I would like to bring up a few historical cases for anyone that still thinks that it's irrational or implausible to think that Iran would hand over nuclear weapons to one of its many terrorist allies. First of all, the only reason that China is nuclear is because the USSR provided it with
immense assistance.
Quote:Wikipedia Wrote:
The Soviet Union provided assistance in the early Chinese program by sending advisers to help in the facilities devoted to fissile material production, and in October 1957 agreed to provide a prototype bomb, missiles, and related technology. The Chinese, who preferred to import technology and components to developing them within China, exported uranium to the Soviet Union, and the Soviets sent two R-2 missiles in 1958.
The USSR also helped North Korea develop nuclear weapons.
The only reason that Israel has nuclear weapons is because France provided it with the necessary infrastructure.
Whether or not these states would have succeeded in their nuclear ambitions without foreign help is irrelevant. The point is that there are documented cases of states giving nuclear weapons, or providing essential assistance for developing nuclear weapons, to their allies.
The reason that the MAD theory works is because all states, no matter how dangerous, are rational actors. Their primary goal is survival. Even the radical Islamic states are rational as are rogue states like North Korea.
Terrorist organizations are rational actors as well. However unlike states, nuclear deterrence theory doesn't apply to them them because you can't nuke a terrorist organization due to its thinly spread, global presence. For example, if you wanted to nuke al-Qaeda, where would you strike? Let me give you a
map of where al-Qaeda is located to help you out:
The MAD theory does not apply to to global terrorist organizations because a state can't strike back against them. Conventional warfare does not work against nonconventional enemies; that's why America fought the Taliban for thirteen years, the longest war in its history, and lost.
A terrorist organization like Hezbollah is a hybrid because it operates on the state level, but if it got the order from its boss, Iran, it could very well fire a nuke on Israel. I don't have a crystal ball, no one can really know, but I don't think this scenario is ludicrous like many of you are claiming.
This is why a nuclear Iran is a threat to the existence of Israel. I am sure that Israel will eventually resort to military action against Iran if all other options fail. To not do so would be akin to suicide. The only reason Bibi hasn't attacked Iran until now is because Obama won't let him. Obama built an election campaign around the fact that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning when even Kerry and Hilary Clinton were in favor, and thus the last thing he wants is to be responsible for yet another American war in the Middle East.
As Yoni Netanyahu said in the quotations I provided earlier, Israel is a small country that is surrounded by many enemies and unfortunately has no choice but to be dependent on a superpower. "So Bibi should stop being so disrespectful to the hand that feeds Israel then!" What would you do if your country's existence was threatened? "But it's not my country that is being threatened, it's
your country!" Really?
Iran and al-Qaeda have a long history together. Last I checked, al-Qaeda wants to destroy America.
For everyone here who finds admiration for Bibi Netanyahu abhorrent, then I hope what I've written here will help you understand. To some people he might seem like an ungrateful leech hellbent on killing as many Arabs as possible, but I see him as quite the opposite.
I wouldn't try to convince someone to abandon his political convictions any sooner than I would try to convince a religious person to abandon his belief in God. I'm writing this for anyone who is on the fence, is open minded, or wants to understand the Israeli point of view. The viewpoints that I've expressed are why myself and people like me applaud the bravery, backbone, and adherence to liberal democratic values of Bibi Netanyahu. The way I see it, he is exploring diplomatic routes to solve an existential threat to his country before resorting to the military route.
I remind you that America also acted controversially to potentially being "under the gun."
I'm going to bow out of this thread now. I've said more than enough. I tried to speak with people in this thread in a non-combative way, and I hope that those whom I engaged in dialogue with agree. I did this despite being deeply offended by certain notions exhibited here, among them that the IDF is like the SS or ISIS, or that Israel gives nothing in return for America's generosity. In regards to the latter claim,
Israel has made incredible contributions to humanity, in many fields, and it's only been around for about sixty years.
I joined this forum because it's a game community. If anyone thinks my motivation for defending Israel comes from anything other than love for the country that is home to my people, then I can assure you that this is not the case.