Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Hmm, M-48 pattons versus T-72s?Vympel wrote: Turkey's different because it's conventional forces are actually able to attack the USSR and it's posiiton in NATO makes it obligated to join the war
And do you really think Israel would ever launch a nuke against the USSR in any situation unless it was nuked first?
Oh that would be most amusingMKSheppard wrote:
Hmm, M-48 pattons versus T-72s?
In general, yes, but in Israel's case, it's not of much substance. It's totally not in Israel's interests to risk Soviet nuclear retaliation (nothing to gain, everything to lose), and the Soviet's would never devote a few warheads to smashing Israel without good reason.Hmm point, but Nuclear powers generally are useful to have on your side,
and are thorns in your stratergic planning if they're not.
Especially if it was a monkey T-72, and a M48A5, the M48 could easily win.Vympel wrote:
Oh that would be most amusing
The Soviets devoted warheads to smashing every remotely developed nation on earth, least Argentina and Brazil go to war over their new Baltic colonies. Just how many warheads though depended on how great the threat was, Israel would be a major threat. While it couldn't project much power it has a major industrial base and would be under little risk of being overrun in the post lay down world. So it has to die from nukes.In general, yes, but in Israel's case, it's not of much substance. It's totally not in Israel's interests to risk Soviet nuclear retaliation (nothing to gain, everything to lose), and the Soviet's would never devote a few warheads to smashing Israel without good reason.
But it won't be. It'll be a T-72B encased in Kontakts.Sea Skimmer wrote:Especially if it was a monkey T-72, and a M48A5, the M48 could easily win.
So basically Israel was targeted irrespective of whether it was neutral or enemy.The Soviets devoted warheads to smashing every remotely developed nation on earth, least Argentina and Brazil go to war over their new Baltic colonies. Just how many warheads though depended on how great the threat was, Israel would be a major threat. While it couldn't project much power it has a major industrial base and would be under little risk of being overrun in the post lay down world. So it has to die from nukes.
Hey, there's a point where you have too many nuclear warheads withVympel wrote: Where did you hear this? I'd be interested to see the warhead tasking for such a strike- my initial reaction would be that it was impossible to achieve. The only Soviet nuclear war plan I know of is what the Pentagon called RSIOP.
But its all a trick *deflates decoy M48A5 as an M48 fitted with an upgunned M1A2SEP turret and a foot of hull appliqué slowly crawls along a hard surface road out from behind a berm*Vympel wrote:
But it won't be. It'll be a T-72B encased in Kontakts.
Basically, the Soviets even planned for a counter industry strike in there own Warsaw pact allies if the war was going strategic nuclear. But Israel being a friend of the US would have increased the severity of the attack, most nations where looking at one nuke on there capital and maybe one or two more on say an oil field or port and that's it. Nothing vastly destructive but enough to cause a depression and remove and ability to aid the developed western nations recovery.So basically Israel was targeted irrespective of whether it was neutral or enemy.
Stuart Slade and a few others. As for warhead numbers, as noted above they weren't going to try and wipe out every city and industrial target everywhere or anything like that. All of Africa could likely be covered by just a handful of MIRV'ed SLBM's or ICBM's for example. Though I'd bet they'd have used their older large warhead low accuracy SLBM's for that kind of work, while Israel and many other places could be hit with IRBM's.Where did you hear this? I'd be interested to see the warhead tasking for such a strike- my initial reaction would be that it was impossible to achieve.
Why didn't I see that one coming .... *waves surrender flag*Sea Skimmer wrote:But its all a trick *deflates decoy M48A5 as an M48 fitted with an upgunned M1A2SEP turret and a foot of hull appliqué slowly crawls along a hard surface road out from behind a berm*
Allies as well? Jesus.Basically, the Soviets even planned for a counter industry strike in there own Warsaw pact allies if the war was going strategic nuclear. But Israel being a friend of the US would have increased the severity of the attack, most nations where looking at one nuke on there capital and maybe one or two more on say an oil field or port and that's it. Nothing vastly destructive but enough to cause a depression and remove and ability to aid the developed western nations recovery.
Ah ok. The only Soviet nuke war plan I know is RSIOP- and very little at that.Israel though would be getting a full treatment with both cities, military bases, all nuclear powers would get a heavy treatment least they build new bombs. The Soviets believed in winning a nuclear war not so much during the exchange, but in the rebuilding effort.
