politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Could one argue that since Israel pretty clearly possesses nuclear weapons even if they wont directly admit to it, that they should be able to deter attacks that actually stand a chance at threatening the existence of the country due to the threat of those weapons, and therefore already have the required advantage without additional US assistance?
You're right. No more weapons to Israel. Guess they'll just have to use their nukes then.
I really wish people would take a moment and really consider what they are suggesting first.
I'm not suggesting they actually use those nukes. I'm suggesting that Iran or such will not actually launch an attack strong enough to credibly threaten to destroy Isreal, because it would be suicide to do so. The use of having nuclear weapons is that if you have them, it never makes sense to push you into condition where you feel you have to use them. Using them offensively in Gaza or the like would not be in Isreals interest for a number of reasons.
If someone's suggestion sounds so obviously flawed that you feel the need to say that, perhaps you should take a moment and consider if they're really implying what you think they are.
By literally justifying the removal of Israel's ability to defend themselves with conventional means because they have nukes the obvious conclusion is you expect nukes to be the means to defend oneself. Considering Israel is commonly believed to have obtained Nukes in '66-67, and the numerous wars that have been fought since then, the belief that 'the possession of nukes alone is a sufficient deterrent' is unreasonable.
Have any of those wars come close to actually threatening the state of Israel itself, rather than just their control over territories they'd occupied from someone else? In any case, you're also making a false assumption that ending US military aid to Israel leaves it conventionally defenseless, or that US weapons have to be stopped from going there in perpetuity. Israel has both a domestic arms industry and other countries it could acquire weapons from, it would just be at increased difficulty and expense. Further, when the objection to sending US arms there is that they are using them to commit genocide, that objection would naturally end should Israel cease those operations.
The point is not "Israel should have nothing left but the nukes, because they can just use those", but rather "Israel's nukes mean that a full scale invasion of the country is not likely, so we have room to revoke our current military assistance in order to pressure them to behave better, without much risk of destroying them in the meantime by doing so."