EXCLUSIVE: Obama agrees to keep Israel's nukes secret

[Truth2Tell]

Source: Washington Times

By Eli Lake

President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said.

The officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing private conversations, said Mr. Obama pledged to maintain the agreement when he first hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May.

Under the understanding, the U.S. has not pressured Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which could require Israel to give up its estimated several hundred nuclear bombs.

-snip

Mr. Netanyahu let the news of the continued U.S.-Israeli accord slip last week in a remark that attracted little notice. He was asked by Israel's Channel 2 whether he was worried that Mr. Obama's speech at the U.N. General Assembly, calling for a world without nuclear weapons, would apply to Israel...

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/02/president-obama-has-reaffirmed-a-4-decade-old-secr/

---

It's The Washington Times, so take it with a few hearty grains of salt.

Interesting nonetheless.

[Cant trust em]

1. Lame.

If Iran is opened up, then Israel should too.

[Loudmxr]

28. Israel should join the "peaceful" nuclear family and be open to having its sites inspected

I say this because there is a powerful religious and racist political force in Israel for whom international law holds no ties. They are dangerous to peace in the middle east. A commitment by the nation of Israel to the same inspection and verification standards that the US has had with Russia would advance the image of Israel as a force for peace in the middle east.

Edit Oops sorry I didn't want to jump to the top. I clicked on the wrong icon.

[bluestateguy]

2. President Obama has graciously allowed Israel the privilege of keeping their nukes secret

I expect proper gratitude from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

[DWilliamsamh]

38. Don't hold your breath. (N/T)

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. Regardless of the Moonie Times, it's not much of a secret that Israel has nukes.

and without getting into an argument as to whether they need them or not, it's certainly true that they haven't exactly been held to the same standards as other countries (including some in that very region) regarding weapons.

As to whether a nuclear armed Israel is more dangerous than a nuclear armed Iran, it all depends on who is in charge.

Ahmadinnerjacket is a lunatic who's not really running anything.

Netanyahu is a lunatic who IS. And he would really love to use them.

[Cant trust em]

4. But he wouldn't use them on us, so we let it slide.

My biggest concern about Iranian nuclear capability is not a missile strike. It's giving nuclear material to a terrorist group.

[boppers]

8. That Canard again?

So, joe-bomber is somehow going to become a nuclear weapons expert, if they get some chunks of metal? These are guys blowing themselves up with TATP, not world class physicists.

[14thColony]

66. Well-put

And add to that a first-generation bomb would probably be the size of a VW Beetle, and heavier. Not exactly something you can move around covertly even if you did know how to arm and detonate it. Plus the fact that Iran would have zero plausible deniability -- even if they didn't provide it, the world would still assume they did.

[boppers]

82. The refinement methods leave signatures.

*All* HEU products can be effectively fingerprinted, is some cases down to the raw feed stocks.

As far as size and weight, Gadget was a bit shorter, lengthwise, than a Beetle (though taller), and assembled on July 13... a single day.

It's not that the parts, or building, or assembly, are complex, it's all about the knowledge, and materials, and machining.

[IDFbunny]

94. They could point the finger at N Korea, Pakistan, and Russia also

Though the the terrorists bomb will likely of Iranian fingerprints on it.

[Wizard777]

18. Don't count on it. They "accidently" attacked us once already.

[JohnyCanuck]

58. Actually twice,

If you count the false-flag "Lavon Affair" attacks as one and the attack on the USS Liberty as two.

[Alcibiades]

19. Don't be so sure about that

I don't care if he did spend his childhood in Philly: Bibi only cares about Bibi, and he's nuke the US in a heartbeat if he thought it would further his interests.

[Stables2010]

47. yes they would and have attacked us and killed our soldiers too

Gods people can do no wrong

[SergeStorms]

53. Which particular god.....

are you talking about? Each religion has their own brand of supreme being and they're both the blood thirsty, jealous and vindictive sort. :shrug:

[Stables2010]

59. sure religion along with other things can be used to justify mankind's most horrific atrocities

see; churches place above torture and human trafficking cells, religious crusades war in the middle east uses religion when its really about resources/ or terrorism yea.

[cali]

60. sniff, sniff. I smell something nasty.

[Stables2010]

67. by all means please explain?

[cali]

73. certainly. "the god's people" shit crosses the line

[Stables2010]

74. thats what they believe even Christians believe this why r u upset

even though after Jesus was born on earth Jewish Christian faith became diametrically opposed. This confuses the hell out of me how do Christians reconcile Jewish people not recognizing their savior and the son of God as Jesus and them still believe that they are god chosen ones and therefore are aloof to any criticizing?