I was operating under the idea that an ICBM would be necessary, but I forgot that the SS-20 and SS-22 IRBMs were perfectly capable of the job, but that depends if the USSR tasked any within range of Israel- also by the time Israel had Jericho 2s, Soviet IRBMs were being destroyed under the INF Treaty. Regardless, Israel's Jericho 2 missile base is an extremely soft target- just TELs in caves- a super accurate ICBM warhead would be overkill.Stuart Slade and a few others. As for warhead numbers, as noted above they weren't going to try and wipe out every city and industrial target everywhere or anything like that. All of Africa could likely be covered by just a handful of MIRV'ed SLBM's or ICBM's for example. Though I'd bet they'd have used their older large warhead low accuracy SLBM's for that kind of work, while Israel and many other places could be hit with IRBM's.
Poland was an empire once, and it gets annoying when history is repeated.Vympel wrote: Allies as well? Jesus.
I was operating under the idea that an ICBM would be necessary, but I forgot that the SS-20 and SS-22 IRBMs were perfectly capable of the job, but that depends if the USSR tasked any within range of Israel- also by the time Israel had Jericho 2s, Soviet IRBMs were being destroyed under the INF Treaty.
Caves can be rather strong, your going to need a quite close hit, and anyway by the 1980's destroying any fixed nuclear missile site was getting fairly easy. The IDF might have intended to play something like the proposed great shell game for MX, with a few missiles being moved around between a great many moderately hardened positions. Though they don't really have the space to do that right, the US plan was 200 missiles and 4000 bunkers. But if they did have such a plan they've likely scrapped it for cost by now.
Regardless, Israel's Jericho 2 missile base is an extremely soft target- just TELs in caves- a super accurate ICBM warhead would be overkill.
As SeaSkimmer pointed out, certain of these weapons would have been more expensive to scrap or store than ship.
So that somehow means that Israel should get them for free, right?
Irrelevant; Turkey was still beset by socialist movements and sympathies, just as more of the rest of the Middle East.Which was not successful.
Unlike most others, the Saudis weren’t free to strike out on their own just after British government officially disengaged.So what?
Libya, Algeria, Lebanon, Turkey, and Iran all spring to mind as having been more friendly with the Soviet Union than the Western powers before either Western intervention or occupation.Most nations? Hardly. Syria and Egypt spring immediately to mind- what others?
He doesn’t have to be following Soviet thought on a conscious level to have drifted into the socialist camp and paved the way for closer contact with Moscow. He was a liability.No actually, other countries business interests. The British controlled practically all of Iran's oil industry. Regardless, you have not proven he was influenced by Soviet thought.
Britain’s economy was savaged by debt at the time this all took place; they were extremely wary of losing any more concessions in former colonial territories.Heaven forbid that they be reasonable and seek to renegotiate the unjust terms upon which they ground Iran under their heel economically rather than just overthrowing him out of unfounded communist paranoia.
The Middle East was in danger of drifting toward Communism and planting itself in the Soviet camp. While it’s unlikely that Red Army tanks would have been trundling down the streets of Baghdad, it’s also unlikely that we’d have been able to make strong inroads very easily had we not attempted to arrest and challenge the advance of Soviet thought and assistance.My assertions are merely that the Middle East was not a communist dominion. That is patently obvious looking at the history. You have a handful of nations as well, not a 'preponderance'.
Which, aside from AH-1s and F-15 computers, don’t say very much other than that we got rid of a bit of equipment unlikely to find much use anyway.Red herring. These are 1990-2001 arms sales.
The point is that the assistance offered between 1999 and 2001 is comparatively miniscule as compared to the larger figure on which your argument is based.
Red herring. You asked for proof of gifts, I provided it.
You asked me to prove that Israel buys American arms, and that they pay for them. I proved that they do. Whether or not they use the money we gave them, some “opportunity costs” of that aid are still recouped.
Not what you were asked to prove.
Yet you asked for general proof that some costs would be recouped. Math is unnecessary.No math.
It allows us to create broader, better-informed analysis.No, it's help if it actually gets you something. What has it gotten?
