Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Message-ID: <BAY109-DAV1FB847305CCE5D8BA890FA74D0 &AElig phx.gbl>
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418
Message-ID: <C10957F1.7639%erevesz &AElig hotmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <44E3E3EC.45877FA5 &AElig wayne.edu>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:17:05 -0700
To: Andrew Reeves <andrew.reeves &AElig wayne.edu>
CC: Robert Felty <robfelty &AElig umich.edu>, <improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu>
From: Eva Revesz <erevesz &AElig hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: "We GAVE Israel nuclear weapons"
Status: O

Dad et. al.,

Oops! Sorry about the mix-up with the job letter!

I agree, Dad, that we need to keep WMDs out of the hands of despots like Kim
Jong Il. So it's a very good thing that the US (with the support of our
allies) can now (since the fall of the USSR) dictate who is allowed to have
them and who isn't. My point wasn't that I think we shouldn't stop them; my
point is simply that we are in a position to stop them and we do.

I'm sure you'll counter that it's not the US that's doing the dictating, but
rather the rest of the world, i.e. all the other "reasonable" nations that
are trying to dictate to a few rogue ones. But then take Russia, which you
basically put into the camp of rogue nations when you say "we haven't heard
the last of that problem yet."   Indeed, if we could send inspection teams
over there, I'm sure we would. So I'll concede that we still can't dictate
to Russia. And even if they've been a member of the "nuclear club" almost
from the beginning, they've always been and still are a member non grata.

But you are skirting the issue and haven't answered my question: since you
certainly aren't taking the stance that we treat the nations of the world
equally with regard to WMDs,  why do you have a serious quarrel with the
assumption that we've given them to Israel ?

Love,
Trixie


On 8/16/06 8:35 PM, "Andrew Reeves" <andrew.reeves &AElig wayne.edu> wrote:

> Trixie:
>  Your idea that the USA "dictate[s] who is allowed to have nuclear
> weapons and who isn't" has no historic validity. Those weapons were
> first developed in this country with British collaboration, and in the
> first few years after the war only these two countries had them.
> I think you can take it for granted that the USA would have liked
> nothing better than to keep it that way. However, by about 1949 the
> Soviet Union developed its own atomic bomb (whether by research of
> their own or by spy services is uncertain) and France soon followed
> suit. The secret was out (by today's standards, it's scientifically
> no big deal, really) and in short order India got it and Pakistan too.
> Somewhere around then Israel also developed it, although as Rob pointed
> out, they never explicitly admitted that. Thus far, the "nuclear club"
> acted responsibly and avoided its use in local skirmishes. The collapse
> of the Soviet Union gave the world some anxious moments in this respect
> and I am afraid we haven't heard the last of that problem yet--but the
> last thing the world should allow to happen is the spreading of this
> weaponry to the Ayatollahs of Iran or other crazies like Kim Jong Il.
> If you see this as arrogance of the USA then you are quite mixed up,
> Trixie--as you were in adding the last paragraph of your job-seeking
> letter to your e-mail!                      --love, Dad
>