Talk:Israel and weapons of mass destruction

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military science and technology task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Middle Eastern military history task force

Declassified: 1974 Special NIE "Prospects for further proliferation of nuclear weapons."

Source:

• Amir Oren. CIA: We said back in 1974 that Israel had nuclear weapons. Haaretz. 11/01/2008.

Key assessments / conclusions from this 1974 "Special NIE" on nuclear proliferation...

By 1974, Israel has produced and stockpiled a "small number" of nuclear weapons.

• "The Central Intelligence Agency, backed by bodies including the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Defense Intelligence Agency, determined in August 1974 that Israel had nuclear 'weapons in being,' a 'small number' of which it 'produced and stockpiled.'"
• "...the entire [US] intelligence community determined, 'Israel already has produced nuclear weapons.' This analysis was based on 'Israeli acquisition of large quantities of uranium,' in part covertly; on Israel's ambiguous efforts to enrich uranium; and on the huge investment in the 'Jericho' surface-to-surface missile 'designed to accommodate nuclear warheads.'"

'Jericho' nuclear surface-to-surface missile

• "The 1974 document describes the Jericho project, from its inception in France through its migration to Israel to the replacement of the original inertial guidance system by an Israeli design 'based on components produced in Israel under licenses from U.S. companies."
• "Israel Aircraft Industries is responsible for the development of the missile and has constructed a number of facilities for production and testing north of Tel Aviv, near Haifa, at Ramle and nearby it 'a missile assembly and checkout plant.'"

Israel is "susceptible" to nuclear proliferation to then-friendly Iran and South Africa

• "Israel was also suspected of providing nuclear materials, equipment or technology to Iran, South Africa and other then-friendly countries."
• "The authors of the NIE wrote that the U.S. helped France expedite its nuclear program, France in turn helped Israel, and much like France and India, Israel, 'while unlikely to foster proliferation as a matter of national policy, probably will prove susceptible to the hue of economic and political advantages to be gained from exporting materials, technology and equipment relevant to nuclear weapons programs.'"

--Caradine (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, v.interesting. The declassified document itself is on the CIA FOIA page[1], "PROPECTS FOR FURTHER PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS". Also ArmsControlWonk[2] has made a more covenient PDF of it.[3] Rwendland (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither Confirm Nor Deny

The latest edits were about whether Israel has a policy of neither confirming nor denying it has nuclear weapons, or whether it simply denies having them. I don't think either is quite correct. Back in the 1960s Israel adopted the policy that it would not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East region. As far as I know, that policy remains in effect.

However, as Avner Cohen reported in his book "Israel and the Bomb," Israel (then Ambassador Rabin) gave a very coy response to a U.S. request for clarification (from then Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Warnke). Rabin said he thought "introducing" would require testing. Israeli officials generally refuse to discuss the matter publicly. Public debate is stifled by heavy-handed legal sanctions. This is why Cohen has called Israel's policy "opacity" rather than "ambiguity." NPguy (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 NPguy, thats right, they dont like to confirm or deny doing bad things because the terroritorialists and the anti-semititties would try to use it to wipe Dimona off googlemaps.

The problem is that some of the staff at Dimona were given uranium or plutonium mixed with some juice, and the government threatened and intimidated everyone to ensure their "plausible deniability", or their "opacity", to use your citation of Cohen. They say they dont forge passports or kill people around the world too, because it might make them look agressive, when they wish to promote the misperception of perpetual victimhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.179.0.179 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

United Nations resolution

Need to mention the RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DURING ITS TWENTY-NINTH SESSION, UN resolution 3263 (XXIX) of 9 December 1974: ESTABLISHMENT OF NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE ZONE IN THE REGION OF THE MIDDLE EAST http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/29/ares29.htm

This was used to destroy nuclear facilities Irak (Osirak), Syria (Al Kibar) and now Iran (Natanz, Isfahán, Arak y Busher). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alehopio (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear section heavily shortened

I see no reason to have two articles with largely the same text. I thus moved unique nuclear content to Nuclear weapons and Israel, the main article, and deleted almost all of the rest. Please make future nuclear-related adds/edits there. YLee (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundant, sort of POV, possibly merge with Nuclear weapons and Israel

