Talk:Nuclear weapons and Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Arab League position[edit]

I propose to add a section on the Arab League position on Israel's nuclear program. It would take a little research, but would include the Middle East decision at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, proposals for a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone or a Middle East Zone Free of WMD, and the latest announcement that Arab states would withdraw from the NPT if Israel acknowledged having nuclear weapons Arab League vows to drop out of NPT if Israel admits it has nuclear weapons.

This could go under policy but probably deserves its own section. What do others think? NPguy (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I put in some such info under "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and United Nations’ Resolutions" last year. Maybe you should just beef it up? New section might get more opposition than its worth unless Arabs started taking notable action, like cutting off the oil. Carol Moore 04:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Vandalism[edit]

"hi" is written at the start of the article, but I can't find it in the source text.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed it - someone vandalised Template:Nuclear weapons, which is used at the start of the article. Hut 8.5 19:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

As a reminder, as soon as there is a disagreement about statements to put in the article, please bring things up at talk, don't just battle it out in edit summaries. Thanks, Elonka 14:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration[edit]

Wikipedia requires that unless some information is so common and well known (e.g. the sky is blue by day) it needs to be sourced, otherwise it is a violation of original research or synthesis. The statement about Israel and South Africa collaborating on nuclear research because both found it difficult to elicit help from other nuclear capable countries is something that either needs a verifiable and reliable source or it cannot remain in the article. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


Not that they found help for nuclear research difficult to elicit, but help for nuclear weapons research.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Arab League threat to withdraw from NPT (?)[edit]

The article contains the statement that "According to a statement by the Arab League, Arab states will withdraw from the NPT if Israel acknowledges having nuclear weapons and then does not open its facilities to international inspection and destroy its arsenal." There are several references to this statement in news reports on line. However, I think the statement was issued in error, without approval from Arab League states. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find citations for this. Given the circumstances, it might be politically difficult for the Arab League to disavow this statement publicly, even it it had been made in error.

What is the best way to note in the article itself these doubts about the cited reference? NPguy (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kamag.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Kamag.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved text from Israel and weapons of mass destruction[edit]

As I saw no reason to have two articles with substantially the same text, I moved unique nuclear-related content from Israel and weapons of mass destruction to here and deleted the rest there. Please keep future nuclear-related edits here, not there. YLee (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made a request move at Israel and weapons of mass destruction talk, which also contains a rationale and short examples of POV concerns. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel and NPT[edit]

I was tempted to revert the addition of the Washington Times article on the U.S. statement at an NPT meeting this week. There was a bit of a public flap, but the Washington Times presented one of the less reliable accounts. The U.S. statement was a restatement of the longstanding U.S. position that all countries should adhere to the NPT. It was not new or shocking. What was somewhat interesting was that the United States named Israel among the four countries that are not NPT Parties. Some in Israel seemed to take offense; others seemed to take it in stride. Perhaps the most interesting commentary was one by Avner Cohen (author of Israel and the Bomb, saying Israel should drop its nuclear opacity in favor of a transparent approach that would allow it to contribute constructively to international and regional efforts to control nuclear weapons.

I'd like to edit to use more reliable accounts, the Cohen commentary, and make clear this is not really new. NPguy (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please add alternate accounts or opinions on the issue by all means. That will help provide a fuller picture of what's going on. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do, it will save me the trouble. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Delivery systems[edit]

subs[edit]

Please notice the last editions I made:

