I think the whole idea is to never have to use it but to maintain a balance of some sort of peace based on the threat of its use. Peace through superiority? Doesn't seem to be working...


>>>>Maybe because Israel is not trying to obliterate the other countries surrounding her
>>>
>>>
>>>And for that reason, you're OK with a Middle Eastern country becoming a nuclear power?
>>>
>>>That doesn't add up for me. We should be interested in a nuclear free zone there. To me, we can't create a country, let them arm themselves, and gaurantee their superiority over their neighbors.
>>
>>You asked why Israel is getting a "pass" in why they don't get hammered for having a nuclear program. I gave you my thoughts on why. I also do not see Israel even with nuclear weapons as having much superiority over all the other middle-eastern countries combined with respect to which ones want to see the total destruction of Israel. They are only trying to guarantee their survival against those who want to destroy them. That IS the significant difference - their objective is self-defence versus the use of nuclear weapons or any other means for that matter by their enemies to take the offensive in destroying them.
>
>I have no disgareement.
>But I do find it curious that any nuclear weapon is for self defense when "the enemy" has none.
>The self defense angle worked USSR vs the-rest-of-us because there was "mutually assured destruction", fittingly acronymed "MAD".
>MAD isn't operational in the middle east.
>
>I wonder when Israel would actually use one, defensively?