• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Israel be required to sign the NPT? [W:348]

Should Israel be required to sign the NPT


  • Total voters
    41
Hell yes.. since the west almost "requires" countries like Iran and Pakistan to sign up, then why not Israel? After all Israel has actually sold nuclear tech to a hostile nation.. Iran and Pakistan has not..
India has not signed and neither has Pakistan.
Pakistan has shared nuclear technology with Iran and Syria. Where do you think Iran and Syria got their info, aside from N Korea.
 
I saw a story that talked about how the U.S. government recently released classified documents on Israel's nuclear program. Since its obvious that Israel has a nuclear weapons program, should they be required to sign the NPT?

Not in the current state. You have to remember that they have neighbors that would march in and wipe them out, if they had the strength to do so. Having nukes is one way they can maintain their sovereignty and safety.

If the landscape were to change, that is, if they were to find acceptance among their neighbors and be recognized as a nation etc etc, THEN I think your question would be open for discussion.

Good topic.
 
What ally? Israel? HAHAHAHA you have got to be kidding. Israel is no ally of the US.. at best a tolerated accomplice in a sea of hostile fish. Allies dont attack your military. Allies dont spy on you and plant moles in your intelligence organisations. Allies dont assassinate people in friendly countries.

Didn't the US spy on Germany? We're still allies. Nations spy on each other. It's not that big of a deal.

Much as it displeases Muslims around the world, the US/UK and Israel are strong allies, and will continue to be so for a long time.
 
To the bolded, yes you DID!

Right here!!!!

Originally Posted by joko104
And Ukraine is paying for it now in deaths and being militarily defeated and, essentially, eliminated as a country. If Ukraine has 6 nuclear warheads there wouldn't be a Russian soldier in Ukraine now.

If Israel gave up their atomic weapons they slaughtered. But plenty of people want exactly that. Curiously, increasingly it has become liberals who support making that possible.

Once again, a lie. Nothing in that message of mine advocated Ukraine using nuclear weapons.
 
I saw a story that talked about how the U.S. government recently released classified documents on Israel's nuclear program. Since its obvious that Israel has a nuclear weapons program, should they be required to sign the NPT?

In my opinion, the answer is yes. Israel should be required to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If everyone else has to sign such, why shouldn't Israel? During the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, Israel used white phosphorus, a chemical element which burns the skin when used as an incendiary weapon against the enemy. Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of State, admonished Israel against using such a weapon in that war with Hezbollah. Many Lebanese were treated at the hospital for burns caused by white phosphorus. There should be no exceptions to the rule of NPT.
 
In my opinion, the answer is yes. Israel should be required to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If everyone else has to sign such, why shouldn't Israel? During the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, Israel used white phosphorus, a chemical element which burns the skin when used as an incendiary weapon against the enemy. Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of State, admonished Israel against using such a weapon in that war with Hezbollah. Many Lebanese were treated at the hospital for burns caused by white phosphorus. There should be no exceptions to the rule of NPT.

anything signed under duress is nonbinding
why would any nation abide by the terms of a treaty that they did not execute it of their own volition
 
I already said yes, why is this still being debated?
 
Yep and certain technologies were sold, just not the whole "hog". The end of aparthied fixed that problem.
Nuke technology was transferred from one apartheid state to another. At least South Africa stopped its apartheid, Isreal has not.
 
Yes, they should be required to sign it just like any other nation.
 
We as the west, the supposed "good guys".

So you're asking why should the West trust its own nations such as the US and Israel with nuclear weapons?
What kind of ridiculous question is that?
And why do you believe that you speak in the name of the West? You who detest it? You who hate America and Israel with great passion and oppose anything Western, siding with the darkest and most backwards regimes such as the Iranian one or practically anyone who opposes the West? Give me a break. :lol:
 
What other nations are "required" to sign such treaty?

Gotcha. It's voluntary, unless you want sanctions. Any nation that refuses should expect such. Thanks for pointing that out. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. No sanctions for one nation when none are given to another.
 
Gotcha. It's voluntary, unless you want sanctions. Any nation that refuses should expect such. Thanks for pointing that out. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. No sanctions for one nation when none are given to another.

That's a more reasonable approach.
If you want to place sanctions on your own as an individual on India, Israel and Pakistan for not signing the NPT then do go ahead and do so, I don't know any country that actually will.
 
That's a more reasonable approach.
If you want to place sanctions on your own as an individual on India, Israel and Pakistan for not signing the NPT then do go ahead and do so, I don't know any country that actually will.

Then I trust you will do your part to keep in check any of those in your country who would think of striking nations developing their own.
 
In my opinion, the answer is yes. Israel should be required to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If everyone else has to sign such, why shouldn't Israel? During the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, Israel used white phosphorus, a chemical element which burns the skin when used as an incendiary weapon against the enemy. Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of State, admonished Israel against using such a weapon in that war with Hezbollah. Many Lebanese were treated at the hospital for burns caused by white phosphorus. There should be no exceptions to the rule of NPT.

WP does not constitute a chemical weapon per se, it is used to light the battlefield when it's dark. It's not even unlawful.
It is also not very effective as a weapon since it's dropping down at a ridiculously low speed, and a regular half-ton bomb will be far more devastating.
So I don't know what you're talking about, clearly not what its connection to the NPT is.
 