It was written that the nuclear traid of Israel is restricted and that it's mainly short to medium ranged. However, according to an official report to the U.S congress (which is cited now in the missile delivery entry) and according to other sources (which are easy to find and probably some of are already cited in this article)the short range delivery systems are out of service. The Jericho I (500 km range) is out of service and Israel is now belived to have Jericho II (1500 km range (medium), Israel arsenal includes about 100 such missiles) and Jericho III (widely referred by authoritative and professional sources as having range of no less than 6500 km and no longer than 11, 500 km with a payload of 1000kg, i.e., definitely considered as long range missile) in operational service. Israel diesel submarines fleet has a range of ~9000 km (or actually 4500 km back and forth, however increasing this range by naval refueling is possible) and they are widely belived to carry Israeli popeye turbo cruise missles with a medium range of 1500-2400 km, again-medium range delivery systems. The Israeli F-16 and F-15 have an operational range of ~4500 km ( ~2200 km back and forth ) without refueling, and much larger with (Israeli already proved that it can extended this range [1])-again, at least medium range ability. The shory range abilities are reserved as in all other nuclear countries to the use in tactical weapons where according to "Samson option" Israel can use short range specieal designed artillery and probably short range missiles and it can't be considered part of its nuclear traid which refer to stratgic abilities only. However, as Israel is small and hence cant disperse nuclear and airbases all over -it's appearently more vulnerable. More, diesel submarines can't stay underwater during all of their entire mission and hence the Israeli nuclear traid is more vulnerable than those of countries with nuclear submaines.--Gilisa (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Wording by Source:

"Israeli Nuclear Dolphin-class submarine"

That implies/means that the Dolphin has a nuclear Drive which is untrue. I would remove the word Nuclear or change it to "presumedly nuclear armed"

Bombers[edit]

Currently aircraft section is about 60% how Israel lacks the 1960s style USAF Chrome Dome arctic long duration patrol bombers like the B-52 or the pre ICBM/SLBM era heavy bombers built and retired by the UK, France, and mostly by the USSR and China who now use them as cruise missile carriers. The case of the B-52 and to a far lesser extent Soviet Bear bomber is one for for attacking a superpower enemy in a massive landmass on an opposing hemisphere after safely in a holding area waiting for attack orders. How does this have relevance to the modern Israeli nuclear deterrent or this article? I feel that summarizing cited sources for aircraft and doctrine believed to represent the Israeli aircraft based force is sufficient and airborne patrol intercontinental bombers previously used by the US and to a far lesser extent the USSR in that role need not be mentioned in counterpoint as even those aircraft are no longer used in this way by any nuclear power at this point in history. Unless there is a reasoned and cited reason for inclusion I propose removing the cold war comparison from this section as currently I think we may have a problem with OR. Solomon(for now)79.181.2.242 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Other - including EMP[edit]

The section now labeled "Other" contains a number of relatively speculative claims about Israeli nuclear weapons capabilities. Most problematic to me are those regarding the EMP effect. Two specific claims do not appear to be supported by the references cited. First, there is the claim about the importance of the high (1 megaton) yield which do not appear to be supported by the source (a U.S. Congressional hearing). In fact, the source says the EMP effect is only loosely correlated to yield. Second, there are specific claims about the relationship between the altitude of the explosion and its range that appear to be reasonable but do not appear to be supported by the references. My suggestion is to delete the bullet on EMP, since it is a generic nuclear weapons capability not linked to any specific claims about Israel. NPguy (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa responded to my change with the following on my discussion page:
Hi, I just saw your last edit on the article whose title is mentioned above. You have deleted a source I provide about that a 1 megaton warhead could easily destory any unprotected electric device in a radius that can cover entire Iran. The source I gave is an obselte one however its estimations regarding the EMP effect of this warhead are still absolutly valid. It seems like you didn't look carefully in it because it contain a figure (in page 30 [2])that show the circle of EMP caused by a 1 MT WH over Iran itself. So, I didn't revert your editing still, but I ask you to come over it again-if it's not too hard for you, as soon as possible, and to return this source.
Best--Gilisa (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have replaced one of the sources which was, my mistake, unreliable, with a reliable one. As for CSIS source, it's an academic source. Of course, you can't attribute 100% credibility for anything is written there as they consider their knowledge to be only partial themselvs. However, when it comes to phsycial estimations of EMP effect size they are basing their estimations on computer simulations and exact science tools. There is no reason why to omit this source. However, if you still disagree with me-please tell me.--Gilisa (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I am still concerned that the text is misleading and unnecessary. First of all, EMP is a generic effect of nuclear weapons, not an "other" additional capability specifically attributed to Israel. The description of the potential effect on the United States seems irrelevant to this article. Second, the Congressional hearing says that the detonation need not be in the megaton range to achieve this effect. Therefore, the claim that a megaton-range detonation is necessary is specifically contradicted by one of the sources. A reference to EMP might make sense somewhere in this article, but I don't think it belongs under "other." NPguy (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
We can move it to some other section.However, you are right that this is not a different genere of weapon but only different use for the same one. Indeed, the same effect, or closer, could be achieved with smaller warheads-however the source referring a "megaton scale" weapon. Again, may be palcing it under "other" is incorrect but today many defense ministries around the world are espcially interested with EMP abilities (which could be achived to smaller extent without nuclear weapons as well and infact USA, Israel and some other countries probably have this non nuclear capability)and many armed forces around the world are being equiped with electronic equipment that could stand an EMP attack. So citing this ability in an article about nuclear weapons seems invited.If you still insist upon this-we can delete it entirely from the article as indeed it's not a separate nuclear ability even to me it seems that it can make the article more interesting--Gilisa (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it could go under "doctrine" or "use," if you can find a citation suggesting that EMP is part of Israel's nuclear planning. NPguy (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll look for this kind of citation in the next few days. Thanks--Gilisa (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, please take a look and tell me whether it[3] do the work.--Gilisa (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This seems even less relevant because it's about non-nuclear EMP and it's not about Israel, which is mentioned only once in passing. NPguy (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear superiority[edit]