[cali]

75. huh?" want to rephrase that in something that resembles coherent language?

"even though after Jesus was born on earth Jewish Christian faith became diametrically opposed."

that is not a sentence. It says nothing. Do you mean that after the birth of Jesus the Jewish and Christian faiths became diametrically opposed to one another? That's nonsense but at least it's coherent nonsense. The rest of your post is no better.

I don't think you belong at DU. And I don't think you'll last another 35 posts, dear.

[pattmarty]

79. Jesusfuckingchrist, more of this "religious arguing" shit...................

............I am getting so sick of this crap. Religion causes so many problems in the world and now AGAIN starts shit at DU. FUCK ALL RELIGIONS!!!!!!!!

[cali]

83. this is a discussion board, dear. your hyperbole is absurd.

we discuss and we argue here, and yes, of course that includes religion as a topic. In any case, my comments to the poster have zip all to do with religion. that should be clear.

[Stables2010]

80. Jewish people believe Jesus is not the son of god, yet Christian are lead to believe Jewish people

are non-the-less gods chosen people. I dont get it?

you want me gone for asking questions? is this freerepublic or something I just tend to believe religion manipulated is the root of most of mankind's intolerance, hatred, and overall discord here on earth. you also hurt my feeling with your comments about my illiteracy i must really be a piece of shit huh? :(

[cali]

84. I never said you were a piece of shit. I think what you're writing is.

and that it hovers on crossing the line.

[Stables2010]

85. thanks that makes me feel better, I also agree with your first point,

but what is this line you speak of? can you please elaborate?

[cali]

86. the line is

about the fact that claims that the Jews see themselves as the chosen people or special and above others has long been used as a an anti-semitic plank- a reason to hate Jews. As I understand it the bit about the "chosen people" thing, it simply refers to being chosen to be in a pact with God.

[Stables2010]

91. nonsense, millions of people work from that modus operandi,

I dont agree with you that it is anti-semitic to believe they are not "God chosen people"although it maybe.(I tend to believe we all are). The reason i feel for the perceived "antisemitism" or resentment towards the Jewish people is that some believe that the land they now inhabit was ordained to them by God and it was always meant to be a Jewish state at its heart. Even from my own upbringing in the church we were taught this fallacy. I just wish all religions would get along, but in it self seems to be a oxymoron to the most fanatic of believers of all religions.

[cali]

93. I don't think it's particularly my business,to tell people

of any faith what the should or shouldn't believe. Ans so what if some Jews view Israel in a religious light? It's hardly the only religion to have a strong regard for a certain place. You seem rather obsessively focused on Jews.

[KoKo]

6. Well...it would be nice if MSM would allow average Joe Sixpack to know that Israel can defend itself

against whatever Iran throws ...some piece of tin missel that misfires and ends up in Iraq or Syria...or maybe even Lebanon...in 5 years or so. :eyes:

[Butch350]

11. A nuclear weapon can be dangerous in the hands of anyone.

[KoKo]

5. Good for Obama and for the Washington Times for reporting this!

:eyes:

[ej510]

7. Spineless.

Nothing changes.

[katandmoon]

9. When WW3 starts I'll blame the US's suicidal bending over for Israel.

[laconicsax]

13. What if it starts as a conflict between South American countries?

[katandmoon]

15. Like which ones?

[Alamuti Lotus]

29. Colombia/Honduras and 'any neighbor not toeing US line'

[Selatius]

35. As far as the world knows, no country in Latin America possesses thermonuclear weapons.

Many people equate WW3 with the use of nuclear weapons as opposed to being simply a conventional war.

[RogueBandit]

10. Must be an incredible arsenal

They must have an enormous number of nuclear weapons, and I'm guessing we are the primary suppliers and maintainers. There is some reason they don't want weapons internationally "known to exist" to not be internationally inspected, and my guess is the quantity...and now that I think about it maybe the targets.

[14thColony]

68. France was Israel's nuclear patron in the early 1960s

De Gaulle's government was Israel's primary arms supplier and supporter until the late 1960s. The first Israeli nukes were built during this time from material they enriched at the Dimona breeder reactor, and almost certainly using French nuclear weapon designs as the basis for their own versions. The handful of pictures of Israeli nukes that have ever been covertly smuggled out show that they don't look exactly like anyone else's designs, and certainly not like US bombs.

Even in arms control inspections the inspectors don't have a right to know targets - they only get to inspect (mainly) delivery systems, since that's what most treaties limit. Target lists are not nukes and are not delivery systems, and would not be subject to inspection by anyone.

