Dad,
Even if you don't respond to this, let me ask a few more questions since I
just don't know enough about how one builds up a nuclear arsenal to really
understand this issue entirely. Once one has the capacity to build the
n-bomb, does that mean you can make your own plutonium and/or uranium and
that's all you need to build up as big an arsenal as you want? No need to
buy it or any other materials necessary for building the bomb from anyone
else? But even if this is the case, you still have to get to the state of
being able to create your own plutonium (and sorry if I sound like a fool
about this -- I just don't know). What I do know is that the "intellectual
property" involved is much more important and it wouldn't at all surprise me
to find out that American nuclear scientists collaborated with Israeli
scientists -- or that the US even helped fund their nuclear program (even if
indirectly so as not to make it appear that we helped them outright). I'm
simply skeptical about your assertion that Israel became a nuclear power all
by themselves without any help from us and don't at all buy your claim that
we would never have helped Israel go nuclear during peacetime (??? it hasn't
been peacetime over there for decades) and because we just don't know if
Israel may turn into a rogue nation (give me a break!). It's so obvious
that having a militarily strong Israel is in our own strategic best
interest that I just don't know why you resist this notion. The mere fact
that we support the Israeli military (and also back them financially, if I'm
not mistaken) is evidence enough that we are backing their nuclear program
as well.
So my last words on this matter -- should you not reply - is that we need to
understand "gave" in a figurative sense, not in the strictly concrete sense
that you are taking it to mean.
Trixie
On 8/17/06 8:08 AM, "Andrew Reeves" wrote:
> Okay, here are my final answers and comments.
> 1. I have serious quarrel with the subject assertion not only because
> I have a visceral conviction of it being untrue (it would be totally
> contrary to the way big powers do business: if Israel were seriously
> threatened with immediate annihilation I could see rushing to their aid
> with OUR nuclear weapons, but GIVING IT TO THEM, and in peacetime, too
> --that's a horse of a different color. What if there is a government
> change or insurrection there and those weapons could be used against
> us?? Even Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, in whose strategic judgment I have the
> lowest possible confidence, would not do that) but because I also see
> it as a covert ploy to undermine public support for the US-Israeli
> alliance. As such, it could be, and probably was, Islamist-inspired.
> 2. I did not mean to put Russia (i.e., present, post-Soviet) among the
> rogue nations. I am worried that we have not heard the last yet about
> their nuclear arsenal because of the hazards created by their economic
> instability since the collapse of the Soviet Union. As you know, I was
> repeatedly in Moscow & St.Petersburg in the 90's as member of a WHO
> task force and was frankly appalled by the inefficiency and corruption
> I had to witness. One had the impression that one could buy vital state
> secrets for a good dinner. Also, the sensitive sites are not in Russia
> proper; they are in Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, and other remote locations
> where conditions may be even worse. The sad truth is that WE DON'T KNOW
> what private deals may be brewing between the oil-rich Ayatollahs and
> the hungry post-Soviet custodians of their atomic stockpiles.
> 3. The USA does not "decide who is allowed to have nuclear weapons and
> who isn't", and never did. Those who have it, acquired it on their own;
> we are opposed for additional states going nuclear for reasons that are
> really obvious and that you yourself agreed with. This whole idea, and
> its deliberately inflammatory phrasing, really reeks of very strong
> anti-American bias and I am frankly amazed that you are willing to
> become one of its mouthpieces. Do you also subscribe to the whisper
> that Jews knew beforehand of the 9/11 event and avoided going to the
> World Trade Center on that day?
> 4. As a linguist, you cannot afford bloopers like "member non grata".
> You obviously took the "non grata" adjective from "Persona non grata"
> but persona is feminine, whereas "membrum" as a Latin noun, is neutral.
> Therefore, if you must have this combination, the proper form is
> "Membrum non gratum" although I admit to have never seen this form;
> why not simply "not in good standing"?
> Love, Dad
>
|
