussions of going public with a weapons capability is multifold.  First is political (world pressure re: nuclear states).  Second is economic (potential sanctions; arms race).  Third is military (certainty of a capability permits enemies to plan to eliminate its threat; arms race).  I'm uncertain what knowledge of military strategy and world history you may possess.  However, the enemy's uncertainty regarding your capability to harm them is a powerful deterrant.

This is merely subjective emotional rhetoric.

What? Do you like have a special keyboard with a big button called BULL and if pressed just types random words like this?
Fine then tell where is the Palestenian "State"? where was it between 48 and the first Palestinian Elections in the 1990s and where were the citizens of the west bank and Gaza Voting for their leaders after 1967? So the whole world aknowledges the "Palestenian right to their own free state" and you call this emotional rhetoric? Tell me what do think about the millions of Palestenian refugees? Where are there homes? Tell me about the settelments? But most of all explain to me_according to "Israeli constitution"- the borders of the so called "state of Israel"? all countries have a section in the constitution that explains and illustrates it's boarders.
The whole world considers Palestine as an occupied terretory. So don't disscuss the issue if you don't want to, but aknowledge that at least.

"The whole world" does not agree with you.
That should be the first lesson acknowledged by any rational adult.
There never has been a Palestinian "state"--yet.  Hopefully, we will see one in the near future.  However, with Hamas and Fatah at civil war, there is no unified government to enforce a final peace treaty even if one that is mutually agreeable between Israel and the PA can be found.
Unlike Hamas (and the unchanged PA charter) which seeks to eliminate the State of Israel, Israel has recognized the right of the Palestinians to have their own state alongside Israel. See: http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2003%20News%20archives/June%202003%20News/5n/Sharon,%20A%20democratic%20Palestinian%20state,%20fully%20at%20peace%20with%20Israel,%20will%20promote%20the%20long-term%20security%20and%20well-being%20of%20Israel.htm
Peace takes two.
Israel is willing to live for a Palestinian State living peacefully beside her.
It is irrational for Muslims/Palestinians and anyone to expect her to die to achieve this.

Respectfully,
History

[Advisor]

The US "star wars nuclear umbrella" was a deterrant based on a claim that was false (no such umbrella existed).

I think I need to explain what I meant I think-since I typed from memory, I actually lived through some of those events-I mixed the nuclear umbrella with the "star wars space defense program" The USSR built in the 80's up to 45,000 nuclear war heads because they thought if the American defense system was to be deployed it would end there MAD deterrence and they thought by having that much warheads they can push through that defense. That system still exist, but it's not as effective as the Americans made them think(a few days ago the canceled plans for a laser plane, a space laser?...please). Here Keeping that system under a veil of rumors and secrecy (I think a Bond movie was involved too) served them as cheap way of deterrence.
Back to the occupying Zionist regime: you said:

However, Israel's nuclear capabilities was public knowledge since 1960, following an expose in The New York Times on December 21st of that year.

The NYTimes published a report days after stating that it's not going to work for Israel to make a nuclear weapon, because the cost is astronomical. IMO it looked like a veiled retraction. And apparently also the Arab states were in the dark, even with the NYTimes report. Why would Naser provoke a war with a state that possesses nuclear capability, by askng the UN to withdraw there seperation forces from Senai? But more importantly and straight to the point:
during the last week of May 1967 the situation in the Zionist government can be described as "panic". The military was urging the prime minister to order the pre-emptive strike. While some members were for getting more deplomatic support for a strike from superpowers(other than the US, they are always in for war). The analysts and the military chiefs were talking about the military preparations of the Egyptians and others and the term they were using was "total invasion of Israel" and "Another Holocaust". Some of Egyptian Press were talking about ending Israeli presence in-ironically- less than a week of war. Yet although we can be certain that according to thousand years military psycological war history, If they have a psychological detterent they would have used it "if you are weak, look stronger, if you are stronger look weaker" a leaked report that they possess nukes would act as a detterent at that time, but they chose to do the pre-emptive strike. So the Nukes that they most likely had were reserved for a surprise attack in case they the war took a wrong turn. The bombs were for a Heroshima scenario, nothing else, and I know it's not a picnic to use a nuke, but there was a documentary where Peres(current president) said that they would use a nuclear weopon in case one was used against them, or their air force is destroyed , or they were invaded.
This proves that they were a conceled blade not a big stick.
 

American and Israeli effective deterrance is M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction)

Emmm, I'm confused, who else has the ability to destroy them if they had no nuclear weapon? because they are miles ahead in military strengths than all her neighbours combined. Best airforce. including unmanned drones, b52s stealth bombers, F-16s maybe F35s already. Best ground force, a new generation of tanks, best gear, artillary, artillary amunition that can change small Gazan children into sacks of soup(Dime I think they call it). Best Navy with submarines and advanced frigades. They destroyed the Iraqi reactor and a year or so ago they destroyed what they allegedly say it's a syrian nuclear research site.

The whole world" does not agree with you.
That should be the first lesson acknowledged by any rational adult.

Even if I say"murdering babies is wrong"? I'm talking about normal people with decent morals. Who thinks that it's fair for millions to live under occupation for almost 2 generations and have no say in who rules them? you? I guess you are right then the whole world doesn't agree with me.

There never has been a Palestinian "state"--yet.

They existed as a people didn't they? there were never a lebanese state before, or syrian or jordanian. in the form they are today. But they existed as a people. This doesn't apply on the so called "state of Israel" they didn't exist as a people in that land. they came from Europe, Russia, Africa, Morroco and other places and formed a "state". After scaring away, banishing, tricking and killing the majority of its Indigeneous Arab people.

Hamas and Hezbollah also bear responsibility for civilian casualties in their practice in fighting from and hiding among civilians and civilian centers.  This is despicable, but the sick logic is they are not match for the IDF in open battle.  They also strategize civilian casualties as helpful to their cause and have little disregard for any civilian life, not their fellow Palestinians and definitely not Israeli.

Thats not true in both cases. In lebanon it was a total war against villages. lots of villages were totally destroyed, most rockets were fired from hideouts, caves and such. and the air raids didn't cause many militants death. all we saw was civillians in civillian areas. Hizb's fallen millitants actually fell during face to face combat mostly. Gaza is densly packed strip under seige(which is as bad or worse than occupation). But it doesn't matter here, what matters is that they did level a dense compound on its occupants and bombed a shelter packed with children in Qana. Also they used DIME and white phosphorous in civillian areas in Gaza. They can use your same argument(not far from something a Nazi commander would declare to justify crimes against civillians) to nuke a city.

It is good practice to post your sources.

Any info I say you think it's false, tell me and I'll do. I'm not about to make your life easier.