[Amonester]

12. So, are we supposed to disarm all nukes or not?

Which is which?

Last week I "heard" something like "let's work together to eliminate all nukes" in the U.N. building (or elsewhere).

Does that working together include or exclude Israel?

(Or am I just "confused"?) :shrug:

What's going on?

[laconicsax]

14. Yes, but Israel needs to defend itself from small organizations and non-nuclear neighbors.

Insisting that Israel play by the same rules as everyone else is anti-Semitic...didn't you get the memo?

[Amonester]

16. I'm still confused.

But sadly, as much as I would love to believe a nukeless world is possible, even if all head-of-states would say 'we don't have nukes anymore' I am afraid a few submarines would still carry some...

It's like the promise to eliminate poverty that came out of the U.N. walls in the nineties...

Not only that promise hasn't been kept, but poverty has grown to an all-time world record (while the top 1% increased their wealth beyond any reason).

[Alcibiades]

20. You're not confused at all

Nuclear states get to have nukes. Non-nuclear states don't. This double standard is the basis of current policy, and will continue to be so, because it benefits the most powerful nations on earth, and their close allies.

[daleo]

27. Nice succinct explanation. n/t

[Mugweed]

17. We know Israel broke treaty and nobody did anything

So why should anyone care if others try?
By the way, what has Israel ever REALLY done to benefit the US and justify the money given to them each year?

[Jim Sagle]

22. No they didn't break the treaty, they never signed it in the first place.

Read up on it.

[14thColony]

69. As Jim Sagle says above...

This is the legal rub -- Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and France, which supplied them with their initial start-up nuclear weapons design and production capability in the 1960s, didn't sign the NPT until after their nuclear support to Israel has already been terminated. Under international law as it existed at the time, neither Israel nor France did anything wrong. As a non-signatory to the NPT, technically Israel is still doing nothing wrong by possessing nukes developed prior to the existance of the treaty.

[Wizard777]

21. This is an open secret . Which is not really a secret at all.

That is the problem. That feeds the brinkmanship. Israel need the nukes to feel safe in the region. Now that they have them Iran and other countries feel they need them to at least be on the same footing with the ever expanding Israel. Neither us or Israel have a real firm map on what is and what is not Israel. We've given them nukes to protect an ever morphing territory. I don't think it's wise. If Obama is making Concessions for Israel. They certainly aren't returning the favor. Obama says, Stop building. They say, SCREW YOU! So we should take back one nuke for every house they build in a disputed territory against our wishes. That will put an end to one problem or another real quick.

[Vidar]

23. The world's worst kept secret & another helping of double standards.

[ro1942]

30. Very well said, thanks

[bhikkhu]

24. We all need to publicly agree to keep this secret

Its very important. Maybe we should have a UN session where all member nations agree to not talk about or refer in any way to Isreal's secret nukes. Iran would sign on, I'm sure.

[aquart]

25. How very secretive.

And the source is, shall we say, a stretch?

[harmonicon]

26. the hypocrisy continues - no surprise (nt)

[UndertheOcean]

31. I wonder what the policy of the USA regarding Israeli nukes will be when...

the Israeli Arabs outnumber Israeli Jews in a couple of decades.

[defendandprotect]

32. Not good . . . and we have to stop supporting Israel's warmongers .. .

and financing their weapons!

[progressiveGI]

33. Double Standard?

Double standard where we continue to hound Iran to open up their country for inspections while turning a blind eye towards Israel.

[cali]

62. we also turn a blind eye to Pakistan. Funny how so many people

are outraged about Israeli nukes but never acknowledge that Pakistan also has nukes.

[Chulanowa]

34. Honestly... I'm starting to wonder if Israel actually HAS the damn things

Have they ever conducted a test?

It may just be a cudgel for the neighbors, sort of like how Saddam used his completely nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Technically possible

But unlikely. The output of plutonium from the various reactors Israel has had running over the last few decades allows for a significant number of weapons, varying based on how much PU they put in each weapon, or, another way of putting it, the expected yield of each weapon.

If they don't have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 devices of varying yield, well.. what the hell else did they do with all the PU?
It's possible Israel, working with South Africa, has tested one, but no one seems to know for sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_Incident


But lacking any known Israeli nuclear test (and no actual use in war), your question remains a possibility.

[Chulanowa]

70. Fair enough

However, the main use of a nuclear weapon is a deterrent. You want your enemies to know you have it. You want to send up a mushroom cloud with your flag on it in some desert to say to the world, "we will fuck your shit up."

So why the secrecy? it's not as though Israel would be in violation of the NPT or other such treaties. Honestly it has nothing to lose from confirming it posesses nukes - israel doesn't really have much by way of international image these days, and waving a nuke around would certainly give it some deterrence value.