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus Aervanath (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Nuclear weapons and Israel is far more in-depth and contains the same general ideas as Israel and weapons of mass destruction. Compared to other articles, such as United States and weapons of mass destruction, Russia and weapons of mass destruction, Iran and weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, this article is relatively short and fails to meet neutrality standards. For example, the article appears to be slightly forkish. I believe several editors have made a persistent effort in selecting sources while reducing and ignoring official responses by the Israeli government and outside supporters/commentators. Consider this: It not so much of a "length" issue as it is a proportional dispute. I bet we could merge this with Israel and nuclear weapons into a separate section, with a title like "Israel and biological/chemical weapons." A general lead could potentially be something similar to, "Israel has admitted manufacturing and including biological weapons etc..." You get the idea. Either that, or the article needs to be expanded exponentially and eventually rewritten. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The redundancy is why I drastically shortened this article and moved most of the nuclear text to Nuclear weapons and Israel. If the merge happens that article, in turn, should be renamed Israel and weapons of mass destruction. That said, I don't see any glaring POV problems with this article, or with the other one, but then I don't have any particular vested interests. I definitely oppose the alternative of expanding this article, though (especially if, as Wikifan12345 implies, it's meant to be some sort of "alternative" to Nuclear weapons and Israel); I doubt there's much more that can (or needs to be said) about Israel's chemical or biological weapons, and adding more to the nuclear section should, again, be done in the other article until there's a merge. YLee (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cautious support as long as the proposed article remains thorough and nuetral. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose — there is already Nuclear weapons and Israel... why do we need Israel and nuclear weapons? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose — The X and weapons of mass destruction is a Wikipedia convention, so this article should be retained. And how would the chemical weapons aspect of this article be retained in a nuclear weapons article? And as per Twas Now's reason. Rwendland (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent questionable edits of nuclear weapons section

There has been a string of edits to this section, increasing estimates of Israel's nuclear stockpile, making claims about its nuclear weapons design, and making assertions about the Jericho III. As far as I can tell, these new claims are not supported by the added citations, with the possible exception of reference to Jane's Intelligence Review. These changes seem dubious to me. Can someone attempt to verify the claims? NPguy (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we tried to verify the claims, but the United States Library of Congress and the Senate mis-appropriation committed unlawful censure of materials which would aid any such referencing. It seems that there is a bit of collusion going on to cover their illicit activities in payload delivery systems because Israel has some anti-American business projects in the emerging privatized space sector, which may be in use to divert attention from its nuclear delivery systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.179.0.179 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

estimates

" it has been estimated that Israel possesses up to 400 thermonuclear weapons, believed to be of Teller-Ulam design, including strategic warheads in the megaton-range"

I looked at the sources cited for this, at least the ones I could access online. Both of the online ones put the upper limit at 200 or so. Neither speculated on yield or design. Most sources I have seen, like the ones linked to on List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons, put put a lower limit at around 75-80 and don't speculate on weapons types. I'm fine with having the "optimistic" estimates on here, but we should make it clear that among the informed estimates, there is clearly a range. Most estimates I have seen put it well lower than 400, in any case, which is the most "optimistic" estimate I have seen. I don't think it is a representative estimate—it looks inflated or cherry-picked to me. I certainly doubt that whatever source gave the 400 number suggested they were all thermonuclear (which seems extraordinarily unlikely, given that any Israeli H-bombs are probably fairly clunky—conventional wisdom is that making small H-bombs requires a fairly rigorous testing regime). Perhaps wording more like below would paint a more accurate picture of what is known, unknown, and estimated:

"Israel's nuclear stockpile is usually estimated at being between 75 and 200 nuclear weapons, though some estimates have suggested they may have as many as 400. It has been suggested that Israel has thermonuclear (Teller-Ulam design) capability, which would allow it to produce strategic warheads in the megaton range."

I imagine this article is contentious so I won't edit it myself. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thirty days is awfully short. But there are threads dating back to 2004, which is ridiculous. I find threads dating back as much as two years are often informative. NPguy (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

They won't be deleted, and the archive will be indexed. Of the last ten threads the oldest one currently would be over two years old, well meeting the archiving guidelines.--Oneiros (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Y Done with 90 days.--Oneiros (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Article rather short

Considering the relatively high amount of controversy surrounding Israel's pursuit of nuclear weapons, mostly thanks to their secrecy and the relationship with South Africa, I find this article rather short. Perhaps it just hasn't been developed much, but it seems poor that there is so much information in the article on nuclear weapons, yet so little here. Coming here, I wouldn't have minded a rehash of the stuff I already knew, as well as perhaps learning some things I didn't know.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You've answered your own question. New nuclear-related text should go in the main article on the topic, not here. By contrast, there just isn't nearly as much to say on (or interest in) Israel's biological or chemical weapons; if you have something relevant to add on those topics, you are welcome to do so here. YLee (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian article on the South African documents

I reverted to a point before the recent edits. The mini edit war was pointless for the following reasons:

