http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/04/content_12181647.htm

The director of the IAEA says it's Israel.

Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday that "Israel is number one threat to Middle East" with its nuclear arms, the official IRNA news agency reported.

At a joint press conference with Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30years, the report said.

"Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses," ElBaradei was quoted as saying.

Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear capabilities, although it refuses to confirm or deny the allegation.

"This (possession of nuclear arms) was the cause for some proper measures to gain access to its (Israel's) power plants ... and the U.S. president has done some positive measures for the inspections to happen," said ElBaradei.

Searching around to see who is and isn't carrying this story is interesting.

It is 100% true!

Funny thing is, I think Israel has been responsible for more American deaths then Iran has and still we worry about Iran more...

Mohamed ElBaradei sounds like someone who would not be biased toward Israel. :rolleyes:

But seriously, I think that it is obvious to any with functioning gray matter that Israel being the only 'known' nuclear power in the region at the moment makes them easily the most dangerous. And, couple that capability with a history of over-reacting to provocations/attacks, and unpredictable leadership (a pity that woman was not elected) and you can easily surmise that Israel could be the next power ti use nuclear weapons.

Scenario: an unacceptable provocation occurs, and Israel informs the the major powers through diplomatic channels that it is about to use nuclear weapons against Iran/Iraq/take your pick, and that it also has targeted major population centers in the major powers' countries in case of any possible attempt at intervention.

Which major power would be first to attempt to out bluster Israel? Would any of the countries feel it worth the risk? Granted, Israel would be persona non grata at the table for the next 100 years, but they would have (in their eyes) made a huge point for all the world to see: "We are fucking crazy enough to do this, so leave us alone or let's all get crazy and end it all!"

I would presume that the statement is self-evident. Israel is the only country in the region that (in theory, never confirmed) has nuclear weapons, hence it makes sense that they'd be the biggest (and only) nuclear threat in the region. /duh

Also, this statement coming from a committee run by an Egyptian for the last 12 years... somehow I wonder if he (and subsequently the division he runs) is truly unbiased.

That said, if Israel does possess nuclear weapons, I think they've shown admirable restraint in not using them since they've been seriously invaded a couple of times by countries that have sworn to annihilate them to a person in the period that they've supposedly had them and yet did not use them.

Edit: Damn, Byl beat me to my 2 main points. :)

I think if Israel were about to be completely overrun by any of its hostile neighbors and wiped out, they would likely use what nukes they have on major muslim population centers in the middle east and Mecca/Medina in particular. At that point they would have little to lose but would have their revenge tenfold.

Let's hope they never get that desperate.

I thought Jedd was the #1 nuclear threat in the ME?

Edit: Damn, Byl beat me to my 2 main points. :)

Yea, never mind that El Baradei has been nothing but a pain to Iran, repeatedly calling them out and doing everything in his power to focus attention on them, as well as other want-to-be or fairly new nuclear powers ( North Korea, Libya ).

I mean, he said something about Israel, so we can discount him because he has a funny name.

They are reputed to have about 80 warheads, which they can mount on gravity bombs mostly or on cruise missiles.

Can't say that you can blame them. If everyone in your neighborhood wants you dead but you can't or won't move to somewhere else, you buy the biggest gun and meanest dog you can find. Those same neighbors have already tried once during the Yom Kippur war and other conflicts.

Yea, never mind that El Baradei has been nothing but a pain to Iran, repeatedly calling them out and doing everything in his power to focus attention on them, as well as other want-to-be or fairly new nuclear powers ( North Korea, Libya ).

I mean, he said something about Israel, so we can discount him because he has a funny name.
I dont recall saying anything about his name - I merely noted that as an Egyptian I question whether he is unbiased towards Israel.

And, doing his job with respect to Iran doesnt mean he isnt biased against Israel.

In any case, it was just a questioning of his bias which I believe is a legitimate issue, but not the main one. The main point was that Israel is the only nuclear power in the region, hence the "number 1 nuclear threat" conclusion is self-evident.

Yea, never mind that El Baradei has been nothing but a pain to Iran, repeatedly calling them out and doing everything in his power to focus attention on them, as well as other want-to-be or fairly new nuclear powers ( North Korea, Libya ).