It's starting to strike me as a very small man pretending he has very large testicles.

[14thColony]

98. I'm no expert on the relevant US laws, but

I seem to recall the crux of the issue is that there are existing US laws that would require us to cut off some sorts of aid and cooperation with any state that had been found to have covertly developed nuclear weapons - remember that individual nations can make domestic laws that go far beyond the NPT - the NPT is merely the internationally-agreed position on the matter. I know, for instance, that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provides for certain sanctions and cut-off of cooperation like this, and that law pre-dates the NPT.

So I think the core of the issue is that their nuclear ambiguity allows us an out with respect to actions we might be compelled by our own laws to take.

[Ter]

36. I wish people would stop criticizing President Obama for this

He has no real choice. It's not even his decision, despite what people believe. Sad. :(

[DWilliamsamh]

39. Why doesn't he have a choice? Enlighten me? (N/T)

[Ter]

42. People all think it's that easy when you're President, and that they are in charge

But did you ever stop and think why he (and every other president in recent times) changes certain positions or bows to Israel? I am 100% convinced that after elected, some sort of secret society meets with each president and tells him what he can and can't do. Remember when Reagan was highly outspoken against the Trilateral Commission? Even after he was sworn in, he continued to blast it. However, he never mentioned it again for the rest of his life after he early 1981. Coincidence, or did someomeone in the government shut him up?

You may think I'm crazy, but my idol Dennis Kucinich and several others in Congress agree with me on this. Now, the right wing likes to call this the "Shadow Government" but I am not yet convinced there is an entire alternate government in charge, just a certain group of people.

[DWilliamsamh]

44. Your right....

You are crazy.

[Ter]

46. You won't think that forever

You will know the truth one day. I awoke and you can too. :)

[Hugabear]

49. "the truth" - and you know this how?

What exactly was your "awakening"? How do you know about all this super-secret conspiracy stuff? Have you ever sat in on any of their meetings? Are you an active or ex-member? Do you have first-hand knowledge?

Or did you just read some conspiracy website or book about the Trilateral Commission? Or perhaps it was one of those "documentaries" the History Channel likes to run, in between their coverage of Nazi werewolves, Bigfoot, 2012, and Nostradamus.

[HisTomness]

48. The Shadow Government

I think you're probably quite close to the truth regarding this being the will of not so much a shadow government as a group of interested parties. If I had to guess (and I do), I would wager that it's primarily folks in the Pentagon and CIA.

Fact is, the primary responsibility of our elected officials is to run things here at home. As far as geopolitical relations are concerned, Presidents may come and go but there are military brass and intelligence officers that have been entrenched in this game for decades. A President comes into office full of vim and vigor and is then briefed on the present state of behind-the-scenes global politics and the high stakes surrounding them. It's probably at that point that any President starts to feel a little out of his depth compared to those for whom this has been a lifelong struggle.

I'm not agreeing with the strategies employed or apologizing for the players involved. I just think it reasonable to imagine a President walking away from that crash course rethinking his original assumptions and leaning more toward a personal policy of letting those who have been quietly at the helm of such matters remain there.

As to why the US lets Israel have nukes: that's no secret either. It's because its strategically like having an albeit bratty US nuclear outpost right there in the Middle East, i.e. to further US interests.

Why shouldn't Israel play by the rules like everyone else? Because the current status quo furthers US interests.

In fact, that's the answer to every question about why the US allows something to be the case. The trick is to determine which interests and how they are furthered.

[cali]

64. So Pakistan plays by the rules. Wow. I didn't know that.

And the U.S. didn't "allow" Israel to have nukes anymore than they allowed Pakistan to have them.

[Truth2Tell]

97. The nuclear issues with Pakistan are

just as concerning as the nuclear issues with Israel to me. The same goes for most of the anti-war progressives I know. I'm not familiar with these straw people you are referring to who only bash Israel but have no concerns about Pakistan. If anything the Pakistani program is more dangerous and more volatile. And the US bears even more responsibility for its existence than we do for Israel's program. And yes, we have "allowed" both nations to have nukes, at least to the extent that we have enabled, defended, apologized for and deliberately turned a blind eye to both programs for many many years.

[cali]

99. just pointing out that Israel is not unique. Some people clearly think it is.

[Truth2Tell]

100. This is a thread about the Israeli nuclear program,

not the Pakistani program. The fact that people would comment and make criticisms of Israel without mentioning Pakistan doesn't mean they care more about one than the other. It just means that, unlike you, they are staying on topic.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Yeaaaah, I doubt it.