As this section mentions Iraq and Iran, shouldn't there be a brief bit about Israel's recent bombing of Syria's nuclear research facility? Fuzbaby (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

error[edit]

"Although Israel first built a nuclear weapon in 1967-68"? and yet, it said in the begging that isreal is "widly belived to be 6h nation" with nuclear capabilitys, or somthing like tht. thats some what self contradictory, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Before '67-68 the USA, Russia, UK, France, and China had developed nuclear weapons. That would make Israel #6. India developed them soon afterward and tested in '74. Joshdboz (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Any real evidence?[edit]

Are there any real evidence that Israel has any nuclear weapons? As I see it, it is just rumours spread by israel themselfs to stear off an invasion from their neighbors without having to develope real nuclear weapons, that won't be used anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.155.36 (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the article. Mordechai Vanunu provided a lot of information to the Times of London. Follow the citations after his name in the article. NPguy (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I know of Mordechai Vanunu. That's why I asked for "real evidence" and not rumours spread by someone who just could been an israeli pawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.155.36 (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

New evidence[edit]

--87.79.174.241 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

--87.79.174.241 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Verfication asked for an Hebrew source[edit]

I added new paragraph to the article's 1967-present section:

In a 2010 interview Uzi Eilam, former head of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission, told to the Israeli daily Maariv that the nuclear reactor in Dimona had been through extensive improvements and renovations and is now functioning as new, with no safety problems or hazard to the surrounding environment or the region.

Thia paragraph is based on this [4] daily newspaper article as a source. The source was asked for verfication by NPguy. The relevant paragraphes in the source are:


בלי להיכנס לתחום הביטחוני, כור עלול לגרום לבעיות סביבתיות קשות. "הכור בצ'רנוביל נבנה לפי קריטריונים רוסיים שלא היו בטיחותיים מספיק. הכור בדימונה אמנם ישן, אבל מי שטוען שכור כזה מסוכן בטיחותית לא יודע מה עשו לכור מבחינת תחזוקה. עשו בו שיפורים כאלה שהיום הוא כמו כור חדש".