But that’s the point of all relationships in the international realm: both sides further their own interests to the point that they are mutually supporting at critical moments. Israel’s efforts were still contributing to an effort on which the U.S. reputation rested.Considering that this odd report, if true, is merely proof that Israel looks after it's own interests, this is irrelevant.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003 ... last_x.htmProve they were specifically targeted.
Of course there is a logical assumption. You are honestly confident that the Middle East in general and Holy Land in particular aren’t potential resource pits for international terrorists?There is no such thing as a logical assumption. You either have evidence, or you do not.
My statement: “So Israeli contributions are somehow negated? I think not.”Another false analogy. Germany and Italy's military ties were far closer than Israel and the United States, and that you can make this comparison knowing full well that Israel never participated in Vietnam is just amazing.
Ah. I misunderstood you; I thought: “Or the Israelis providing the Soviets with the same information. Hence, net zero gain, try again,” meant that you were suggesting Israel had sent American weapons to the Soviet Union.The Syrians/Egyptians captured Israeli war material, mostly tanks. These went to the Soviet Union for testing.
I have already conceded this point.Where have you done math?
Because it’s very telling: he’s arbitrarily taking certain figures of money that went to Israel and assigning it a “lost opportunity cost” regardless of its origins. It’s spurious academics. On the same grounds, I could argue that charity must be prohibited because we lose millions annually and that the Catholic Church must for that reason be declared Public Enemy Number One.Nitpicking one component of an entire list does not a rebuttal make. You continue to trumpet one bit of disigenuous reasoning as carte blanche to dismiss an entire list. This is the classic tactic of the nitpicker.
Certainly I have. Prove to me that if we had not financed the Netherlands or Belgium to the same extent that we did, the Cold War would not have been won.You've provided nothing to refute.
Which is exceedingly nebulous and highly biased. He’s throwing in the kitchen sink when it comes to Israel, rather than mere government spending.There is no way to salvage a figure of $1.6 trillion because you trumpet about ONE component about charity? This is called nitpicking.
Tell that to Osama Bin Laden.So the Arabs would prefer for Palestine to be occupied by their hated enemies? Please.
Look at Iran. You need to ask why those nations want to deal with nuclear energy if it’s uneconomical to do so – especially because none of their leadership was been consistently interested in long-term development.Don't try- this was in relation to power plants, and your assertion that NO nation with oil would ever build one for a use for weapons- on the contrary, their primary use is power, as well as for research, as well as for nuclear material.
Your argument disconnects somewhere between “desire” and “capability”. The desire for chemical and biological weapons speaks of a desire for nuclear weapons. Hiding chemical and biological weapons raises the question of whether nuclear arms (or components) were hidden. Giving Iraq biological and chemical precursors is not giving them nuclear weapons however.*If* your reasoning that chemical and biological and nuclear weapons were all the same and pursuing/having some must mean pursuing/having others, then, by that logic, the US was giving it's tacit approval to Iraq's nuclear program by aiding them with chem and bio weapons. After all, if you think that's true- surely the US government would, no?
A second reactor would only have widened the experience pool.They already had that with the Soviet reactor.
And yet feasibility studies were being conducted before that time.No, he said the Israeli bombing prompted the program.
You can’t say that for certain – it’s contradicted by the fact that Iraq was already launching studies in the first place.
Whether Iraq would have gone down that road or not, the bombing served little practical purpose. Whether it was some great 'crime' on the part of Israel is not the issue- it was counterproductive, and not useful.
The entire situation still relates perfectly well to the dispersal of Communist thought and encouragement.No, you quoted the secondary definition while ignoring the primary definitions (note the plural) specifically related to Vietnam and Communism, which is the issue and the context in which you brought it up.
To some extent, it’s behind the theory of democratization today:It 'existed'- past tense, as it has been thoroughly discredited, in the minds of Cold War paranoids, and that's about it, as amply evidenced by the actual history.
The ANC is an avowedly Communistic organization with a strong socialist platform. Rhodesia’s fall made their job of forcing change in South Africa that much easier.I'm sorry, the ANC instituted a communist state ... when? The fall of South Vietnam resulted in the fall of other 'free' (in the loosest sense of the word) countries when?