It think its more a case of 'you wouldn't fucking believe how seat-of-the-pants, no training, holy shit here-we-go over niagra falls in a paper cup' being the President is.

Oh, i'm sure there are little cabals of power in the Government, people who don't like to share, fifedoms and all that, but a single, organized entity of any sort pulling all the strings? Fat fucking chance.


I think everyone would be simultaneously terrified, and amazed that we A) Haven't ended ourselves somehow and B) How well everything actually seems to work, considering how the Government actually functions, if they took a good close look behind the curtains one day.


Apply Ockham's Razor, someone likely piped in and briefed Obama on shared intel, assets we have in the middle east, past history, defense contracts, current and past military aid and sales, shady transactions and operations that may or may not have been sanctioned, but are better left in the shade, and dozens of other factors, and Obama went 'well, shit.'

As most of our presidents probably have more than a few times each term.

[cali]

63. oh goody, just what DU needs. Another completely off the rails CTer.

[SergeStorms]

54. But what about......

all of that "change we can believe in", and the very popular "transparent government" we were told was going to be the benchmark of an Obama administration? So you're saying business as usual in Washington is acceptable? :shrug:

[DWilliamsamh]

37. That headline made me literally laugh out loud!

It would actually be funny if the biggest non-secret in the world wasn't confirmation of MY country's unfathomable boot licking of Israel. WHY THE FUCK does does Israel not have to follow the same rules of all other nuclear nations? They certainly don't have to follow the rules we and the rest of the world are trying to impose on Iran - which is CURRENTLY in striking range of Israel, a nation that has BOMBED them with absolutely NO international "mandate."

Ok... now every one is free to call me an anti-Semite.

[proteus_lives]

40. If there is one country on earth that needs nukes....

It's Israel.

[Ter]

43. Why?

Who attacks it?

[proteus_lives]

45. At different points of it's history most of the nations of the ME have attacked Israel.

And have financed terror attacks. The lessons of '48, '67 and '73 were not lost on Israel. Given their history, it's not surprising that they would value and need the nuclear option.

[Chulanowa]

72. Are you going to answer the question?

Why does Israel need nukes?

[proteus_lives]

89. Because they decrease the chance of another general conflict.

Because one thing hasn't changed since '48. Israel is outnumbered.

[Chulanowa]

90. They do?

Because it seems to me that the United States, the USSR / Russia, and China have all had their fair share of general conflicts, regardless of nuclear capability.

And really, how does this work? Are you saying that if say, Syria rolled some tanks towards Israel, Israel would be justified in dropping a nuke on Damascus?

[proteus_lives]

96. Small conflicts, yes. General warfare? No.

After years of reading and thought, I've come to the conclusion that nukes have prevented another WWII level conflict. Without nukes the various leaderships of US/UK/France/USSR-Russia/China/India/Pakistan/ME would have rolled the dice on a descive war that they believed they could win. And a war like that would kill millions. It's human nature to want to achieve victory and dominance for your group/nation/whatever. Virtually the only thing keeping a lid on that is the fact that no side can come up with a plan to destroy the others nuke capability without the unacceptable risk of MAD. And even then it's almost not enough considering the various nuclear close-calls there have been over the years. I believe without nukes, NATO and the USSR would have clashed in Europe, China would turned Korea and Vietnam into larger conflicts, India and Pakistan would be locked in bloody warfare and the ME nations would have launched another Yom Kippur war by now.

"And really, how does this work? Are you saying that if say, Syria rolled some tanks towards Israel, Israel would be justified in dropping a nuke on Damascus?" No. Israel would use it's nuke in the event of catastrophe. If the IDF had be routed, Jerusalem lost, Tel Aviv threatened, their backs to the sea. Then they would use the nukes. I'd heard it referred to as "Samson brings down the temple, killing himself and his enemies." I hope that never happens but the Israelis know they stand closer to the edge then most other nations and that's why they make sure the other powers in the ME know that to launch a general assault against Israel would be suicide.

[Chulanowa]

103. Then I believe you have a relatively poor grasp of history.

Your logic is no different from the idea that there were no 9/11's after 9/11, so therefor Bush Kept Us Safe. You start with the assumptiuon that nukes = good, and then pick out what you think is evidence supporting your claim.

Simple fact is, the main force preventing a "world war 3" scenario is a lack of the perfect storm conditions that generated the first two world wars. And this has less to do with particular weapons than with improved communications leading to improved diplomacy, stronger economic safeguards, and at least some level of awareness of the conditions that spawned the last two World Wars. Honestly if the world powers had been as eager to kick some ass as you seem to think, we would have gotten the red Dawn scenario - the powers go about kicking each others' ass, but agree to not use nukes while doing so.