It is a question by the journalist, answered then by Uzi Eilam. It's under the section:

לא כל דבר צריך להיות נחלת כל הציבור


at the bottom of the article. If anyother Hebrew speaker can approve that the source say whay I argue it say, it would be helpful.--Gilisa (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. My concern was that in copy-editing the English summary I might not have rendered the original faithfully. Plus I wanted to understand the context. NPguy (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
For nothing, the context is the above attached source which is a newpaper article questioning the nuclear ambiguity policy of Israel. Several past key people in the Israeli nuclear project had been interviwed there. Some support lifting of the nuclear ambiguity and some say that keeping it as it's is the best option for Israel and the entire region. The source also suggest that as tritium decay rate is about 5% annualy, Israel have no other choice but to keep the reactor operating to have its nuclear arsenal capable. In the relevant paragraph the journalist made an argue to Uzi Eilam (after previous interviewed professor of chimestry (who is not involved in the Israeli nuclear project since the early 70's, after it was reveald he's gay) argued that the reactor should be shut down because of its age):

בלי להיכנס לתחום הביטחוני, כור עלול לגרום לבעיות סביבתיות קשות.

Which is easily translated to: Without getting into specifics, nuclear reactor may cause severe enviromental problems.

Uzi Eilam then reply with this:

הכור בצ'רנוביל נבנה לפי קריטריונים רוסיים שלא היו בטיחותיים מספיק. הכור בדימונה אמנם ישן, אבל מי שטוען שכור כזה מסוכן בטיחותית לא יודע מה עשו לכור מבחינת תחזוקה. עשו בו שיפורים כאלה שהיום הוא כמו כור חדש".

Which is again easily translated to:

"The reactor in Chernobil was built according to Russian standards which were not safe enough. The reactor in Dimona is truely old, but anyone who argue that such reactor is an hazard don't know what was done with it in terms of maintaince, it had been through such an improvments that today it's like new one"

--Gilisa (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sharing[edit]

Yesterday I added a new sub-section under the "Policy" section entitled "Sharing" with the following text: The government of Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the South African government, according to an analysis of documents of the apartheid government. Top secret minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that then Israeli Defense Minister Shimon Peres offered to sell the warheads to South Africa's then defence minister, P.W. Botha. The documents appear to undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that even if the Israeli government has nuclear weapons it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, since the Israeli government was willing to share nuclear warheads with the rogue apartheid regime. The Guardian, 24 May 2010, "Revealed: How Israel Offered to Sell South Africa Nuclear Weapons Exclusive: Secret Apartheid-Era Papers Give First Official Evidence of Israeli Nuclear Weapons," http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons. The office of President of the State of Israel Shimon Peres denied that there was "an exchange of nuclear weapons" between the governments of Israel and South Africa. Haaretz, 25 May 2010, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-denies-offering-nuclear-weapons-to-apartheid-south-africa-1.291800

This section was removed with the note "undue weight" because this story is already covered elsewhere in the article. While the SA documents are elsewhere mentioned in the context of documentary evidence for the existence of IL nukes, the alleged offer to "share" should be mentioned as part of IL nuke policy. Further, the Guardian article explains that this sharing aspect is relevant to IL claims with respect to non-proliferation and safety, which are also important in the sharing context.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only is it undue weight, but basically all your text is unacceptable. I'm not trying to be rude, but you just can't present things like that in the encyclopedia's voice. The Guardian reported on this story and came to these conclusions. They have been categorically denied by Israeli officials, South African officials, and other academics and media outlets (including even the Israel-bashing BBC). Any mention of the story must a) like you said, be reasonable in length per undue weight and b) make it very clear that these are allegations made by The Guardian and c) mention the other side per NPOV, ie: that it has been categorically denied from various sources. Breein1007 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Breein100, your view that all of the text is unacceptable is noted. Can we agree that the sharing aspect is important as part of the policy section, with some of your caveats (reasonable in length, etc.) in mind? Then we can discuss specific objections to wording.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the official denials and the analysis by Avner Cohen (arms control wonk) that the conclusions of the Guardian report are probably mistaken, I'm not sure this issue deserves added credence. NPguy (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
NPguy, I would understand your suggestion to include Avner Cohen's analysis. But the Guardian is RS and we as editors are not in a position to decide how much credence to give its report. Our task is to present sources and let the readers decide.--NYCJosh (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
NPGuy, you failed to respond to my response to your objection for three weeks. Then I added back a version of my contribution with changes to reflect suggestions of others. But you summarily removed my contribution still without responding to my response. That, I consider a stealthy move, not one to advance discussion. All objections should be aired here in a timely manner. --NYCJosh (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

