| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?WmUgVHJ1bHkgV29uZHJvdXMgTGFzdCA0MSBEYXl6LsK3OirCqMKoKjrCty4g4pmlwqnCruKEog==?=" |
| Date: |
09 Sep 2006 11:33:45 PM |
| Object: |
very interesting peoplez !!! |
Gooday / Hi peoplez !!!
Found this article which appeared on the Rense website & originally on
Ha'aretz very interesting !!
Quote: " Iran will be made aware that the moment a missile is detected
heading westward from its territory, the Israeli nuclear response will
be automatically activated - without waiting for the missile to land,
and without examining whether it is nuclear. Moreover, it will be clear
to Iran that even if it were to surprise Israel and strike it without
being detected in advance, Israel would still have enough nuclear
missiles to destroy all of Iran. " End Quote.
Of-course, peoplez, this says nothing of the coming conflict between
Syria & Israel over the heavily disputed Golan Heights !!! & we all
know that Syria & Iran signed a pact last year to protect one another
if attacked by Israel !!!
FRICK !!!!
We're all FRICKED beyond all repair !!!
Stay well away from all of the Middle East, peoplez -- unless U want to
be a victim of radiation poisoning !!!!
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
================
Let Them Have Nukes
By Reuven Pedatzur
9-6-6
For the more than four decades of Cold War, the human race was not
destroyed due to mutual deterrence between the two superpowers. The
strategic stability was based on a balance of fear and on what was
called MAD - mutual assured destruction. It was clear to both sides
that even if one managed to surprise its rival and strike it with all
the nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the victim would still have enough
bombs to wreak total destruction on the attacker.
The theory of nuclear deterrence, which was developed mainly by
American academics, underwent quite a few changes from the mid-1940s
until MAD was formulated in the mid-1960s, mainly by then-U.S.
secretary of defense Robert McNamara. However, from the moment McNamara
convinced the Soviet leadership that the willingness of both sides to
expose themselves to total destruction was the only way to achieve
stability, this viewpoint became the bedrock of nuclear deterrence -
and the principle that ensured the survival of the world.
The addition of other countries to the nuclear club did not lead to a
change in the theory. Britain, France and China did not challenge this
viewpoint, and it was clear that fear of total destruction by the
Soviet Union (in the case of Britain and France) or by the United
States (in the case of China) deterred them from using nuclear weapons.
The nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan in May 1998 gave
rise to a fear that the theory would fail. There was talk about the two
countries' cultural differences, the religious element of the conflict
and the extremism of the Pakistanis. And in fact a year later the
Kargil crisis erupted between India and Pakistan, and threatened to
lead to war. As it turned out, it was actually the two countries'
nuclear capabilities that caused their leaders to exercise restraint.
The fear that the crisis would deteriorate into nuclear war prevented
an escalation.
This belief that nuclear weapons were the ultimate deterrent also led
David Ben-Gurion to become the architect of the Israeli nuclear
program. Even the most radical Arab leaders who aspired to destroy
Israel would be deterred if they knew it possessed nuclear weapons. The
lessons of the Cold War only confirmed Ben-Gurion's thesis, and made it
clear that at the moment of truth, Israel's nuclear capability would
deter anyone aspiring to destroy the country.
Good against evil
And now comes Prof. Bernard Lewis, one of the world's foremost
authorities on the Middle East, who rejects this thesis' validity for
the region. What was true during the Cold War does not apply to Iran,
says Lewis.
"There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and
other governments with nuclear weapons," wrote Lewis in The Wall Street
Journal on August 8. "This difference is expressed in what can only be
described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This
worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and
even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the
policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples ... School textbooks tell
young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil
enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges
of martyrdom."
He concludes that if Iran has nuclear weapons, its leaders will not
adopt the restrictions accepted by the heads of the other nuclear
states. There is great concern, he writes, that after arming themselves
with nuclear bombs, the ayatollahs will launch them at Israel.
"A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the
immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr.
Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines."
Lewis discusses two possible deterrent factors against Iranian use of
nuclear weapons: "The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel
would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is
that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel
against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made
the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear
holocaust in Israel."
In referring to the certainty that the destruction of Israel would also
result in the deaths of millions of Palestinians, Lewis uses the
example of Al-Qaida's 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania. These attacks killed a few American diplomats and hundreds of
Muslims. Lewis writes: "Even in the past it was clear that terrorists
claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering
large numbers of fellow Muslims."
"The second deterrent - the threat of direct retaliation on Iran - is,
as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that
plagues parts of the Islamic world today .... This complex has become
even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic
vision ... for Shi'ite Muslims [this means] the long-awaited return of
the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over
evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers
clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle
has already begun and is indeed well advanced," writes Lewis.
"In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked
so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time,
there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the
final destination of the dead - hell for the infidels, and heaven for
the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint;
it is an inducement."
A rational leadership
This is Lewis' apocalyptic theory. Frightening, but not necessarily
valid. Lewis' thesis is based on generalizations and projections - from
individual cases of suicide bombers to the national level - and it
ignores our historical experience regarding the behavior of the Iranian
leadership in previous conflicts.