Want to know why China didn't turn Vietnam into a larger conflict? Has nothing to do with nukes. It has everything to do with the fact china was, some corrupt officials supplying arms notwithstanding, largely uninvolved in the conflict. The connection was pure hype, and went like "The chinese are communist, the North Vietnamese are communist, ergo they must be bosom buddies!" - Nothing could be further fro mthe truth. First off, the Sino-Russian war proved easily that communist governments aren't always buddies. next, there was the fact that Ho Chi Minh's brand of communism was much closer to the original Marx, or perhaps even to Castro's communism, than it was to either Mao or Stalin - that's because he adopted communism while studying in europe, and wasn't influenced from the north. next... Nationalism. The Vietnamese and Chinese have a historical relationship similar to the chinese and Tibet. Every now and then China would march in, plunder, kill, set up a provisional kleptocratic government, until the regime toppled. The Vietnamese wanted nothing to do with China, except as a potential trade partner.

And do you want to know why there has not been another Yom Kippur war? A couple of reasons. First and foremost, the '73 war demonstrated that even if the Arabs start getting the better of Israel, the United States is going to step in. Given how tough Israel is even on its own, that pretty much makes any attempt to repeat the exercise pointless and suicidal. Next... well, have you seen the condition of the region's militaries? The Iraqi military was the best the area had to offer, and how'd that turn out for them? What, is Saudi Arabia going to scrape up its muskets and cast-iron tanks and go a-marching? Lebanon's military was demonstrated to be inferior to a ragtag militia within its own borders not once, but twice. Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey are friends with Israel, and, what, Syria? Assad can barely organize his troops enough for a parade march, let along any actual combat. Iran could conceivably do something, except its air power is geared totally towards defense, and it has no way to mobilize ground forces - Frankly Israel is a bigger threat to iran than the other way around.

Which brings us to your explanation.

No. Israel would use it's nuke in the event of catastrophe. If the IDF had be routed, Jerusalem lost, Tel Aviv threatened, their backs to the sea. Then they would use the nukes.

In light of the points I made above, regarding the incompetence, inability, and unwillingness of the Arabs in hte region to re-hash old wars, the unlikeliness of the sole possible threat in the region ever materializing, and the fact that no matter what, the US is on speed-dial, the question remains; why does Israel need nukes?

In your post, you acknowledge the main use of a nuclear weapon is as a deterrent. if this scenario ever comes to pass, then it's pretty certain that they have been proven to be, you know, useless. Which means Israel might as well never have had them in the first place.

So whichever way you come at it from, Israel never really needed the things.

As you continue though, you discard the rest of what you're saying, and reveal the real reason Israel "needs" nukes in your mind - Not as a deterrent or as a safeguard or a security measure - they need nukes in order to massacre tens of millions of Arabs, Persians, and Africans in revenge, in case the fantasy scenario you outlined ever comes to pass.

Now ignoring for a moment the absolute Strangelovean insanity of this, I have to ask... if the IDF is flattened and Israel is basically pressed to the beaches... then wouldn't this nuclear arsenal be in the (obviously insanely capable, given the asskicking they have dealt) hands of its attackers?

[proteus_lives]

104. I agree with some of your points, disagree with others.

I agree with your points on China/Vietnam. Your "perfect storm" thing makes sense but along with the list you provided, add nukes to it. Because that is the stop-block. No matter what economic collapse or political upheaval, no country can ignore the threat of nuclear weapons. Israel is tough, you're right but they aren't invincible. They were victorious but absorbed a lot more damage then they thought the Egyptians were capable of inflicting. I believe Meir had to resign during the backlash following the war.

The point is that things change. Jordan and Egypt are friendly with Israel but that isn't written in stone. That perfect storm you mentioned could happen again. There could be a new United Arab Republic, the US could cut off all funding and aid to Israel, " Frankly Israel is a bigger threat to iran than the other way around." yeah, right now, and so on and so on. But one of the biggest defenses against it is nuclear deterrence.

"So whichever way you come at it from, Israel never really needed the things." I still think they do because things change. What's not a threat right now could be a threat 10 years down the road.

"Now ignoring for a moment the absolute Strangelovean insanity of this, I have to ask... if the IDF is flattened and Israel is basically pressed to the beaches... then wouldn't this nuclear arsenal be in the (obviously insanely capable, given the asskicking they have dealt) hands of its attackers?"