NYCJosh, I deleted your new section because it duplicated an existing section. We don't need two sections on the same topic. On the substance, I've had difficulty assessing the Guardian sources because of problems connecting to the Guardian's web site. Regardless, the Guardian conclusions are based on speculation about the meaning of seeming "code" words in the newly released memos. Whether one believes those conclusions, I think this article should reflect the fact that the Guardian is making a leap of logic, and that others dispute the logic. NPguy (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

NPGuy, I had no problem looking at the Guardian link again today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons You raise two points: (1) Duplication. This issue, Israel's alleged offer to sell, is relevant to two different portions of the article. So, a brief couple of sentences is important for both, inlcuding the article's section on policy. Further, the section I contributed ADDS info and is not duplicative: it adds info relevant to the implications of the alleged sharing. (2)Speculation/analysis. The Guardian is a major newspaper and its analysis of the SA govt documents is noteable under WP rules and important for our article. If you wish to add some notable source refuting that analysis, feel free to propose it. I have no problem in principle with our article providing more than one interpretation of the SA docs. But such a second interpretation does not at all remove the notability for WP purposes of the Guardian analysis or its importance.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the text you added as entirely duplicative of what is already there and does not merit repeating merely to emphasize a different angle. If you think there is something slightly different, edit the existing text, but don't duplicate it. That's my view. I'd be curious what other editors think. NPguy (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Just saw some activity and thought I'd add my 2 cents. I think the mention of SA cooperation is certainly relevant; we already mention the possible Vela incident-connection. That said, it would be undue to give these "revelations" any more than a few sentences, ideally the source would be the book itself, and I don't think this should necessarily be treated in the revelations section, but perhaps integrated into the policy or history sections. I'll try to give this another look soon. Joshdboz (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

US committment to defeat resolutions[edit]

This week I added this:

The chief Middle East policy expert of the U.S. National Security Council told a group of American Jewish leaders in November 2010 that the U.S. government was committed to defeating international resolutions designed to expose Israel's nuclear program at the International Atomic Energy Agency, while increasing pressure on Iran regarding their alleged nuclear proliferation activities.[1]

This was removed with the comment this is "ephemeral news" and will be forgotten tomorrow. I think it's notable because it shows the position the US has taken and intends to take in the future regarding blocking IAEA resolutions on Israel's nukes. It comes from a senior US NSC official on Middle East issues.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there are better sources for the fact that the United States and others successfully opposed the IAEA General Conference resolution on Israel Nuclear Capabilities. But more important is the underlying reason - to avoid actions that would compromise the prospects for the 2012 conference on a WMD-free zone in the Middle East. Israel said it would only attend the conference if it was not just another exercise in Israel-bashing, and the failure of an Israel-bashing resolution at the IAEA is therefore a positive sign on prospects for the Conference. NPguy (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason for removing this source. If you have a better one then replace it. Otherwise, leave the less notable source alone since it is still superior to nothing. Reliably sourced content in general should not be removed from Wikipedia. —K. the Surveyor (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with K. As I said, unlike the existing article text, this contribution refers not just to what happened at the past conference but to the current US approach and to what the US intends to do in the future.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
My argument is about notability. I don't think it is particularly notable that an NSC official told AIPAC that the United States would seek to defeat anti-Israel resolutions at the IAEA. It is notable that the United States actually succeeded, and did so by arguing that the resolution would undermine the results of the NPT Review Conference. At least that's my view as a subject matter expert on nuclear nonproliferation. NPguy (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Why not notable? It's not "AIPAC" btw but a group of American Jewish leaders, according to the article quoted. Also, it wasn't a general "America will defeat 'anti-Israel resolutions' at the IAEA" statement but more specific than that--read the text proposed.--NYCJosh (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be derived from a single phrase "defeating resolutions aimed to expose Israel's nuclear program at the IAEA" in this Cable post. It looks like it was misinterpreted as a forward-looking promise rather than a description of a single event in the recent past, namely the defeat of the Israel Nuclear Capabilities resolution at the September 2010 IAEA General conference. NPguy (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Norways involvement[edit]