I mean, he said something about Israel, so we can discount him because he has a funny name.

Ummm, think ya' might try to get past the tongue in cheek stuff and read the rest of the posts?

along this same line of thinking, the USA is the number one nuclear threat to the world....After all, we are the only one that has ever use the bomb. The difference is that we, unlike all the other nuclear powers, are a stable first world democracy (yeah right....)

One would like to think we are more stable than Russia, who have a heck of a lot more nukes than we do. If we ever got to that point where the US was heading to civil war, the rest of the world can rest easy that we would probably use them on ourselves and not other nations. At least not directly. Whats a little fallout, right?

Besides, even in the current climate of political bickering and division, it is mainly the Red States who have most of the bases, the nukes, troops and other hardware. That certainly lends a degree of stability.

Yea, never mind that El Baradei has been nothing but a pain to Iran, repeatedly calling them out and doing everything in his power to focus attention on them, as well as other want-to-be or fairly new nuclear powers ( North Korea, Libya ).

I mean, he said something about Israel, so we can discount him because he has a funny name.

I believe he is a Sunni Arab, meaning he may not trust the Shia Iranians (Persians, not Arabs) any more than the Israelis.

Still, I tend to agree with his assessment, at least until such time as Iran builds nuclear weapons under the current regime. At that point I think it becomes a toss up.

One would like to think we are more stable than Russia, who have a heck of a lot more nukes than we do. If we ever got to that point where the US was heading to civil war, the rest of the world can rest easy that we would probably use them on ourselves and not other nations. At least not directly. Whats a little fallout, right?

Besides, even in the current climate of political bickering and division, it is mainly the Red States who have most of the bases, the nukes, troops and other hardware. That certainly lends a degree of stability.

I don't think the red states have an advantage in military equipment, including nukes. The whole west coast is solidly blue as is the Northeast. Add to that most of the Great Lakes region and I think perhaps the blue states carry more firepower. Red states tend to be less populous and do OK in Army bases, but they sort of lose out on the whole naval power thing. What they do have is the vast majority of land based ICBMs. Blue states have most of the sub-launched nukes.

As weird as this discussion is getting, now ask yourself which side you think the majority of military commanders/personnel would side with?

All the academies, except the Air Force, are in New England (assuming you don't count places like The Citadel anymore). There is that.

Well, I think the point that the United States is the most dangerous is true ... but for how long?

Did anyone else see Obama at the UN back in September? That Putin and Obama both have begun to talk about dismantling our entire nuclear arsenal (at the exchange that the rest of the world would do the same) has certainly been a step in the right direction. The reality is that these weapons aren't safe to even have in existence because of the chance a terrorist organization steals one and detonates them. Pakistan or Israel are certainly at risk of one day having one going missing.

Well, I think the point that the United States is the most dangerous is true ... but for how long?

Did anyone else see Obama at the UN back in September? That Putin and Obama both have begun to talk about dismantling our entire nuclear arsenal (at the exchange that the rest of the world would do the same) has certainly been a step in the right direction. The reality is that these weapons aren't safe to even have in existence because of the chance a terrorist organization steals one and detonates them. Pakistan or Israel are certainly at risk of one day having one going missing.


It's a nice fantasy to have, world peace and all, but in all seriousness, I highly doubt that is ever going to happen.

A. Countries like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, China, India, and Israel would never give them up.

B. A good number of people in America would be screaming for Obamessiah's head on a stick if he left the US that vulnerable.

C. Even if it did happen, terrorists with enough financial backing could still build their own, it's not like we are going to also shut down every nuclear plant in the world.

Even as horrendously powerful as nukes are, it's only a matter of time until we raise our self-destructive power another order of magnitude. As long as it would take to disarm the entire globe, there would probably be something even worse by the time we finished (if not before).

Even as horrendously powerful as nukes are, it's only a matter of time until we raise our self-destructive power another order of magnitude. As long as it would take to disarm the entire globe, there would probably be something even worse by the time we finished (if not before).

With the estimates that the world population will be about 9.2 Billion in 2050, my guess would be some super-virus pandemic.

http://www.un.org/popin/data.html