Up until a few years ago, Lewis' theories were accepted as valid and as
a basis for American policy in the Middle East. However, after he
"abandoned academic caution" following September 11, in the words of
his critics, his opinions have become very controversial among Middle
East scholars.
Lewis was one of the first to pressure the U.S. administration into
embarking on a post-September 11 armed conflict against Saddam Hussein.
Lewis was also an important player in the theory that after the war, it
would be possible to establish a democratic regime in Iraq.
Without getting into the debates between Lewis and his critics, it is
clear his view and analysis of our region largely suffers from obsolete
thinking. In light of that we should examine the thesis of the Iranian
apocalypse. Lewis states that just as Muslim terrorists were willing to
strike Western targets even though they knew many Muslims would be
killed, the Iranian leaders would not hesitate to strike at Israel and
kill millions of Muslims. That is a projection from the individual to
the national level, and is not necessarily valid. What a single suicide
bomber is willing to do does not prove anything about the decisions of
a national leadership.
Past experience shows that the radical Iranian regime, headed by the
most extreme of them all, Ayatollah Khomeini, behaved with absolute
rationality at the moment of truth. That was the case during the
Iran-Iraq war. Khomeini declared he would never sign a cease-fire
agreement with Iraq until it surrendered. However, after dozens of
Iraqi missiles began striking Tehran and thousands of residents were
harmed, Khomeini changed his position and signed a cease-fire agreement
with Saddam Hussein.
In that case, the missiles were conventional. It is almost certain that
when the threat of Israeli reprisal involves nuclear missiles, the
Iranian leaders will refrain from using nuclear weapons.
There is no Iranian national interest that could justify the country's
total destruction. Lewis' claim, that the destruction of Iran could be
justified by an apocalyptic worldview, does not accord completely with
the assumption that the Iranians, in spite of being Muslims, are not
fundamentally different from other people in the world.
We can assume that as opposed to Lewis' assertions, it is possible to
build a stable system of future nuclear deterrence between Israel and
Iran. This will of course require changes in Israel's nuclear policy
and a transition to open nuclear deterrence. In addition, Israel will
have to build a reliable second-strike capability, which has to a great
extent been completed with the acquisition of the Dolphin submarine.
Mutual deterrence will be based on new rules of the game, with Israel
making its red lines clear to Iran. For example, Iran will be made
aware that the moment a missile is detected heading westward from its
territory, the Israeli nuclear response will be automatically activated
- without waiting for the missile to land, and without examining
whether it is nuclear. Moreover, it will be clear to Iran that even if
it were to surprise Israel and strike it without being detected in
advance, Israel would still have enough nuclear missiles to destroy all
of Iran.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/759746.html
MainPage
http://www.rense.com
.
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, warrior of Thor" |
|
| Title: Re: very interesting peoplez !!! |
10 Sep 2006 11:22:01 AM |
|
|
Ze Truly Wondrous Last 41 Dayz.·:*¨¨*:·. ♥©®™:
Stay well away from all of the Middle East, peoplez -- unless U want to
be a victim of radiation poisoning !!!!
All the sick glory of morontheism, all in one.
--
Thurisaz, warrior of Thor, natural enemy of morontheism
The judgment of morontheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
very interesting article, peoplez ~ well worth a read !!! Preventing
a VERY INTERESTING LETTER TO THE CONCORD MONITOR, PEOPLEZ !!!
very interesting, peoplez ;-)
another very interesting article from Op Ed News, peoplez ! Pleaze read ! HOOROO !
Interesting article from the El Paso Times website, peoplez !!!! FRICK yeah & HOOROO !!!!
Interesting article, peoplez ! Pleaze read ! HOOROO !
FELIZ NAVIDAD to all of my favorite peoplez !!!! ;-)
Oh well, it's HOOROO / Toodles again to all my favorite peoplez ;-)
| FRICK !!!!!!!!!! It looks like the proverbial is gonna hit the fan at lot sooner than expected, peoplez !!!!
What will happen on 6/6/6, peoplez ?!??!?!?
The newzwirez r overflowing, peoplez !!! so i'll get my HOOROO to all of my favorite peoplez in nice 'n' early !!!!
HOOROO TO ALL OF MY FAVORITE PEOPLEZ FROM UNCLE WALLY !!!!
oh well it'z that time of the day once again to say to world famous word HOOROO to all of my favorite peoplez out there in APN land, adios amigos, ciao bella, sayonara, joy gin, aufwiedersehen, au revoir, aloha, yassis, FRICK yeah & much much more !!
Oh well, peoplez ;-), yeppers it'z that time of the day once again for your dear old Uncle Wally to say yet again HOOROO to all of my favorite peoplez out there in APN land -- HOOROO John F Lemke, Randy, Sandy, Eric, Ricky, Leigh Ballaam, Marvin the
=?utf-8?q?climate_change_peoplez_(remember,_peoplez,_that_we_can_no_longer_say_"Global_Warming"_coz_it's_not_politically_or_technically_correct,_it'll_be_a_mixture_of_global_warming_&_global_cooling_plus_a_lot_of_other_very_nasty_things_including_ris
|
|
|