I'd just like to point out that Norway did more then just sell heavy water...
Declassified information have confirmed that...
This article in norwegian is about what aid the norwegian government offered and to some degree gave them...
And here is some info proving that the norwegian government was aware of the Israeli wish to make nuclear weapons before the signing of the deals in question.
Just though I should inform you all.
Ps. All this info is in norwegian but it's possible to run them through various translators online like the google translator and get an ok understanding of the info.
Luredreier (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A little bit of this info is mentioned in the article by the way in the "British aid" section but there is some more info on Brennpunkts page including sharing of information and required equipment. Luredreier (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Half of the sources do not work[edit]

Such as Hersh What the hell is this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.128.211 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hersh is a reference to a book, The Samson Option, by Seymour Hersh (New York: Random House), 1991. See footnote 12. It's not online, which makes it harder to verify. NPguy (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation for Dir az-Zor target being of a nuclear nature[edit]

There were reports recently about confirmation for nuclear status of Dair az-Zor 2007 attack target, possibly from IAEA, IIRC. If someone has specifics and sources, I think it should be added to the article. WillNess (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. NPguy (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources of uranium[edit]

Where do Israel get it's uranium these day's ?

PS read this article it maybe interesting it's about a nuclear accident in the US in the 1960's that is related to Israel.

http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2011/10/19/americans-pay-dearly-to-maintain-israels-nuclear-secrets/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.93 (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for secrecy[edit]

Israel is a rare (only?) case of a country possessing functional nuclear weapons but not openly announcing them. Most nuclear states want everyone to know as soon as the weapon works, because it is meant to be a deterrent. So why is Israel different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.76.119 (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It regards nuclear policy. It's actually a tactical advantage to know roughly how many, what kind and where they are aimed of an enemy (or even an ally), so while Israel knows everyone elses it hides its own.

Useful option when they threaten their own allies with total world destruction should Israel "fall", even if it were to occur peacefully. Plus it gives them the great ability to nuke some outlying unpopulated Israeli settlement and claim it was a "terrorist" attack by, well...they'd say all them "evil Islamists", it's neighbours and use it as a pretext to finally commit that genocide they've been aching to carry out (irony) and gain that nice little Lebensraum they've been wanting from those pesky arabs who're living on it. 124.169.199.104 (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Israel

Clear statement that Israel possess nuclear weapons[edit]

(For full disclosure I have no political views on Israeli issues at all and have no history of editing Israel-orientated articles)

I recently edited the first line to say, "Israel possesses nuclear weapons, and is widely believed to have been the sixth state to do so". This was reverted on the grounds that Israel has not confirmed the fact. I must admit to being rather baffled by this. The public position of the government of the state of Israel is not the only source. On Wikipedia, we normally make a positive statement about something if there are sufficient authoritative sources to suggest that the statement is true. We do not say "X is widely believed", we simply say "X" and cite sources.

