newsheadlines

Israel has nukes. Why can't Iran?

Why is the United States deciding who can and can't have nuclear weapons when it is the only nation in the world to have dropped atomic bombs on innocent human populations. In 1945, hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women and children melted into the ground where they stood from America's radioactive bombs. To this day, survivors suffer from crippling burns, deformities and cancers. These radioactive crimes against humanity are on the conscience of every American citizen who sponsored them with their labour and tax dollars.

The United States is at the top of the list of nations that should be banned from possessing nuclear weapons.

Israel Has Nukes - Thu Mar 19 2009 by J. Diaz

After years of ignoring the Israeli nuclear program—which was denounced in 1986 by former nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu—the United States' Department of Defense has acknowledged Israel 's nuclear power status for the first time.

Israel has neither confirmed nor denied the existence of its own nuclear arsenal, but page 37 of the US Joint Forces Command report recognizes the fact, putting it in the same group as Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, Russia, along with an "emerging Iran," Taiwan, and Japan having "the capability to develop nuclear weapons quickly."

According to "The Samson Option" report—an investigative article written by reporter Seymour Hersh—Israel may have 200 to 400 atomic warheads, ready to use...the subject has been dodged forever by the US government, including President Barack Obama, who recently ignored the question when asked by White House correspondent Helen Thomas.

Hypocrisy, Favoritism and Fear-Mongering: Why the U.S. Position on Nukes is Totally Bankrupt - April 10, 2009 by Allison Kilkenny, AletNet

Obama says we must expand drone operations in Pakistan lest the Taliban get a nuclear weapon. Pakistani author Tariq Ali tells me this is a joke. President Obama has seized upon North Korea's missile launch to talk about a new approach to nuclear disarmament. Most people agree with Obama's vague rhetoric. Sure, we shouldn't blow up the planet. Yes, nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous. But beyond that, the rules for nuclear armament are very hazy. Who is eligible to pursue nuclear weapons depends on time, place, and what the United States can gain from allowing (or forbidding) nuclear ambitions.

Certainly, reducing armaments is the pathway to abolishing nuclear weapons. However, the United States has placed itself in the position of FAVORING and ALLOWING nuclear pursuits by certain countries like the United Kingdom, France, Israel, India, China, Russia ahead of other countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria.

The United States picks and chooses which countries can, and cannot, pursue nuclear technology. Whilst holding Kim Jong-Il's missiles just out of his reach, America gives an enthusiastic thumbs-up to Israel's possession of nuclear weapons in an extremely volatile region of the world. Soon after North Korea's missile launch, President Obama gave a speech in Prague during which he declared, "Rules must be binding ... Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." True, but what words? What are these rules, and why do sacred rules only apply to certain people and nations? Who can have missiles? Who can pursue nuclear technology, and why are 1,000-2,000 nukes on the U.S. and Russian sides any less dangerous than 5,000?

Furthermore, "nuclear" describes a range of pursuits from missiles and bombs to energy. Iran claims it wants nuclear energy to power its state, while Israel and the United States claim that Iran's true interests lie in nuking Israel off the map. Such a move would be pretty dumb, considering Tehran would be obliterated instantly during the retaliation, but there it is, the strange double standard, combined with vague guidelines: Israel is favored and allowed to have nukes, but Iran may not pursue nuclear power because the propoganda tells us that Iran's true intentions are to nuke Israel. And yes, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch document all kinds of human rights violations on the part of Israel that should lead us to believeIsrael too is a reactionary government incapable of living humanely with its neighbors, and therefore shouldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons, but never mind. Step aside: confusing standards to uphold here.

North Korea's pursuit of a missile is another illustration of such a variance in priorities. While certainly crazy, Kim Jong-Il is hardly a looming threat to the west. His sputtering rocket is the equivalent of a five-year-old's tantrum. He got the attention he's been craving, but he's unlikely to blast Alaska to smithereens. Call this the flexing-for-attention strategy. Sarah Palin needn't stakeout the coastline just yet.

I recently interviewed activist and author of several books, Tariq Ali, about the volatility at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Obama's rationale behind expanding the covert drone operation within Pakistan is that we can't let the Taliban get a nuclear weapon. (Pakistan is one of those "nuclear no-no" countries that we curse having the bomb). Mr. Ali very patiently explained to me how absurd this notion is: I think this is one of the stupidest, fear mongering things. It is true Pakistan is a nuclear state. It is also true that the Pakistani military is half a million strong, that these nuclear facilities are amongst the most heavily guarded facilities in the country, just like they are in the United States, in Israel, in India, in China, in Russia now. So the notion that any armed group of extremists could even get near these facilities is a joke!

All nuclear weapons require codes to be fired. These codes are now embedded in all these weapons. There's a handful of top military people who know what these codes are. There are also rumors, by the way, that the United States defense intelligence agency has its own personnel in there. So there is no problem on that front unless the Pakistani military splits. Were it to split, then all bets are off. And the only reason it would split is if the United States expanded the war into Pakistan, making it extremely difficult for lots of nationalist-minded military officers to go along with this. Because there is that current and they say, "Well, it is our country. Why is the United States using our military bases to bomb our own people?"