All nuclear nations have their own protocols. Israel has subs that would launch nukes. And I'd imagine that silos are well-defended and if they're being overrun without being launched, they would be disabled or destroyed. And whose to say they always stay in the same place? I remember reading about how the USSR kept missiles mobile on trains to limit their vulnerability.

[Chulanowa]

105. "Might possibly" isn't a very good reason for anything.

Remember Cheney's "1% Doctrine"? That if there is even so much as 1% chance of a threat, it should be responded to as if it were 100%? This is why we invaded the little shithole of Iraq and made it into a gigantic shithole.

Check out the BBC documentary "Power of Nightmares" - it goes into detail on how this sort of thinking basically leads to whoever has the gloomiest outlook being the ones who gets to make policy, even if that outlook has no bearing on reality. It's as applicable to Israel as it is to the Us or Britain.

A United Arab Republic is actually a good idea for the region. Not for any reason pertaining to Israel, but because it'd be a decent way to unify the region politically and economically, reduce a lot of semi-wars, expand human rights, and so on and so forth. Could it be a threat to Israel? Yes, but only as a third or fourth-tier "if".

IF regimes such as the house of Saud, the Hashemites in Jordan, the Baathists in Syria, etc are overthrown by revolt
AND
IF the militaries of these nations side with the revolt
AND
IF the revolutionaries decide to make common cause across the borders
AND
IF this is happening after a period of strong Arab military investment and buildup
AND
IF the Arab Republic hasn't decided on neutrality with Israel (theoretically such a republic would include Gaza and the West bank, reducing the pressure of the palestinian issue...)
then such an occurrence might pose a threat to Israel.

You have to dig through all those ifs to reach a threat to Israel from an Arab Republic. Each if increases in unlikeliness exponentially, and increases its chance to halt progression.
You have to overthrow powerful governments. Then you have to hope the nation's military doesn't turn the revolt into a protracted civil war. You have to hope that the neighboring states don't simply lock borders and train their guns on your revolution. And so on and so forth.

Planning as if this were a real and immediate threat is a waste of resources. Fuck, I kind of feel like i'm wasting time just conjecturing about it.

[14thColony]

101. Interesting thesis, but it's then hard to explain the 1973 War

Egyptian intelligence of the late 60s and early 70s was awfully good, and Syrian intelligence wasn't too bad either. It would be pretty unlikely that neither country had a hint that Israel had nukes (which they certainly did by 1968 at the latest). Yet both countries were willing to launch a major military offensive from both the north and the west, catching the Israelis on their back foot and (at least for the Egyptians) inflicting the worst series of tactical and operational defeats that Israel has ever suffered. It appears that both Cairo and Damascus calculated (rightly) that some mechanism would act to prevent Israel from using nuclear weapons.

[Truth2Tell]

102. And not only that, Israel was able to

win those conflicts (if you want to call it that) without resorting to the use of nukes...

Then there's the fact that Israel is backstopped militarily by the US... they already enjoy the benefit of American deterrence.

Without an Israeli nuclear program it's unlikely we'd see Iran in such a hurry to develop their own.

[Chulanowa]

106. It's unlikely we're seeing Iran in a hurry to develop its own

Gotta remember man, this is Buildup to Iraq 2.0. The exact same arguments from the exact same people about the exact same things, and are exactly as trustworthy.

It's basically a combination of our own war-hawks loving war, a bunch of messianic neocons wantint to "transform the region" and pressure from Israel who wants to be the sole local power and wants the US to sacrifice its men and women for that cause.

[Truth2Tell]

107. True dat. nt

[SergeStorms]

55. NO country on earth "needs nukes".

n/t

[proteus_lives]

57. I disagree.

[Divine Discontent]

41. I'm no expert on the world - but even I knew that Israel had nukes, or supposedly did - why in the

WORLD would a newspaper embarrass themselves with a supposed SHOCKING story that isn't so shocking to anyone that pays even a little attention to the news each week? OHHHHH

that's right.


"Rev" Moon.... nuff said.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Actually, it's not 'known'.

It's suspected. It's suspected for very good reasons, but the flipside is, this is the sort of thing that makes for a very beneficial rumor. Israel has absolutely nothing to lose formenting the impression that it has a nuclear arsenal, whether it has one or not.

Not actually demonstrating the ability to wage war with atomic weapons is somewhat suggestive.

I think it is likely they have many atomic weapons, but not certain. If they do have the capability, it could vary wildly from a few high yield weapons, to a lot of 10-20kt type weapons... It's pretty much a guessing game.