In this case, there are plenty of such authoritative sources cited throughout the body of the article. If there is controversy (ie other authoritative sources disagree) about the truth of statement "x" then such controversy can be described. Here there is no controversy. The sources say that Israel has nuclear weapons. The government of the state of Israel does not deny (or confirm) this. In fact no authoritative sources at all deny the fact. Whether or not Israel has an official policy of strategic ambiguity should be of no relevance to Wikipedia's collective encylopedic judgement. Does anybody have any real reason to doubt the statement, "Israel posses nuclear weapons"? Thom2002 (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I still object to the phrase 'widely believed' to possess in the leader; this has been proved beyond all shadow of any encylopedic doubt whatsoever. How about, "Israel possesses nuclear weapons but has never affirmed their existence, and is widely believed to have been the sixth country to develop them" Thom2002 (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
How about "Israel does not acknowledge that it possesses nuclear weapons, but is widely believed to have been the sixth country to develop them."? NPguy (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, that could be read as meaning that they developed the weapons but no longer possess them (like South Africa). We can't say for certain *when* Israel developed them, but we can say beyond all reasonable doubt that they do possess such weapons now, which is a suitable statement to start the article. Acknowledgement or otherwise is a slightly separate issue from actual possession. (although acknowledgement is also very important and belongs right at the start as well) Thom2002 (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
"Israel does not acknowledge that it possesses nuclear weapons," is an important point, so what about "Israel does not acknowledge that it possesses nuclear weapons, but is both widely believed to have them and to being the sixth country to develop them."? IPWAI (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the non-acknowledgement is important, but its the "widely believed" bit I am objecting to as an unneccessary qualification for possession. So I would suggest, "Israel possesses nuclear weapons but does not acknowledge this possession. It is widely believed to have been the sixth country to develop them" Thom2002 (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Please people will object unless there is absolute proof, by doing this it will create unnecessary controversy. Technically Israel is now considered a nuclear threshold state so what about this

"Israel is considered a nuclear threshold state. It is widely believed to have been the sixth country to develop nuclear weapons. This has never been openly confirmed or denied however, due to Israel's policy of deliberate ambiguity.[2]" IPWAI (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this helps. First, there's no definition of a "threshold state," and second, it will not satisfy those who want a clear statement that Israel has nuclear weapons. In my view, it is better to say that Israel is "generally believed to possess" nuclear weapons but "does not acknowledge" having them than an unqualified claim that Israel "possesses" nuclear weapons. NPguy (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed nuclear capacity[edit]

A Spiegal article released today confirms that Israel has nuclear weapons: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/israel-deploys-nuclear-weapons-on-german-submarines-a-836671.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.10.100 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What it states is "The German government has known about Israel's nuclear weapons program for decades, despite its official denials." In other words Israel still does NOT claim to have such weapons. IPWAI (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity in sources[edit]

The references are a bit difficult to follow. Seymour Hersh is quite a prolific author, so when a lot of references simply point to "Hersh, 19" or some other terse source, the question becomes "What is this referring to"? In the reference listing, there is a "Hersh, Seymour (February 11, 2008). "A Strike in the Dark". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 23, 2008." and that is all. But it is listed after most of the short references. Farther down, there is this:

Hersh, Seymour M. The Samson Option. New York: Random House, 1991. ISBN 0-394-57006-5

Quite confusing. If all of the terse references refer to the book mentioned, it seems illogical to list it last without a preceding mention of it. And it is ambiguous to use the terse reference in light of the second source from the New Yorker article. I like to saw logs! (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that all the Hersh references are page numbers in "The Samson Option." Similarly the Cohen references are all to Avner Cohen's "Israel and the Bomb." The latter is a respected scholarly history (based on documents and in-depth interviews); the former more journalistic (based at least in part on anonymous sources) and less reliable. NPguy (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Should the article's lead state that Israel possesses nuclear weapons?[edit]

Should this article's lead state clearly that Israel possesses nuclear weapons?

At the moment this is stated more ambigously as, "Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons". The official policy of the state of Israel is to neither confirm or deny that the statement is true. However, it is perfectly clear from the cited sources that Isreal does in fact possess these weapons. There does not appear to be any credible sources which deny this statement. To retain the qualifier, "widely believed" appears to be giving undue weight to the official position of the state of Isreal, which is only one source. Furthermore, the state of Israel does not deny the fact, it simply does not confirm it. Many other reliable sources referenced in the article do confirm the statement positively. There is a vast array of evidence to back the statement up in its less ambiguous form. Thom2002 (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

