Israel 🇮🇱 State of Israel Thread

[Zachowon]

Something I wonder here - if Something Happened and the US military lost a big pile of - well lets say Abrams tanks - how quickly could they have replacements built?

We using wartime building ir normal?
We can rebuild them fast enough to be able to replace the lost amount by the end of the year with non stop 24 hour 7 days a week.

We would use mothballed Abrams first thougj

 

[Bear Ribs]

Something I wonder here - if Something Happened and the US military lost a big pile of - well lets say Abrams tanks - how quickly could they have replacements built?

As long as there are people who do know how to make an Abrams, they can train up more people and institutional knowledge isn't lost. So fairly quickly, especially since the US tends to keep stockpiles of extra everything just in case.

Now if the last Abrams factory shut down for lack of work, that would be entirely different. They'd basically need to reinvent the Abrams from scratch and learn how to make it again, much harder. To make a modern comparison, we do not have the ability to make WW2 era battleships anymore. The knowledge of how to make 16" guns and the like is lost now. That doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means that if somehow the paradigm changed such that 16" guns were suddenly militarily necessary again, we'd need to basically re-invent the process for making such guns, nobody alive knows how so we'd be looking at perhaps a year or two of experimentation and trial-and-error just in figuring out how to make them before the first gun rolled off the assembly line. The first batch of guns would also likely have several design flaws that older guns didn't, because the designers were working them up from first principles and just didn't have the knowledge to avoid said flaws.

Fusion research has some similar issues, one reason it's perpetually a decade away is that there's never enough money to keep any given fusion research project going for a decade straight, and a lot of our knowledge of fusion gets lost each time a researcher retires and didn't manage to pass on all of their learning.

 

[Scottty]

As long as there are people who do know how to make an Abrams, they can train up more people and institutional knowledge isn't lost. So fairly quickly, especially since the US tends to keep stockpiles of extra everything just in case.

Now if the last Abrams factory shut down for lack of work, that would be entirely different. They'd basically need to reinvent the Abrams from scratch and learn how to make it again, much harder. To make a modern comparison, we do not have the ability to make WW2 era battleships anymore. The knowledge of how to make 16" guns and the like is lost now. That doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means that if somehow the paradigm changed such that 16" guns were suddenly militarily necessary again, we'd need to basically re-invent the process for making such guns, nobody alive knows how so we'd be looking at perhaps a year or two of experimentation and trial-and-error just in figuring out how to make them before the first gun rolled off the assembly line. The first batch of guns would also likely have several design flaws that older guns didn't, because the designers were working them up from first principles and just didn't have the knowledge to avoid said flaws.

Fusion research has some similar issues, one reason it's perpetually a decade away is that there's never enough money to keep any given fusion research project going for a decade straight, and a lot of our knowledge of fusion gets lost each time a researcher retires and didn't manage to pass on all of their learning.

Didn't the people who made the old 16-inch guns leave documentation?

 

[LordsFire]

Didn't the people who made the old 16-inch guns leave documentation?

If I understand the SOP of the day correctly, what will exist, is technical specifications such as 'these alloys, at this thickness, at this length,' etc.

What won't exist is the knowledge of the people who worked in the factory, such as 'you need to let the metal cool at X speed so that microfractures don't form, and use molds/machinery with Y properties instead of Z properties, because otherwise you'll get K unintended side-effect...'

 

[Bear Ribs]

Didn't the people who made the old 16-inch guns leave documentation?

It doesn't really matter. For any given job, no matter how thorough they try to make their documentation, they invariable leave critical parts out because they think it's "common knowledge" but nobody else does. This has happened numerous times in history. The secret of Roman Concrete was lost for several centuries, f'rex, because it was "common knowledge" that you had to use seawater, not fresh, to cure it and nobody ever bothered to write that part down. We call this "institutional knowledge." The knowledge that's common to those in the trade, so common they don't consider it remotely unusual, while nobody else would ever think of it.