Then, there's the reliability of these supposed stockpiles to consider, given the glaring lack of testing that Israel has done. If they have these weapons, they are based on theoretical information they engineered themselves, and whatever information they could buy or steal. The weapons, if they exist, should have a fair number that are several decades old. Lack of testing can play a detrimental effect here as well.

One of those situations I think it's best to use the word 'alleged'. ;)

[SergeStorms]

56. Maybe that's the problem.........

there are so few people in this country that actually DO pay attention. Half the people in this country don't seem to know that Medicare is a government run program. :banghead:

I'm in no way sticking up for the Moonie Times, but we do live in a country full of ignorant, self-absorbed, parochial numbskulls.

[Divine Discontent]

76. I tell ya... I know. I used to say I was mid-level intelligent with a tested IQ at

139-158, and I would just say I was 'smart', but after watching my fellow citizens this summer - I'm "damn smart!"

lol

If I meet someone in the future who doesn't realize what Medicare is, I'm going to glare at them suspiciously, and then start laughing and say, "you're being facetious, aren't you?" and when they say, "what does that mean?", I'm going to say, "it means you're AWE-SOME!"

I feel like Stewie Griffin....

(edit to add Stewie trying out for AI... I love that kid!)

[orpupilofnature57]

61. Once again , we cause animosity giving Israel special treatment

[Chulanowa]

71. Especially while treating iran like a nation of criminals...

because we suspect that it might be possible that maybe they almost have a sort-of capability to come close to possible production of a nuclear weapon in maybe ten years.

But then... Israelis aren't Muslims, are they?

[vaberella]

65. I'll wait until it's spoken on. Too many times unnamed sources have proven to be wrong on stuff. n/t

[JohnyCanuck]

77. Unnamed sources or not, this time they are right on.

The question of the night at President Obama's first televised press conference focused not on economics but foreign policy. Helen Thomas asked the president if he knew of any countries in the Middle East that have nuclear weapons. The President said that he didn't want to "speculate" about such an issue, but that preventing a regional nuclear arms race, as well as reducing nuclear arsenals internationally, was an important goal.

There is, of course, only one Middle Eastern nation which has a nuclear arsenal: Israel. Thomas' question was designed to test whether Obama would admit that well-known secret. Many past American presidents have not.

The president refused to answer. Which begs a follow-up question: why is it considered impermissible for American politicians to even admit that Israel is a nuclear power? For what reason is such an admission considered to be a means of undermining US-Israeli relations, or weakening Israeli security? Bold but highly debatable (and contentious) statements concerning prominent Middle Eastern actors fall from the lips of American leaders constantly. For example, tonight President Obama reiterated the charge that Hamas and Hezbollah are both terrorist organizations, a broad-brush description, considering that Hamas's political wing has won at least one democratic election (in Gaza), and both groups have humanitarian as well as paramilitary wings.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-v-santore/obama-dodges-question-on_b_165451.html

[lib2DaBone]

78. Why does the Symington Amendment apply to every country except Israel?

... from what I understand.. the Symington Amendment to the Fair Trade Act.. says that no foreign aid is to be given to a country that does not open to nuclear inspections.

Israel does not allow inspections... yet receives Billions in Aid from the USA. Did Israel receive a special waiver?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(snip)

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended by the Symington Amendment of 1976 and the Glenn Amendment of 1977 prohibit US military assistance to countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology outside of international nonproliferation regimes. Israel, unlike Iran, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Congress wishes to provide US taxpayer funded foreign aid to Israel in compliance with US law, it may do so only under a special waiver from the office of the President as in the case for Pakistan.

[polichick]

81. Whatever the truth of this particular piece, we can thank our double standard re Israel...

...for a lot of the hatred toward us.

Forget war; we should try cleaning up our act in this regard.

[whosinpower]

87. Well. I disagree with this policy

Israel, as a legitimate nation should be a legitimate part of the nuclear community. To do otherwise, undermines them. To do otherwise undermines non proliferation of nuclear weapons that we all desire.

Today, we can be reasonably assured that Israel will not allow their weaponry to fall into terrorist hands....but that does not mean it will be so until the end of time. Times are ever changing and just as the western nations have their share of wingnuts, and just as eastern muslim nations have their share of wingnuts - so do the Israeli's.

If Israel wants to be a part of the world - they should volunteerily step up and invite inspectors to declare the Dimona complex. This does not mean that they have to give them up, but it does mean that they can assure the international community that their nuclear arsonal is safe and accounted for.

Having said that, I do not feel that Obama should force them. I do think they should take the high road and volunteer.

[fascisthunter]

88. Not so Secret secret???

is this a joke?

[bemildred]

92. Indeed.

And we are the straight men.

[treestar]

95. What secret?

:rofl: