[Rictor]

Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu is to be realeased in a few days time from an Israeli prison, where he has been sitting for 16 years, since 1988.

What horrible crime did he commit to deserve 16 years in almost constant solitary confinement? He revealed to the world the existence of an Israeli secret nuclear weapons in the Dimona facility. Hmm..

In 1988, he was lured by a woman, Cheryl Hanin, from London to Rome, where he was kidnapped by Mossadi agents and taken to Israel to rot. This was done with the full knowledge and cooperation of the Britsh government (under Thatcher) as well as the Italian government. So much for habeas corpus.

Once released, Vanunu will has severe restrictions set on both his speech and his movements, to prevent him from revleaing any more unpleasant tidbits of secret information.

Lovely, ain't it? America goes after Saddam for maybe, perhaps developing soemthing resembling a nuclear related program. Maybe. Except, well, the WMD have been found. Not in Iraq, mind you. And the man who found them spent 16 years of his life in a cell. Ah, sweet justice, how fair and noble thy cause.

Articles

Counerpunch - by Robert Fisk

Boston Globe

Mercury News

[Sandwich]

Everyone already knew that Israel "didn't" have nukes, but Vanunu sold secret information about them. I don't see what's wrong with punishing someone who so blatantly and willfully is endangering the security of his country.

[Ghostavo]

Revealing a nuclear program everyone knew existed (but not in such a large scale) is endangering the security of his country?

Punishing him for revealing secret info on the nuclear program is nothing wrong. What is wrong is punishing him even after releasing him (aka "shuting him up").

What harm can be come from letting him speak? Not letting him speak will bring much more harm.

[Rictor]

Well, it should not have been secret in the first place. So if say, Britain, is developing some sort of nuclear device in secret, the man who reveals it should be appluaded as a hero, not stuck in jail.

If the security of any one country threatens the security of the entire world, the world is more important.

[vyper]

[q]the man who reveals it should be appluaded as a hero[/q]

Yeah then we might think our govt. was investing in defence

[Bobboau]

this is the stupidest thing y...

eh... **** it, never mind

[Rictor]

The World is entitled to my opinion :D

But, think what you will. I thought this was an interesting bit of news, so here it is.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
Revealing a nuclear program everyone knew existed (but not in such a large scale) is endangering the security of his country?

No, but revealing secret information about said topic does endanger the security of this country. I personally don't know what he revealed, but imagine if it was something along the lines of in-flight detonation codes (don't even know if such things are restricted to the realm of sci-fi, but this is just for arguments' sake). - that'd be a pretty serious security breach.

And yeah, those codes could be changed, but I'm just giving an example.

[Rictor]

I guess it comes down to who gets priority, your country or the world. For me, this will always (well, in all probably circumstance. I'm not saying always always) be the world, regardless of which country is involved.

I just don't see what gives Israel the right to have a nuclear program, and a secret one at that, and not say, Iraq. Or not just Iraq, any country.

[Bobboau]

I don't see how giveing the in flight detonation codes of your contries nukes is going to help world safety at all.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Rictor
I guess it comes down to who gets priority, your country or the world. For me, this will always (well, in all probably circumstance. I'm not saying always always) be the world, regardless of which country is involved.

I just don't see what gives Israel the right to have a nuclear program, and a secret one at that, and not say, Iraq. Or not just Iraq, any country.

You could look at it based on past actions; Israel's never used WMD's against enemies even when attacked. Pre-American intervention Iraq had Saddam gassing up the Kurds in the north w/o blinking an eye.

Also, Israel's the only democracy in the Middle-East, for what that's worth.

I guess it could be boiled down to a matter of responsibility, which is something that can only be proven over time.

[Bobboau]

just thought of something, Turkey is a democrocy, is it not considered part of the mid-east?

anyway, how would giveing out the in flight det codes improve international security?
hypotheticaly.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Bobboau
just thought of something, Turkey is a democrocy, is it not considered part of the mid-east?

anyway, how would giveing out the in flight det codes improve international security?
hypotheticaly.

IIRC Turkey's considered part of Europe.

And who said it would improve international security, Bob? I sad it would endanger Israel.

[Rictor]

If it was detonation codes, that would cast the situtation in a new light. But from what I can gather it wasn't anything that specific. More of genral information regarding the existence of such programs. Can you maybe find a link or something Sandwich, I'de appreaciate it.

For me, it doesn't come down to "responsiblity". First of all, who decides which country is responsible. In theory, every country is resonsible up until the time they use a nuclear weapon. No nation can judge another based on circumstantial and, by definition, non-existant evidence.

Secondly, which nation in the world is the only one ever to have used nukes? Thats right. So, why do they get to have nukes? I mean, if you are working on the "responsiblity principle", they are the least responsible, since they are the only ones ever to have used nuclear weapons. Every other nation is more responsible, even Iran, Cuba, Syria and all the other "bad places."

Iraq using biological weapons on the Kurds is not really relevant. First of all, they were/are not "his own people" as everyone says. They were Saddam's enemies, and vice versa. And then, there is the little matter of who supplied Saddam with those weapons, and who encouraged him to use them against Iran. You can't really say he was acting irresponsibly if he used them with Washington's blessing.

So, the responsibility thing is out, you got any others?

BTW, I don't think that democracy is directly related to responsibility in handling nuclear weapons. Even in a democracy, it comes down to the Chief Guy to make the decision, not the people. And I wouldn't trust Netanyahu  or much less, Sharon with nuclear weapons any more than I would trust say, the President of Bulgaria.

[Exarch]

Given the situation at the time, I can definitely see why *any* information leaks could potentially be a national security problem for Israel. It's one thing being far away from any danger, it's quite another when every single neighbouring country would like to see you wiped from the face of the earth. Thankfully that's somewhat less of a problem now than it was, last thing that part of the world needs is more war.

As for Turkey, it has a foot in each camp so to speak. North-west of Istanbul is in Europe, south-east of it is in the middle east. They regularly try to gain entry into the EU though, but that's not likely to happen until they drastically improve their record on human rights and the like.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Rictor
If it was detonation codes, that would cast the situtation in a new light. But from what I can gather it wasn't anything that specific. More of genral information regarding the existence of such programs. Can you maybe find a link or something Sandwich, I'de appreaciate it.

I'll look around.

Originally posted by Rictor
...In theory, every country is resonsible up until the time they use a nuclear weapon...

Secondly, which nation in the world is the only one ever to have used nukes? Thats right. So, why do they get to have nukes? I mean, if you are working on the "responsiblity principle", they are the least responsible, since they are the only ones ever to have used nuclear weapons. Every other nation is more responsible, even Iran, Cuba, Syria and all the other "bad places."

Uhh, no, that's not responsibility. According to the dictionary, responsibility is:


[q]\Re*spon`si*bil"i*ty\ (r?*sp?n`s?*b?l"?*t?), n.; pl. -ties (-t?z). [Cf. F. responsabilit['e].] 1. The state of being responsible, accountable, or answerable, as for a trust, debt, or obligation.

2. That for which anyone is responsible or accountable; as, the resonsibilities of power.

3. Ability to answer in payment; means of paying.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

responsibility

n 1: the social force that binds you to your obligations and the courses of action demanded by that force: "we must instill a sense of duty in our children"; "every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty"- John D.Rockefeller Jr [syn: duty, obligation] 2: the proper sphere or extent of your activities; "it was his province to take care of himself" [syn: province] 3: ability or necessity to answer for or be responsible for one's conduct; "he holds a position of great responsibility"; "young children on a farm are often given responsibilities" [syn: responsibleness] [ant: irresponsibility, irresponsibility][/q]

The US used nukes to end a war, not to start one. It was a way of saying to Japan of the '40's "Enough, no more" in a way they could not possibly misunderstand.

Responsiblity does not mean you won't use something. It means that when you do use whatever it is, you'd better have a darn good reason, and be willing to take the blame for the outcome.

And, to remind you, America DID take the responsibility of rebuilding the war-torn Japan, and was crucial in aiding her to get back on her feet to the position she now holds as hi-tech leader of the world.

Originally posted by Rictor
BTW, I don't think that democracy is directly related to responsibility in handling nuclear weapons. Even in a democracy, it comes down to the Chief Guy to make the decision, not the people. And I wouldn't trust Netanyahu  or much less, Sharon with nuclear weapons any more than I would trust say, the President of Bulgaria.

True; America, Israel - pretty much any nation known as a "democratic" nation today - are not true democracies, but republics, where the people elect one person or a governing body made up of representatives they trust to make the decisions for that country.

Anyway, you seem to be under the impression that Israeli prime ministers are answerable to no one. They aren't.

[Nico]

Since that detail was brought in that thread about the air speed record, is this any worse than shooting people on sight for wanting to see cool planes at Nellis? I think not

[pyro-manic]

Originally posted by vyper
[q]the man who reveals it should be appluaded as a hero[/q]

Yeah then we might think our govt. was investing in defence

 That'll be the day.....  This country wouldn't stand a chance in the state we're in at the moment....

As for Vanunu, I'm behind him all the way. There is no place in this world for nuclear weapons any more. If someone from the MOD here came out with a story like that, the government wouldn't be in office for more than five minutes. Nobody needs mass destructive/mass casualty weapons any more. We've gone past the nation-state level of civilisation. They're strategically useless (apart from MAD, but that's pretty much redundant since Russia went tits-up). All anyone would do by using them would be to royally **** the planet up, and us with it.

[an0n]

Anyone who ****s with Israel's nuclear weapons is okay in my books.

There's abso-****ing-loutely no way Israel should have anything even resembling a WMD. It'd be like going up the Nazi's and saying "Here's a bio-genetic weapon. Don't use it on France".

[Zuljin]

Originally posted by an0n
Anyone who ****s with Israel's nuclear weapons is okay in my books.

There's abso-****ing-loutely no way Israel should have anything even resembling a WMD. It'd be like going up the Nazi's and saying "Here's a bio-genetic weapon. Don't use it on France".

Quite so.
I think that if not so much of Israel had been taken down in the event of a nuclear explosion, I think that Israel would have nuked Palestine long ago.