"Avowedly commie" my ass!Axis Kast wrote: The ANC is an avowedly Communistic organization with a strong socialist platform. Rhodesia’s fall made their job of forcing change in South Africa that much easier.
That still doesn't provide a reason as to why they must be given away free of charge- regardless, it is a quite legitimate item to include.Axis Kast wrote:
As SeaSkimmer pointed out, certain of these weapons would have been more expensive to scrap or store than ship.
Irrelevant? Are you serious? The reality of the situation was that irrespective of any socialist movements or sympathies, they were FAILURES.Irrelevant; Turkey was still beset by socialist movements and sympathies, just as more of the rest of the Middle East.
It doesn't matter- again, the reality of the situation was that the Middle East was no communist dominion, and to suggest, as you seem to be doing, that the House of Saud would've done so if only they were free to is patently absurd.Unlike most others, the Saudis weren?t free to strike out on their own just after British government officially disengaged.
And Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and whatever Oman/UAE were called back then (if they were any different) were not. I'm not seeing any huge preponderance.Libya, Algeria, Lebanon, Turkey, and Iran all spring to mind as having been more friendly with the Soviet Union than the Western powers before either Western intervention or occupation.
Paranoia. There is zero reason to assume he would've come in closer contact with Moscow, and no evidence of any such intentions whatsoever.He doesn?t have to be following Soviet thought on a conscious level to have drifted into the socialist camp and paved the way for closer contact with Moscow. He was a liability.
That change most certainly not being a Communist South Africa.
Britain?s economy was savaged by debt at the time this all took place; they were extremely wary of losing any more concessions in former colonial territories.
I also point you to the argument above: Mossadeq?s actions opened new doors for possible financial engagement with the Soviet Union.
This is not about challenging Soviet thought and assistance- it's Israel's contribution in that regard, and the value of the billions in arms and aid thrown at it going towards that purpose. Aid which continues without any conditions being placed whatsoever. You'd be hardpressed to argue that Israel *helped* American relations with rich Arab allies, especially Saudi Arabia, and we've already seen how much cash they cost. The Middle East was not in danger of being in the Soviet camp- this is borne out of the same simplistic 'Domino Theory' nonsense that was already proven rubbish in Vietnam. The fact is that the countries in the region are substantially differnet in hosts of different ways that preclude any such naive notion as the entire region allying itself with the Soviets.The Middle East was in danger of drifting toward Communism and planting itself in the Soviet camp. While it?s unlikely that Red Army tanks would have been trundling down the streets of Baghdad, it?s also unlikely that we?d have been able to make strong inroads very easily had we not attempted to arrest and challenge the advance of Soviet thought and assistance.
For free.Which, aside from AH-1s and F-15 computers, don?t say very much other than that we got rid of a bit of equipment unlikely to find much use anyway.
That's free assistance only. Numerous other discounted purchases were made, and of course, there's that $3-5 billion in military aid they get that's oh so useful.
The point is that the assistance offered between 1999 and 2001 is comparatively miniscule as compared to the larger figure on which your argument is based.
No, I asked you to demonstrate how those costs are recouped, and in what amounts. I know very well Israel buys American arms: with American money and discounted prices.
You asked me to prove that Israel buys American arms, and that they pay for them. I proved that they do. Whether or not they use the money we gave them, some ?opportunity costs? of that aid are still recouped.
No, I asked for specifics, not general proof.
Yet you asked for general proof that some costs would be recouped. Math is unnecessary.
Considering the utterly execrable state of intelligence that we've seen demonstrated time and again for years, I'm just not seeing this better-informed analysis.It allows us to create broader, better-informed analysis.
And would've been contributing regardless even if the US didn't provide such aid.But that?s the point of all relationships in the international realm: both sides further their own interests to the point that they are mutually supporting at critical moments. Israel?s efforts were still contributing to an effort on which the U.S. reputation rested.
Assumption- one government convoy looks much like another. Does every HMMWV blown up in Iraq have the guy pulling the trigger saying "there's PFC Smith"?http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003 ... last_x.htm
Certain groups claimed responsibility for the attacks.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7017822.htm
A remote-control suicide bomb was involved. Somebody pulled the trigger with that vehicle in mind.
No, there is not.Of course there is a logical assumption.
You didn't say 'resource pit', you said 'crossroads'. By which you implied that Palestine (not the Middle East) is some sort of terror central for everyone. It ain't. That honor goes to Saudi Arabia, and outside of the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Palestine agenda is specifically directed against Israel.You are honestly confident that the Middle East in general and Holy Land in particular aren?t potential resource pits for international terrorists?
Yes I know. This reduces the force of your bald-faced false analogy how?
My statement: ?So Israeli contributions are somehow negated? I think not.?
Your response: ?I think so. Israeli capture of Soviet war material had no effect on the outcome of the war.?
You argued that the Israeli contribution was negated (and therefore meaningless) because we lost the war in Vietnam.
Heaven forbid that in such analysis we recognize there are DEGREES of aid necessitated by the level of alliance between the two countries tha twould influence judging whether the contributions were meaningless, right?By your logic, German aid to Italy between 1940 and 1944 was also meaningless, since the Axis Powers lost.
And vice versa. That is a net zero gain- if anything, I'd be more worried about the Soviets crawling all over full-standard M60s than Americans crawling all over whatever export-standard tank the Israelis towed today.Ah. I misunderstood you; I thought: ?Or the Israelis providing the Soviets with the same information. Hence, net zero gain, try again,? meant that you were suggesting Israel had sent American weapons to the Soviet Union.
Regardless however, this doesn?t negate the value of Israeli aid. We still obtained examples of Soviet equipment.
Well, the Catholic Church is a menace so I think that'd be a good idea, but that aside, it is not honest or reasonable to take one piece of reasoning and apply it to the entire article. It's 'telling' that he was wrong on one count, nothing more.Because it?s very telling: he?s arbitrarily taking certain figures of money that went to Israel and assigning it a ?lost opportunity cost? regardless of its origins. It?s spurious academics. On the same grounds, I could argue that charity must be prohibited because we lose millions annually and that the Catholic Church must for that reason be declared Public Enemy Number One.
In order to do that, you need to provide me with figures and such as this article has in regards to Belgium and the Netherlands for me to look at, and then, I may or may not agree with you.
Certainly I have. Prove to me that if we had not financed the Netherlands or Belgium to the same extent that we did, the Cold War would not have been won.
Government spending is enough.
Which is exceedingly nebulous and highly biased. He?s throwing in the kitchen sink when it comes to Israel, rather than mere government spending.
I was unaware he was a fan of the Israeli presence on their holy sites?
Tell that to Osama Bin Laden.
Iran is probably pursuing nuclear weapons- I wouldn't be surprised. It's also quite possible they're building an NPP to generate power to export more oil, I don't know.Look at Iran. You need to ask why those nations want to deal with nuclear energy if it?s uneconomical to do so ? especially because none of their leadership was been consistently interested in long-term development.
There's no connect between those three weapons nature to make that judgement. Chemical weapons are strictly a tactical battlefield weapon, and nuclear weapons, especially in regard to Third World countries, are deterrents and weapons of strategic value. Biological weapons are incapable of forming a credible deterrent.Your argument disconnects somewhere between ?desire? and ?capability?. The desire for chemical and biological weapons speaks of a desire for nuclear weapons.
No, it's not. It is, however, in your formulation, evidence that this didn't concern the United States.Hiding chemical and biological weapons raises the question of whether nuclear arms (or components) were hidden. Giving Iraq biological and chemical precursors is not giving them nuclear weapons however.
So now the Israelis bombed it because they'd have more experience? Come on ...A second reactor would only have widened the experience pool.
Which were rudimentary and not a high priority.And yet feasibility studies were being conducted before that time.
Which were rudimentary and not a high priority- if not for the bombing, Iraq's push could've been offset by months-years, depending on the whims of Saddam. That's far more useful than hoping they don't get 'experience' which they already had access to thanks to a Soviet reactor.
You can?t say that for certain ? it?s contradicted by the fact that Iraq was already launching studies in the first place.
No it doesn't. You have not shown a causal connection at all. Need I remind you about the Indonesia example?The entire situation still relates perfectly well to the dispersal of Communist thought and encouragement.
That theory is also a very very bad idea. The problem with both is they take one variable: "democracy" and "communism"- and think it simply spread among a mere geographic reason if only it was planted somewhere. It totally ignores all the other considerations that should rightly be involved, including ethnicity, history, economic conditions etc.
To some extent, it?s behind the theory of democratization today:
?A democracy is likely to affect positive change upon its neighbors.? Conversely, those same neighbors are potential dangers to a democracy.
The ANC is an avowedly Communistic organization with a strong socialist platform. Rhodesia?s fall made their job of forcing change in South Africa that much easier.
The determination is dependant on to whom you speak, and what you consider the legitimate measure for true political allegiance: party platforms as advertised to the public, or actual behavior once an organization has acquired power."Avowedly commie" my ass!
It's Commie straight thru and thru, like all the other black
organizations throughout Afrika, along with ZANU-PF, etc etc
Simple mathematical theory: if Israel won’t pay and other countries also won’t or simply can’t pay, then the only other options are storage or scrapping, both of which would be more expensive than releasing the equipment to another party anyway – even at no cost.That still doesn't provide a reason as to why they must be given away free of charge- regardless, it is a quite legitimate item to include.
Thanks, in large part, to Western intervention. The question is whether without having intruded into the region, it would have drawn closer to the U.S.S.R.Irrelevant? Are you serious? The reality of the situation was that irrespective of any socialist movements or sympathies, they were FAILURES.
We can’t rightly say: the Saudis never got that chance.It doesn't matter- again, the reality of the situation was that the Middle East was no communist dominion, and to suggest, as you seem to be doing, that the House of Saud would've done so if only they were free to is patently absurd.
Jordan is an interesting case: under British protection until it received successive poundings by Israel and chose the benefits of engagement with the Western powers and more or less material non-intervention as the 20th century wore on. We can chalk this one up to Tel Aviv.And Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and whatever Oman/UAE were called back then (if they were any different) were not. I'm not seeing any huge preponderance.
With similar economic systems? Shunned by the United States and Great Britain, the Soviets would have been his final option to obtain foreign aid.Paranoia. There is zero reason to assume he would've come in closer contact with Moscow, and no evidence of any such intentions whatsoever.
Israel can be held responsible for having kept socialism suppressed in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.This is not about challenging Soviet thought and assistance- it's Israel's contribution in that regard, and the value of the billions in arms and aid thrown at it going towards that purpose. Aid which continues without any conditions being placed whatsoever. You'd be hardpressed to argue that Israel *helped* American relations with rich Arab allies, especially Saudi Arabia, and we've already seen how much cash they cost. The Middle East was not in danger of being in the Soviet camp- this is borne out of the same simplistic 'Domino Theory' nonsense that was already proven rubbish in Vietnam. The fact is that the countries in the region are substantially differnet in hosts of different ways that preclude any such naive notion as the entire region allying itself with the Soviets.
In exchange for the accomplishments above.For free.
Some money still goes back to the United States.
No, I asked you to demonstrate how those costs are recouped, and in what amounts. I know very well Israel buys American arms: with American money and discounted prices.
Incorrect; you wanted a source. You did not originally specify that you desired any amount.No, I asked for specifics, not general proof.
Apparently, it’s a global phenomenon.Considering the utterly execrable state of intelligence that we've seen demonstrated time and again for years, I'm just not seeing this better-informed analysis.
Point.And would've been contributing regardless even if the US didn't provide such aid.
Bluster. A group claimed specific responsibility for an attack carried out with a remote device. Unlikely that “any random caravan” would have been hit.Assumption- one government convoy looks much like another. Does every HMMWV blown up in Iraq have the guy pulling the trigger saying "there's PFC Smith"?
They’re one and the same. It’s certainly a potential recruiting ground.You didn't say 'resource pit', you said 'crossroads'. By which you implied that Palestine (not the Middle East) is some sort of terror central for everyone. It ain't. That honor goes to Saudi Arabia, and outside of the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Palestine agenda is specifically directed against Israel.
Changing goalposts. You originally made a blanket statement that implied all aid was worthless if a war was lost.Heaven forbid that in such analysis we recognize there are DEGREES of aid necessitated by the level of alliance between the two countries tha twould influence judging whether the contributions were meaningless, right?
Except that the Soviets were outfitting their Middle Eastern allies with new models of anti-aircraft missile batteries.And vice versa. That is a net zero gain- if anything, I'd be more worried about the Soviets crawling all over full-standard M60s than Americans crawling all over whatever export-standard tank the Israelis towed today.
When it’s this egregious, it certainly is. It gives him carte-blanche to cite other equally asinine examples of “lost costs” chosen merely on his own rather biased opinion.Well, the Catholic Church is a menace so I think that'd be a good idea, but that aside, it is not honest or reasonable to take one piece of reasoning and apply it to the entire article. It's 'telling' that he was wrong on one count, nothing more.
No, that’s your responsibility. My argument: Belgium and the Netherlands could have received less aid then we gave them historically, and the Cold War would have still been resolved in our favor.In order to do that, you need to provide me with figures and such as this article has in regards to Belgium and the Netherlands for me to look at, and then, I may or may not agree with you.
Yet his figure is inflated well beyond it.Government spending is enough.
We were in Saudi Arabia, ostensibly, to deter Saddam. It was often described as altruistic. You’re making a similar case for a Soviet nuclear attack on Israel.I was unaware he was a fan of the Israeli presence on their holy sites?
Which doesn’t work out in a long-term cost/benefit analysis – especially because we know they don’t normally worry about such things.Iran is probably pursuing nuclear weapons- I wouldn't be surprised. It's also quite possible they're building an NPP to generate power to export more oil, I don't know.
In this day in age, the first two “tactical” weapons are so taboo as to generally oblige he who desires them to also seek a nuclear option.There's no connect between those three weapons nature to make that judgement. Chemical weapons are strictly a tactical battlefield weapon, and nuclear weapons, especially in regard to Third World countries, are deterrents and weapons of strategic value. Biological weapons are incapable of forming a credible deterrent.
It didn’t concern the United States more than an Iranian victory, no.No, it's not. It is, however, in your formulation, evidence that this didn't concern the United States.
It was certainly part of the idea.So now the Israelis bombed it because they'd have more experience? Come on ...
But which bespoke their ultimate ambitions.Which were rudimentary and not a high priority.
You can’t know that.Which were rudimentary and not a high priority- if not for the bombing, Iraq's push could've been offset by months-years, depending on the whims of Saddam. That's far more useful than hoping they don't get 'experience' which they already had access to thanks to a Soviet reactor.
You said it yourself: Indonesia was a part-time ally.No it doesn't. You have not shown a causal connection at all. Need I remind you about the Indonesia example?
It’s a basis for action. I question it myself. I don’t buy the “Democratic Peace Theory” in its entirety.That theory is also a very very bad idea. The problem with both is they take one variable: "democracy" and "communism"- and think it simply spread among a mere geographic reason if only it was planted somewhere. It totally ignores all the other considerations that should rightly be involved, including ethnicity, history, economic conditions etc.
For reasons outside the direct control of both parties. Certainly Africa became MORE socialistic in intent.That change most certainly not being a Communist South Africa.
I am unsure of the general cost/benefit ratio of scrapping vs giving away- the storage point is a fair one, but this facet depends on how bad Israel wanted this material.Axis Kast wrote: Simple mathematical theory: if Israel won’t pay and other countries also won’t or simply can’t pay, then the only other options are storage or scrapping, both of which would be more expensive than releasing the equipment to another party anyway – even at no cost.
We were talking about Israel. Western intervention in the region generally is another matter.Thanks, in large part, to Western intervention. The question is whether without having intruded into the region, it would have drawn closer to the U.S.S.R.
They're a monarchy!We can’t rightly say: the Saudis never got that chance.
Jordan is also a monarchy- it is highly unlikely that they would cozy up to the Soviets.Jordan is an interesting case: under British protection until it received successive poundings by Israel and chose the benefits of engagement with the Western powers and more or less material non-intervention as the 20th century wore on. We can chalk this one up to Tel Aviv.
True or not, this is a seperate issue from Israel.Turkey needed extensive Western support. Saudi Arabia was under our thumb as well. I can’t speak specifically to Oman or the UAE, but Yemen is good counter-example.
Just because he nationalized Western oil interests doesn't mean he was about to go communist- also remember the country remained democratic.With similar economic systems? Shunned by the United States and Great Britain, the Soviets would have been his final option to obtain foreign aid.
I highly doubt that Israel had much effect on Jordan considering that country's status. Lebanon was/is a regional cluster-fuck, the only contribution Israel made there was to get involved in a filthy war.
Israel can be held responsible for having kept socialism suppressed in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.
Well, regardless of the efficacy of the benefits, I highly doubt the reasoning can be summed up as "thanks for that, here, take this".In exchange for the accomplishments above.
But how much?
Some money still goes back to the United States.
So how else am I supposed to weigh costs and benefits without the vaguest hint of numbers?
Incorrect; you wanted a source. You did not originally specify that you desired any amount.
Point. Put it this way: if I were to see one intelligence coup where Israel helps the US, then I would concede. Hell, even Russia & the US of all places can advertise intelligence coups.Apparently, it’s a global phenomenon.
Random caravan no, but shiny SUVs?
Bluster. A group claimed specific responsibility for an attack carried out with a remote device. Unlikely that “any random caravan” would have been hit.
Potentially so, but the record of terror so far firmly indicates that the Palestinians are concerned with Israel rather than say, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, the continental US etc.They’re one and the same. It’s certainly a potential recruiting ground.
Then I was being sloppy.Changing goalposts. You originally made a blanket statement that implied all aid was worthless if a war was lost.
All technically complicated items handed over to Arab allies in that time were missing components that came standard with the Soviet full models- or were purposely built to less quality and with less capability, to minimize the compromise of intelligence that would result if the equipment fell into enemy hands, and to prevent meaningful reverse engineering. The new models the Soviets equipped their Middle East allies with were still export standard ones (e.g. export SA-6= Kvadrat, domestic SA-6= Kub).Except that the Soviets were outfitting their Middle Eastern allies with new models of anti-aircraft missile batteries.
That's the point: you cannot intimate he has chosen asinine examples, you must show it.When it’s this egregious, it certainly is. It gives him carte-blanche to cite other equally asinine examples of “lost costs” chosen merely on his own rather biased opinion.
How much less? It's not my responsibility to provide that.No, that’s your responsibility. My argument: Belgium and the Netherlands could have received less aid then we gave them historically, and the Cold War would have still been resolved in our favor.
Then that's his problem- I didn't set out to defend his figures.
Yet his figure is inflated well beyond it.
I don't follow.We were in Saudi Arabia, ostensibly, to deter Saddam. It was often described as altruistic. You’re making a similar case for a Soviet nuclear attack on Israel.
Firstly, how do you know it doesn't work out long term, since it's clearly been pursued by an oil producing nation before, and why don't they normally worry about such things?
Which doesn’t work out in a long-term cost/benefit analysis – especially because we know they don’t normally worry about such things.
Weapons procurement is dictated by capabilities and requirements, not whether someone else thinks that something you already have is taboo.In this day in age, the first two “tactical” weapons are so taboo as to generally oblige he who desires them to also seek a nuclear option.
Ok then.It didn’t concern the United States more than an Iranian victory, no.
It was certainly part of the idea.
Which Israel had a catalysing effect on.But which bespoke their ultimate ambitions.
Not positively, no, but even in the most utterly technical sense, Israel accelerated the push.
You can’t know that.
Which was never communist, neither under Sukarno or Suharto- and which had no casual connection to the fall of South Vietnam at all.
You said it yourself: Indonesia was a part-time ally.
I'd have to see the proponents of the theory's outlining of it.It’s a basis for action. I question it myself. I don’t buy the “Democratic Peace Theory” in its entirety.
And, technically, you’re correct in pointing out the general hang-ups most people ignore, but I’d be careful to say that the Democratization Theory is inherently bereft of those considerations.
Again that's not Domino Theory in any meaningful way.For reasons outside the direct control of both parties. Certainly Africa became MORE socialistic in intent.
Actually, Israel helped prop up and stabilize Jordan quite a bit, maintaining the monarchy. After an ill-conceived raid on the town of Saha', which prompted Palestinian riots against the Hashemite Bedouin Hussein, Israel decided that they would rather keep the moderate Hussein in power rather than risk his overthrow by a radical Palestinian regime with the state's full resources.Vympel wrote:I highly doubt that Israel had much effect on Jordan considering that country's status. Lebanon was/is a regional cluster-fuck, the only contribution Israel made there was to get involved in a filthy war.