Then I trust you will do your part to keep in check any of those in your country who would think of striking nations developing their own.

It doesn't work that way I'm afraid.
Leadership in Israel, as well as in other Western nations, ain't going to allow a backwards fanatical regime that is the no.1 sponsor of terrorism on the planet and that doesn't miss an opportunity to call for the "death" of other nations have nuclear weapons of its own thank you very much.
 
I saw a story that talked about how the U.S. government recently released classified documents on Israel's nuclear program. Since its obvious that Israel has a nuclear weapons program, should they be required to sign the NPT?
What is the content of the treaty and does Israel officially have nukes for this to be a topic?
 
I`d like it if they would.

The treaty opens windows for nuclear cooperation in the fields of science and technology.

France, Japan, Germany, USA, India and others have a long lasting history of cooperation on this ground that have produced alot of scientific advances.

And I am not just talking about nuclear power, but also in the field of medicine.
 
If you believe in sovereignty the only answer to "requirement" is no.


I see ignorance is alive and well on this site, on this subject.
And that ignorance comes from those who believe a non-threatening Nation should be "required".

But AIPAC cannot control Congress forever.
:doh
They do not control Congress.





As long as the USA "sanctions" Iran for allegedNuke research, it presents itself as the maximum hypocrite for not insisting upon Israeli compliance with an International agreement expressly regarding Israel's nuclear weapons program.
:doh
There is no hypocrisy.

As Apocalypse said.
It doesn't work that way I'm afraid.
Leadership in Israel, as well as in other Western nations, ain't going to allow a backwards fanatical regime that is the no.1 sponsor of terrorism on the planet and that doesn't miss an opportunity to call for the "death" of other nations have nuclear weapons of its own thank you very much.


The USA should initiate teh same sanctions against Israel just to demonstrate that the sanctions are "just and fair" and not a naked political ploy discriminately aimed for covert purposes. Israel needs to comply.
Holy ****. Besides being unwise, that would not demonstrate such.





It makes no sense that we should shield Israel's nuclear weapons program when they won't stop settlement expansion when we ask them to do so. That is totally stupid on our part. I guess you can't blame them for taking advantage of us in that way tho. Why do we keep allowing such nonsense?
:doh
The two are not even comparable.


The thing is this, we do all this stuff for them, but when we ask them to do something as simple as stopping the settlement expansion, they spit in our face. It is totally amazing that we allow this type of thing to continue.
Stop the exaggerations.
No one spit in our face.


Your statement runs contrary to the alleged secret agreement that the U.S. has with Israel to shield Israel's nuclear program. Look everyone knows that the U.S. does not honest broker when it comes to Israel. It's hypocrisy pure and simple.
:doh There is no hypocrisy.


Go peddle your phoney baloney somewhere else
That would be your baloney.
What you think you provided means, and what it actually means are two different things.





Its not so much a case about whether they are the same but whether they should be held to the same standard (espicially if one is to enforce said standards on the other)
If Israel engaged in the same quality and quantity of threats and behavior that Iran does, you may have a point. As it is, you do not.

Which in reality, does make it a case of not being the same.





but until it is a signatory to that agreement then its voice, its view should never be heard about another nation seeking nuclear capacity
Bs. They don't just have a right, but it can be said it is a duty to speak out against a known hostile nation obtaining nukes.
 
ISI involvement is a given, but ISI does not mean government. The ISI is pretty much rogue and has been for a very long time. Just look at their support in hiding Bin Laden... next to their military academy pretty much.
The Abbottabadd Military Academy is an institution of the Pakistani military, not the ISI.
 
If you believe in sovereignty the only answer to "requirement" is no.


And that ignorance comes from those who believe a non-threatening Nation should be "required".

:doh
They do not control Congress.





:doh
There is no hypocrisy.

As Apocalypse said.


Holy ****. Besides being unwise, that would not demonstrate such.





:doh
The two are not even comparable.


Stop the exaggerations.
No one spit in our face.


:doh There is no hypocrisy.


That would be your baloney.
What you think you provided means, and what it actually means are two different things.






If Israel engaged in the same quality and quantity of threats and behavior that Iran does, you may have a point. As it is, you do not.

Which in reality, does make it a case of not being the same.





Bs. They don't just have a right, but it can be said it is a duty to speak out against a known hostile nation obtaining nukes.
that's the height of hypocrisy
if israel is seeking to reign in nuclear proliferation it should sign the NPT
and comply with its terms
until then, its views should carry NO weight on the matter

and if it truly wants to deny iran nuclear arms, it should abandon its own nuclear arms
then, iran would have no more justification to attain nuclear parity
israel is an international hypocrite on this issue
 
Well, I mean you can ridicule the notion by referring to it as nirvana. Or you can embrace it and lobby for it.
Total nuclear disarmament has not occurred during the past 70 years of the nuclear age. There is no international instrument currently available to remedy this situation. So yes, at this juncture total nuclear disarmament is a Utopian dream. That said, I would totally support such an initiative.

It's not an impossibility, nor are Einstein's calculations on world war, if we don't.
It is possible, but not likely. Einstein had his share of foibles. The cosmological constant and quantum mechanics come to mind.
 
Yes, but if they do not sign it is no disaster, it is not like they would be willing to share their knowledge with countries that are untrustworthy. Also, they would not do it because that would not be very good for their relationship with the United States.
 
Back
Top Bottom