• The nuclear section is meant to be a stub summary that points people to the main article, Nuclear weapons and Israel. Any elaboration should occur there, not here.
• The Guardian report does not change the extant policy of deliberate ambiguity over Israel's nukes. Many foreign governments have published documents over the years that state, or at least assume, that Israeli nukes exist. The Guardian report does not change the status quo, and nothing will change until and unless the day the Israeli government itself says so.
• And, as stated in the edit history, it in any case does not belong in the summary. YLee (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the above. The South African documents are not just the opinion of a foreign government as to Israel's nuclear weapons status, they are minutes of meetings with Israeli officials. As such, they demonstrate Israel saying they have nuclear weapons, albeit only saying that in secret meetings. And, as such, this information is significant enough that it warrants mention here too, and not just in Nuclear weapons and Israel. This isn't some detail; it's central to the whole discussion! It also seems odd to have information on the subject in South Africa and weapons of mass destruction that is disallowed here. I will make some article edits based on this. Bondegezou (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You are mistaken. The Guardian is one tabloid that has reported on this alleged offer, and if you read carefully, you will see that there is no concrete evidence showing any Israel offer of sale or even confirmation that Israel has nuclear weapons. Numerous other media outlets have published stories of various Israeli and South African officials denying these allegations and analyzing them to show that they are nearly impossible or make no sense. Your text says, in the encyclopedia's voice, that Israel surely has nuclear weapons and surely offered to sell them. This is untrue and therefore inappropriate. Breein1007 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm split here. I think a brief sentence covering the material might be NOTABLE in the context of the stub. Something like "In 2010, minutes from a meeting between South African and Israeli officials suggested that Israel had offered to sell nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa" .@Bond Do you have references beyond "The Guardian"? That newspaper is liberal leaning. NickCT (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian is not a "tabloid" newspaper, although it is liberal leaning. The reports in The Guardian are trailing much lengthier coverage in a new book, so I expect there will be more citations available soon, although I recognise we can't act on those until they are available. What seems significant to me here is that this isn't just The Guardian making allegations: this is based on official South African government documents declassified there. This is an emerging story. There is an element of interpretation of the documents. Some denials have come out, some counter-denials analysing the denials have now come out... We do need to reflect that debate, absolutely. But I think it would be wrong to ignore the matter entirely. Israeli cooperation with the apartheid-era government is well documented; their cooperation over nuclear weapons is already described in several Wikipedia articles but has lacked detail given the understandable lack of primary historical materials. This new evidence is central to the matter. Yes, report the controversy, but not mentioning the matter at all seems very odd to me. Bondegezou (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, there have been many, many documents from other governments that clearly state that Israel has nuclear weapons, so unduly focusing on this one is a case of WP:RECENT (and, for that matter, WP:UNDUE). Israeli nukes are an open secret (Area 51 is another example of this); the only reason we don't say that Israel definitely has nuclear weapons is because that country itself hasn't ever said so. Reports of new South African documents don't change anything. In any case, discussion doesn't belong here, but in Nuclear weapons and Israel. YLee (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

While I understand the point you make about there being a separate Nuclear weapons and Israel article, clearly it is appropriate for key points to be included here. This is currently a very short section in an overall fairly short article: I don't see any particular space pressure meaning we can't slip in an additional few sentences, and this is some pretty big new stuff. These are not like other documents where other governments express a view that Israel has nuclear weapons, as I say above. They seem to me and to reliable sources to be qualitatively different in that they directly report Israeli officials. If you can point me to a equivalent document before, I'm all ears. I really would appreciate a response to this key point that these documents are different to any old report from another government saying they think Israel has nukes. Bondegezou (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

NickCT: the book is "The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa" by Sasha Polakow-Suransky, Pantheon Books, ISBN: 0375425462. Bondegezou (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My point isn't that there isn't room in this article to discuss the Guardian report. It is a question of maintaining order when a main article exists, and also remaining in line with the existing consensus there (which transfers to here) on how to discuss the existence of Israeli nukes. If and when Israel acknowledges that that it has nukes, then the appropriate portions of the summary and the section would be rewritten to mention this, but the bulk of both would not change. You're doing this backwards, by claiming that a single new newspaper article claiming the existence of non-Israeli documents allegedly quoting Israeli officials is substantially different from 40 years of non-Israeli government documents and reliable sources categorically stating that Israel has nukes (like The CIA says that Israel had nukes as early as 1974; also see the version with commentary at George Washington University's well-known National Security Archive project), but not changing the first sentence of the summary. And, no, I'm not telling you to change the first sentence! I'm saying that WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE should be read and reread. YLee (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)