The problem is that a dude who's been doing the job for fifty years, what he thinks of as common knowledge is so specialized nobody else would ever think of something so oddball. This is just an inevitable result of human thinking. Thus the US will jump through all manner of hoops to, f'rex, make sure Electric Boat never goes out of business because if that company ever folds, the US will be looking at a decade or more before they can build another submarine, nobody else has the institutional knowledge to do so.

 

[Marduk]

1.Bad example.Japan need computer parts from Taiwan,and if China get island Japan would be next.For them supporting Taiwan is matter of life and death,and Taiwan could not defend itself.

Jzrael could burn entire Middle East,so they are safe.And there is nothing there important for USA,so USA have no reason to fight there.
Moreover,even if Izrael ceased to exist,USA would be not hurt by that.
All in all - USA could have reason to fight for Taiwan,Korea,Japan,maybe even Poland/unless they sold us to Moscow again/,but not for Izrael.
If Jesus do not lived there,there would be no reason to think of that place at all.

America could burn the whole Middle East too, so they don't need Israel for that.
As i've linked, even leftist westerners who hate Israel a lot agree that it is useful to America.
ME politics are very complicated, and Israel is a country in the region which is, by its nature, unable to conspire with local islamic powers for very long or very deeply, hence always being a good "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for an outside power. And as long as America is the world hegemon, that can easily be them. All the other nearby powers, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, they are more or less able to live with islamists, they may not like it, they may negotiate, but if going gets tough they can always make a deal with islamists or each other.
Jews though, they are always going to be seen as infidels by them, they don't have a choice.

2.But western politics in 1945 still do not cared about Holocaust.Only reason why state could be made/except mossad terrorists and Jordania help/ was Sralin support.Which he did probably to mess with England.
And jews in Europe traditionally was used by goverments as useful agents.

That plan existed on paper even before WW2.

Something I wonder here - if Something Happened and the US military lost a big pile of - well lets say Abrams tanks - how quickly could they have replacements built?

Depends on type of equipment. Abrams tanks? Not long, they still have a production line going, we're talking few hundreds per year at least.
OTOH B-2's or F-22's? Never. Irreplacable. Production lines long gone, half the components are not even available anymore beyond spares, even if they dusted off the blueprints, they would have to improvise so many replacements they may aswell go all the way and make a new plane. Which does touch upon some of the weird politics about military aid and defense industry subsidies - in some cases government takes a loss and orders shit it doesn't need (for themselves or under guise of military aid) just to keep a vital manufacturer in business between war/modernization related orders, because it would suck for them to realize "oh shit, its time we make a new tank model now, but guess what, the only company that has experience and equipment to make state of art tanks has split up 10 years ago and only makes construction equipment now so even the few old engineers who know how to make tanks are rusty and not up to date on new tech".

 

[King Arts]

Because unlike the genocides in Africa, it's one we'd be directly responsible for. Before the end of World War 2, anti-Jewish sentament was deeply ingrained into western culture, to the point where it took seeing something as horrific as Auschwitz to convince people that treating the Jews like crap might be wrong. But even then, that only convinced the elites of our society that we needed to get rid of the Jews in a more "humane" manner; which led to them trying to create a country in the Middle East for them to all live in. We all know how that turned out; and ever since, western civilization has been tied to Israel in a way that we cannot break without condoning the slaughter of Jews that would inevitably come afterwards.

Umm a few things first off we made Israel we also made the post colonial states, if the Arabs slaughter the Jews, unlikely the Jews have nukes and an advanced army and nation it's not our problem. The same also if the Jews have enough and slaughter the Arabs around them. Not our problem.

It is...funny how you do not knew history.

Jews never were treated worst then any other minority.In fact,they were treated better.Try be real pagan after,let say 1100AC.
Try be catholic in England or Norwegia after luder revolution.Try be witch in any christian country without Inquisition.
Only country when they really was massacred was Moscow during Ivan terrible reign,but he massacred many others.

Sentiments ? anti catholics sentiments in protestan countries were as bad or worst.Germans genocided Herero on Namibia before WW1,turks armenians during WW2 - and nobody cared then,just like nobody care now.

Izrael was created ,becouse Sralin wonted so,not becouse sense of quilt.
Polish goverment send Karski to inform Anglosas about Holocaust,he even personally said that to FDR.FDR stopped him and start taking about horses.Nobody except polish goverment cared about murdered jews then.

Western cyvilisation is made from greek philosophy,roman law and christian morality.Jews are not related in any manner to us.If they prosper,we do not be better,if they suffer,we do not get worst.

Only thing tied to jews is USA,becouse they own poor state.

Jews have a lot of H bombs to defend themselves,and their friend Putin,Besides if we do not helped christians in Iraq,why we should help jews?

Now that isn't entirely true, Jews are part of Western civilization since they lived here until they had their own state.

Is it really that ridiculous?
Lets compare a hypothetical.
If few organizations and government employees in Japan were to boycott Taiwan over not surrendering to China and drag said organization's business decisions into it...
Do you think the government would just shrug at it?
Yeah, i would not be so sure about that. Governments are kinda sensitive about their international alliances, and generally aren't too happy about their employees and contractors openly trying to screw with their allies. Random minor institutions are not entitled to run their own foreign policy, its not that crazy to ask them to promise not to try.

The aid issue is definitely more reasonable to bring up, a lot of that is hidden subsidy to defense industry (most of that aid has to be spent shopping in USA), some is also cooperative programs for technological developments from which USA gets nice toys (Iron Dome), so there is a good non-ideological argument to at least rationalize that stuff and label is as what it is.
On the other hand, both the pro-Israel and more hilariously, vehemently anti-Israel side observers do agree that at least some of that military cooperation is guided by US self-interest (in the latter case they mean US self-interest as a bad thing of course), like here:

Iron Dome Funding: Don't Be Deceived US Aid to Israel Is Not About Saving Lives - Antiwar.com Original

Battles in the US Congress that erupted again this week, holding up an extra $1bn in military funding for Israel, underscored just how divorced from - Jonathan Cook for Antiwar.com Original

original.antiwar.com

Seriously, if someone didn't know better they may think it was written by AIPAC.

TBH the right to self determination and concept of nation-states specifically exist to solve this kind of problems. And it is a timeless kind of problems - namely, multiculturalism not working. Its pretty common, and the most obvious solution is have random populations and subcultures that don't see eye to eye with others within the same state split off into their own, so that they can practice their own government, laws and ways, instead of trying to make compromises that will inevitably keep one or both group unhappy forever.

ATP said it earlier but the example with Japan is completely diffrent since Japan will be right next to a growing China. America is half a world away from the middle east. Also even so, the people should be the ones to decide who they want to support as allies the government should not limit free speech to make it so that being against an ally is something they will sanction you for.

Speak for yourself.

LOL, ok most of us here aren't Arab or Israeli Jews. Most people here are American, with quite a few Europeans.

 

[Marduk]

Umm a few things first off we made Israel we also made the post colonial states, if the Arabs slaughter the Jews, unlikely the Jews have nukes and an advanced army and nation it's not our problem. The same also if the Jews have enough and slaughter the Arabs around them. Not our problem.

Yes, your problems, its called global oil market. Even if you don't, a whole lot of Americans care about those, even if usually in indirect ways. Either way they would be fucking pissed if they saw the consequences of, say, oil going to 500$/barrel on global market.

ATP said it earlier but the example with Japan is completely diffrent since Japan will be right next to a growing China. America is half a world away from the middle east. Also even so, the people should be the ones to decide who they want to support as allies the government should not limit free speech to make it so that being against an ally is something they will sanction you for.

But they didn't ban criticism of Israel, they banned taking part in boycotts. Which are quite a gray area in the specific scenario of who it applied to - government and government contractor employees. Boycotts are a process of changing business decisions in spending money to punish or benefit a political option, even at the cost of making a suboptimal business decision.

Now imagine if a boycott Israel activist has any say about the procurement decisions in a government institution or contractor. Will this person make the decision the paymaster wants, or put their personal political preference ahead of it? Will they need to hire another person just to look over the activist's shoulder just to make sure they are separating their deeply held personal beliefs from their job and considering all professional money spending completely optimally?

Its kinda the same reason why CRT supporting leftist activists should not be allowed to work in public schools. They absolutely want to shove their personal ideology into something paid for with public money, and even if they promise not to (most of them won't even do that) you would probably need someone to watch them all the time to keep them honest.

 

[History Learner]

Israel provides a pretty wide range of benefits to the US.

Trade: Israel/US trade is around 10 billion a year. No, that's not completely staggering, I mean the UK trade is about 45 billion for the same time period. OTOH, the UK has about seven and a half times Israel's population too, a much worse ratio. Per person and for its economic size, Israel does a lot of business with the US and that means profits for US companies.

And China's trade with the U.S. is almost $500 Billion, they're our top trading partner. Does that mean we should establish with China a bilateral relationship as one sided as that with Israel? Iran has a population of 100 Million, so obviously they represent a larger trading market; why not drop Israel in favor of said market?

Research:

Israel does a lot of research, in fact on a per-capita basis, Israel has about half again as many scientists and technicians as the US does. This translates into Israel producing a lot of useful inventions. Israel's at the bleeding edge of medical research, f'rex, top of the planet there, and their inventions benefit all Americans as well, often disproportionately to Israel itself. Israel also has some of the absolute top water and agricultural technologies and research divisions, both in areas of conserving water and things like their cutting-edge desalination plants.

So is China and Russia, again, what's the point here? You can still use them under license, without any blood or treasure being afforded.

Military:

Israel sends troops, supplies, and support to America's military. No, the numbers, again, aren't staggering because Israel has a population smaller than Los Angeles County, but they do send significant forces for their size to support US operations. Israel also provides a rare area in the Middle East that's relatively safe and stable for the US to store supplies in. Israeli military inventions, such as Iron Dome, also wind up in American hands for greater benefits.

Which is utterly false, show me the Israeli contingents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Beyond that, remind me who funded Iron Dome in the first place? You might also want to look into why Israel is the rare staging area for the U.S. but beyond that explain to me how our military relationship is beneficial when they sell all of our military tech to China in the first place.

And the amount of blood and treasure spent on Israel is pretty grossly overestimated. Much of the money sent to Israel isn't actually sent to them, it's thinly disguised handouts to American weapons manufacturers, as Israel is obligated to spend much of the funds the US sends there. Those companies get more business and get to see their weaponry in actual action which keeps them sharp and helps them spot deficiencies or areas for improvement, an opportunity that might not exist without Israel. This is also critical because a weapons company needs to do a certain amount of business every year in order to stay open, real life isn't an RTS where you can just build a factory and leave it there until you want to spit out some more tanks. If you don't constantly build tanks, the company can't stay open, the employees go find other jobs, and then when you get into a pinch you can't actually build any tanks when you need them because nobody's left who knows how to build a tank anymore. It's thus critical to have somebody, anybody, buying a certain number of each weapon per year to keep the factories healthy, and Israel is an extremely convenient partner for that.

Other chunks of cash are research grants which, as noted, tremendously benefit Americans. As far as blood, there just aren't that many Americans who died in, say, the Yom Kippur war. Compared with, say, Afghanistan, Israel generally fights their own battles and spills Israeli blood, not American, defending their borders, but also send Israelis to die in American wars, such as, again, Afghanistan. The cost-benefit leans pretty heavily to the US getting a lot out of their relationship with Israel.

This would be valid if any of it was based on a modicum of truth.

 

[Bear Ribs]

And China's trade with the U.S. is almost $500 Billion, they're our top trading partner. Does that mean we should establish with China a bilateral relationship as one sided as that with Israel? Iran has a population of 100 Million, so obviously they represent a larger trading market; why not drop Israel in favor of said market?

So is China and Russia, again, what's the point here? You can still use them under license, without any blood or treasure being afforded.

Really? Then show me the Chinese active protection system the US mounts on an Abrams for added defense, the Russian made desalination plant that's supplying California with water, and the advanced Iranian robotic exoskeleton that's helping the disabled walk again. With them being so much richer and larger, it should be easy for you.

Which is utterly false, show me the Israeli contingents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Beyond that, remind me who funded Iron Dome in the first place? You might also want to look into why Israel is the rare staging area for the U.S. but beyond that explain to me how our military relationship is beneficial when they sell all of our military tech to China in the first place.

Joint Israel-UAE Mission Rescued Dozens of Afghan Women, Human Rights Activists From Kabul - Algemeiner.com

International efforts to rescue vulnerable Afghans after the country's takeover by the Taliban included the first-ever joint aid mission between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, almost one year after the two nations normalized ties. The operation brought 41 Kabul Afghans — including human...

www.algemeiner.com

Israel Aids U.S. Campaign in Iraq

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

Israeli Drones Support U.S. Operations in Kosovo

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

The Gulf War

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

This would be valid if any of it was based on a modicum of truth.

Since it's proven to be true, that establishes that it's valid, then.

 

[ATP]

Regarding the "blood and treasure spent on Israel" talking-point... I wonder if it's really a reference the idea - common in some circles - that the American military intervention in Iraq was for Israel's benefit.

Or for that matter, American military presence in Syria. Some people think it's all for the Israelis.

Iraq- partially true,Saddam supported palestinians.But he have nothing to do with 11.9.01.
I read theory,that becouse Saddam agree to pay for oil in euro,not dollars,Wall Street made Bush attack him.I dunno,if it is true.
Izrael certainly wonted him go.

Syria - they decide to remove aalawites ruling there and replace it with "secular democracy".Izrael supported it,but dunno how much it matteret for lunatics in Washington who continued to remove secular rulers to replace it with islamists.
Which only mean,that Izrael is as stupid as Washington.

 

[ATP]

America could burn the whole Middle East too, so they don't need Israel for that.
As i've linked, even leftist westerners who hate Israel a lot agree that it is useful to America.
ME politics are very complicated, and Israel is a country in the region which is, by its nature, unable to conspire with local islamic powers for very long or very deeply, hence always being a good "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for an outside power. And as long as America is the world hegemon, that can easily be them. All the other nearby powers, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, they are more or less able to live with islamists, they may not like it, they may negotiate, but if going gets tough they can always make a deal with islamists or each other.
Jews though, they are always going to be seen as infidels by them, they don't have a choice.

That plan existed on paper even before WW2.

1.USA need cheap oil,nothing more.And for that secular dictators were enough,they keep islamists in check.Till USA removed them and replaced with "democrats" which choose islamists.
And nobody there hated USA till they start supporting Izrael.Which mean,that USA paid for being hated by muslims,and removed people who keep them in check.
If not for all those murdered christian there,i would considered it farce.

2.And it would remain on paper if not for Sralin help.

 

[Marduk]

1.USA need cheap oil,nothing more.And for that secular dictators were enough,they keep islamists in check.Till USA removed them and replaced with "democrats" which choose islamists.

Which ones?
Saddam was an idiot for invading Kuwait, which is also a major oil producer.
Gaddafi was European's idea that USA got roped in.
Gulf States and Saudi don't have secular dictators.
Iran is hostile and also doesn't.

And nobody there hated USA till they start supporting Izrael.

How convenient to forget history.
Americans got screwed over by Egypt&co siding with Soviets in Suez Crisis, also supported secular Kemalist Turkey which pissed off Muslim Brotherhood and still does.
Supporting Saudis pisses of islamists too because they aren't islamist enough.
And lets not forget supporting Shah pissing off the islamists that caused the revolution later.

 

[ATP]

Which ones?
Saddam was an idiot for invading Kuwait, which is also a major oil producer.
Gaddafi was European's idea that USA got roped in.
Gulf States and Saudi don't have secular dictators.
Iran is hostile and also doesn't.

How convenient to forget history.
Americans got screwed over by Egypt&co siding with Soviets in Suez Crisis, also supported secular Kemalist Turkey which pissed off Muslim Brotherhood and still does.
Supporting Saudis pisses of islamists too because they aren't islamist enough.
And lets not forget supporting Shah pissing off the islamists that caused the revolution later.

1.Saddam invaded Kuwait,becouse belived USA would not intervene.And was supported by CIA.Attacking him in 2003 was crime,and USA helped remove all christians who lived there from Apostols times there.
Gaddafi - USA still helped.
You forget Syria - USA try to remove alawites and get islamists.
Iran main problem is Turkey,secondary Saudi - if USA do not keep attacking them,they would keep fighting them.

2.USA in 1956 cooperated with soviets against France and England,why Egypt should fight them?
USA support saudis which prosecute christians,and removed Saddam and try remove alawites which let them live.Apparently,USA support only those who prosecute christians.
In Iran shah secret service which tortured&murdered people was trained both by CIA and Mossad.Iranians remember that.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Attacking him [Saddam] in 2003 was crime...

How was this a crime? Under what authority?

 

[Scottty]

How was this a crime? Under what authority?

Teh Yoonited Nay-Shunz!

 

[Zachowon]

He was using chemical weapons on civies

 

[ATP]

How was this a crime? Under what authority?

On what happened to christians there after that.If i do not knew that CIA are bunch of idiots,i would assume that they did so only to remove christians and gave Iran more power.
Becouse it is all what really happened as a result.

About what @King Arts said about jews being part of western cyvilisation - it is false.They have their own.To show difference - in West we are depend on greek philosophy,so we always seek TRUTH. Facts are important for us,not tales.
In jewish cyvilization we have Haggada,which is just that - story.It is not important what happened,but what they told.
For example - they belive in nonexisting Queen Esther which saved jews and helped genocide 75.000 of persian elites.And it is their major holiday called Purim.
I could undarstandt making some real genocide holiday,but fictional one ?

 

[Scottty]

He was using chemical weapons on civies

Because the US gov would neeeever use such measures in a similar case?

Anyway, that's besides the point. Saddam being horrible is hardly in dispute. The point is under what law was the leader of a sovereign state to be prosecuted for that?

 

[Marduk]

1.Saddam invaded Kuwait,becouse belived USA would not intervene.

And why he believed that? He was being an idiot then.

And was supported by CIA.Attacking him in 2003 was crime,and USA helped remove all christians who lived there from Apostols times there.

That's a lolworthy shark jump. Saddam was not a great ruler for Christians either, the place would go to shit sooner or later anyway (see: Syria) during Arab Spring or with his natural death, islamists in the region would take note anyway.

Gaddafi - USA still helped.
You forget Syria - USA try to remove alawites and get islamists.

No, islamists tried to remove alawites, CIA democrats meanwhile were idiots and let the islamists tell them that they are democratic liberals.

Iran main problem is Turkey,secondary Saudi - if USA do not keep attacking them,they would keep fighting them.

Iran doesn't want a conflict with Turkey, no guarantee they will anything except lots of casulties, Iran does want a conflict with Saudis because they have reasons to believe that they would win a shitload of oil relatively easily, if only they can get USA to withdraw from the region and stop protecting them.

2.USA in 1956 cooperated with soviets against France and England,why Egypt should fight them?

Umm, no? USA was willing to side with Egypt against France and England if Egypt sides with them against Soviets. Even paid them a bribe for it. Egypt sided with Soviets anyway.
So don't wonder that USA supported Egypt's enemy in wars after that.

USA support saudis which prosecute christians,and removed Saddam and try remove alawites which let them live.Apparently,USA support only those who prosecute christians.
In Iran shah secret service which tortured&murdered people was trained both by CIA and Mossad.Iranians remember that.

By that logic USA cannot support anyone in Middle East ever, because for every ally they will get few other governments butthurt about it.