Israel will not experience a nuclear attack within the next twenty years

Hi there, I'm back. Thanks for the fast response. Before I respond to your arguments, I will show you another possibility of what is possible. A terrorist attack. There have been about 200 documented cases of a person buying material for a nuclear weapon from the black market. Now, just think of how many purchases have REALLY happened. How much material do you need for a nuclear blast the size of Hiroshima? Either a coconut filled with plutonium or 6 Coca-Cola cans filled with uranium. So, it would be very easy to smuggle the material to Israel. Who would suspect a six-pack of Coke as a weapon of mass destruction? Now, all they need is the know-how of making a real bomb. They can find the instructions anywhere. (http://www.amazon.com...) Or they can just Google. Of course, it goes without saying that the book is better, since it is written by a nuclear scientist with 20 years of experience. When done, they detonate it and... Touchï¿½. [quote]If by some chance my opponent was referring to some other 'expert' opinion then please provide this evidence.[/quote] Okay. Here you go. "The head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei said on 24 May 2007 that Iran could take between 3 and 8 years to make a bomb if it went down that route." "A 2007 annual review the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London stated that "If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon. That day is still 2-3 years away at the earliest." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) [quote]However the video does little to back up Con's claims, it merely confirms that Russia's relationship is a peaceful business arrangement and also brings up the interesting fact of America's aggression to Iran being connected with oil. Even the biased and right-wing CNN are careful not to make unsubstantiated claims of the kind made by my opponent, preferring to just make sinister implications.[/quote] If a country who has the know-how of making a nuclear weapon makes a close alliance with a country who wants the know-how of building nuclear weapons... I'm sure the outcome will be delighting. [quote]I refer to my original point that the inclusion of the word 'regime' transforms this statement from a threat of force to a political prediction.[/quote] Israel is a peaceful country, as long as you leave it alone. Why did Israel attack Gaza? Because missiles were fired upon them. [quote]Not if he held any hope of a second term. While I am willing to believe that the current US president is a more highly principled man than the last few who have held his job, like all politicians his primary motivation will be to keep himself in power.[/quote] He does not want to start a new world war or a nuclear war. [quote]1) All the allegations of Iran's intentions to build nuclear weapons come from US sources looking for any excuse to target Iran.[/quote] ...And IAEA. [quote]'The Bush administration last week clearly marked out Iran as a prime target for US aggression.[/quote] Yes, but as we can see, US has a new president. [quote]And while the odds may be low that diplomacy will solve the problem, we can't know for sure because we haven't tried it. Only the Europeans have. If bilateral talks with nuclear North Korea were acceptable to Bush, then why is it still anathema to talk with Iran?[/quote] As I pointed out, Bush has been voted out of office. [quote]the United States has been attacking Iran for many months, and not just with verbal insults and threats. It has been flying unmanned aerial surveillance drones over Iran since 2004; it has infiltrated combat and reconnaissance teams into Iran "to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic minority groups" (Seymour Hersh);2 it has bestowed an ambiguous "protected" status upon the Mujahedin-e Khalq, a group which, since 1997, the U.S. Department of State has designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization, but a group that the Washington regime now uses to launch cross-border attacks on Iran from within U.S.-occupied Iraq[/quote] This matters no longer, since America has a deeply vowed pacifist as their president. [quote]2) Iran would never nuke Israel as long as it (Iran) remains an Islamic state because the state of Israel contains many sites holy to Muslims such as Hebron, the Dome of The Rock and of course Jerusalem ,which is counted along with Mecca and Medina as one of Islam's three holiest cities.[/quote] You know, they can just leave those sites untouched and attack the major cities and army bases. Also, since Muslims do their pilgrimage once a year, it means they have 364 days not to kill any one who is taking the pilgrimage. [quote]1. Any intention on the part of Iran to build nuclear weapons. 2. Any willingness on the part of Iran to use such weapons against Israel. 3. Any military pact or alliance between Iran and Russia. 4. That Iran has publically stated it wants to destroy the US and Israel. 5. President Obama's lack of concern for Israel. 6. Non US/Israel biased sources claiming any of the above.[/quote] 1. IAEA, USA, EU, UN... 2. Why wouldn't they? They hate, I mean HATE Jews and want to get Israel off the face of the earth. 3. Look at the video I posted the last round. 4. Well, okay. "Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives." A direct threat. 5. He has not expressed his concern for Israel a SINGLE time. Never, ever. 6. CNN and other sources claim 3, 1 is kind of obvious ;) 2 is claimed by the Iranian president, 4 is claimed by the Iranian president, 5 is claimed by Barack Obama, 6 is claimed by the sources I just mentioned.