How about "Israel is generally presumed to possess nuclear weapons, ..."? NPguy (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe we should limit ourselves to only stating what we know definitively. There is little doubt for most, including myself, that Israel has nuclear weapons, but there is no smoking gun clearly and unequivocally confirming it. Perhaps we could tweak the wording a bit to make it clearer the way NP suggests above.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's fine as worded. Anyone reading the lead will get a good idea of how strong the belief is. IIRC "widely believed" is how I usually see it worded in news sources. To say that Israel definitely possesses nuclear weapons would require some reliable sources making that definitive claim.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer to stick with the current "widely believed" wording. To me "generally presumed" sounds like more of an assumption, but with the large numbers of US/UK docs being declassified and Vanunu's photograph there is a very large document base to the belief. Rwendland (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - We really need to look at the sources here. Could the nom possibly see if he/she can present RSs that unambiguously state Israel possesses nuclear weapons? NickCT (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Certainly the US military are 100% convinced that Israel posseses nuclear weapons. See [5] [6]. Notably, former US President Jimmy Carter also said that Israel posseses nuclear weapons [7]. Other sources cited in the article at present include FAS [8]. I am not aware of any serious observer who has ever refuted these assertions in regard to the simple existence of the weapons. Thom2002 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure. I accept everything you've said there. But the thing is, when I look at the mainstream source (i.e. NYT, Reuters, etc etc) they always add somekind of qualifier (i.e. they always say something like "Israel, which is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, etc etc"). My sentiment would be that if most of the reliable sources treat it that way, we probably should too. NickCT (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That appears to be the consensus. Thom2002 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Deterrent ???[edit]

This seems a loaded, biased term. Some would describe the intent as "aggression". But, of course, the "narrative" of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" (USraeli corporate media) do not describe it like that. Fourtildas (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Revision.[edit]

It has been confirmed from multiple sources that Israel is in the possesion of nuclear weapons. Can we please edit certain parts of the article now and stop pretending Israel is only "Suspected' of being in possesion? I want the truth to be on Wikipedia, if people want to know if a certain country is in posession of certain weapons they should have the right to see facts and not some hush hush to protect the goverment from critic.

(Sorry for my bad English.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.44.108 (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly, and the consensus has been to treat Israel's possession of nuclear weapons as unconfirmed. This is an accurate reflection of Israel's policy. NPguy (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War & Dayan's reported nuclear statements ?[edit]

That article states : "During the night of October 8–9, an alarmed Dayan told Meir that "this is the end of the third temple."[273] He was warning of Israel's impending total defeat, but "Temple" was also the code word for nuclear weapons.[274] Dayan again raised the nuclear topic in a cabinet meeting, warning that the country was approaching a point of "last resort".[276] That night Meir authorized the assembly of thirteen 20-kiloton-of-TNT (84 TJ) tactical atomic weapons for Jericho missiles at Sdot Micha Airbase, and F-4 aircraft at Tel Nof Airbase, for use against Syrian and Egyptian targets.". This article does not mention this incident, but should cover it, as it implies that Israel could have started a nuclear war. How reliable are the reports on this ? Speculation ? Sounds to me like a warning to the US that arms shipments should start immediately, as there is no way the US would have tolerated a nuclear war risk. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Zalman Mordecai Shapiro[edit]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-explosive-story-of-how-israel-received-weapons-grade-nuclear-material-from-a-us-company-in-the-sixties-2012-8

Reliably sourced enough to mention here? Hcobb (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Reads like a conspiracy theory linked by speculation. NPguy (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
This is The Apollo Affair, which the article alredy links to. The FBI and CIA investigated it - the plant lost enough HEU to make diversion plausible, but there appears to be no conclusion either way. The NRC wrote about it "NRC found no documents that provided specific evidence that the diversion of nuclear materials occurred. However, consistent with previous Commission statements, NRC does not have information that would allow it to unequivocally conclude that nuclear material was not diverted from the site, nor that all previously unaccounted for material was accounted for during the decommissioning of the site."[9] So not a simple conspiracy theory. Rwendland (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Overstated[edit]

Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris (2014). "Israeli nuclear weapons, 2014". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 70 (6): 97–115. DOI: 10.1177/0096340214555409

--86.161.110.166 (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Haaretz, 2010 Nov 14, "U.S. Offers Israel Warplanes in Return for New Settlement Freeze," http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-offers-israel-warplanes-in-return-for-new-settlement-freeze-1.324496
  2. ^ http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf