Israeli Nuclear Program and Arsenal

[unmerged(90)]

I just read an article translated from the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot making a very good summary of the tight French-Israeli military cooperation in the 50's and how France handled its whole nuclear program to Israel, as is.

Now, it seems hard to find precise information on today's Israeli nuclear arsenal (how many bombs, what power, what vectors (missiles, planes, etc.))

Any info available?

 

[Keynes]

I posted something on this topic in another trend.

Israel's policy of "strategic ambiguity" is to make it clear is has nukes but conceal the number of warheads, the precise delivery mechanisms, and the doctrine or conditions for their use. This facilitates deterrence of a variety of conventional threats while maintaining maximum flexibility.

If you check out back issues of foreign policy journals you can probably find articles on this and speculations as to the size of the stockpile. I would guess its in the high double figures, but there is always the possibility to build more on relatively short notice.

Ahh - the old Franco-Israeli Alliance . . . those were the days . . .

 

[Vandelay]

One estimate on the number of warheads I have encountered (e.g. in the Swedish "National Encyclopedia)is "about 100".

Delivery would probably be by fighter-bomber, wouldn´t it?

Iran, I guess, is the only possible enemy that could demand the use of missiles for delivery on account of the range?

/Vandelay

 

[unmerged(4876)]

Tom Clancy wrote a book about Israeli nukes: The Sum of All Fears

The prologue begins in the 7-days war, when Israel had US nukes. The order is given to deploy the nukes, but then people wizen up and decide to rescind the order. However, in the chaos of an accident at the base, one nuke is left on the plane, which is mistaken for extra fuel by the pilot. The pilot is killed in combat, and the bomb lands by a farm of an old man in Syria. He covers it up for 30 years (with dirt), but when it rises to the surface, he asks his son, a member of the Syrian Army, for advise....

 

[unmerged(4762)]

I read somewhere that the total israeli nukes is about a 100 warheads.
delivery mechanism is plane, but perhas also MRBM.

that should deterrr any normal country to attempt war with Israel. unless some cookoo dictator is willing to die in it...

 

[unmerged(3908)]

From the federation of American scientists, they have a lot of other stuff as well:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/


From the centre for strategic studies, again a lot of stuff:

http://www.csis.org/mideast/online.html

 

[Emperor of Europe]

New-speak?

Here's an interesting aspect about Israel and nukes:

In a recent speech US President Bush announced that the definition of "terrorism" and "terrorists" has been broadened. Nations that produce weapons of mass production - and threaten their neighbours - will now be labeled as "terrorists". Considering the present US war against terrorism that's a pretty overt threat against the usual suspects like Iraq.

Now, everybody knows that Israel has produced weapons of mass destruction. And not "just" chemical and biological weapons but nukes! Of course that does not put them under Mr. Bush's new definition of terrorists, in order to do that they must threaten the territorial integrity of their neighbours. Do they do that? The short answer is 'yes'. Israel has occupied neighbouring land during its many wars. And several UN resolutions demand Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. Of course Israel refuses that.

The question I have is this. If a terrorist nation is one that produces weapons of mass destruction and threatens its neighbours, and Israel does both, then why isn't Israel a terrorist nation? Is US President Bush's new definition simply new-speak that's designed to allow the US to settle things once and for all with old enemies?

Regards,

EoE

Disclaimer: This is not intended as US bashing, anti-semitism or whatever.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
Of course that does not put them under Mr. Bush's new definition of terrorists, in order to do that they must threaten the territorial integrity of their neighbours. Do they do that? The short answer is 'yes'. Israel has occupied neighbouring land during its many wars. And several UN resolutions demand Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. Of course Israel refuses that.

No, they don't. Occupying enemy territory as a result of other countries' own aggressive actions isn't a threat to those countries' territory (so long as they remain peaceful, they won't have any territory occupied). Unless, of course, you define self-defense as 'threatening'...

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Dark Knight

No, they don't. Occupying enemy territory as a result of other countries' own aggressive actions isn't a threat to those countries' territory (so long as they remain peaceful, they won't have any territory occupied). Unless, of course, you define self-defense as 'threatening'...

Nope. I don't consider defense or offense at all. I just know my neighbour would feel threatened if I took a piece of his front lawn and refused to give it back. And I would have to hand it to him: It is a threat to his territorial integrity in every sense of the word.

On a sidenote: As you know Israel started some wars of their own. So they actually do occupy enemy territory as a result of their own aggressive action.

Regards,

EoE

 

[Keynes]

Oh boy, misinformation alert.

1) Just because George Jr. defines a term doesn't mean that its the truth; he aint exactly a walking OED.

2) "Israel started some wars on their own" Nope. Not true. They did initiate offenses in 67 and 82 against countries that had declared war against them and were still in that state of war at the time of the offensive.

3) Free democratic states are not terrorist. PERIOD. Comparing Israel with Iraq is morally dubious and extremely naive at best.

4) Israel does not threaten its neighbors. Its neighbors threaten Israel. (E.g. Saddam's totally unprovoked SCUD attacks during the Gulf War in which Israel was NOT a combatant) It has tried to reach peace with all of them and succeeded in cases where there was even nominal willingness on the other side. They gave enormous blocs of land back to Egypt in return. Keep in mind that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq still refuse to rescind their ongoing states of war with Israel.

5) Israel does not occupy any of its neighbors land other than the disputed Golan Heights. They don't return the Golan b/c Syria is still officially at war with them. The West Bank/Gaza used to be Jordanian territory but the Jordanians don't claim it anymore. So legally its a no man's land.

BTW -- This makes Britain, US, China, Russia terrorist as well. A bit too Chomsky-esque for me.

 

[unmerged(4762)]

Originally posted by Keynes

3) Free democratic states are not terrorist. PERIOD. Comparing Israel with Iraq is morally dubious and extremely naive at best.

5) Israel does not occupy any of its neighbors land ...

who are these "free" "democratic" countries again ? like, if I go above 80mph I get fined and I can only choose between two guys or so for the country executive ? maybe it is the anarchist in me, but I must side with chomsky here... qui aime bien chatie bien...

on point 5. agreed on Golan, but if UN says go away, so you should.

anyone for UN to intervene militarly? of course not... option one, just let them butcher each other... option two, just admit that the west and israel are racist and turn palestinians into slave labour and soap, and change israel' name to "National Socialistic Israel worker's party's land" and get over it, option three (the more logical, whoever is in position of strenght (Israel - will not be the same in the future...) to give away something against peace (and change il PLO's chart article 1, etc.) - after all let's remember that this is about IDF protecting colonies that are illegally on occupied land... sounds to me a lot like Lebensraum theories...
option four (my favourite in all these threads) put the Turks back, after all the land is theirs.. and they managed this quite well...

:O

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Keynes
Oh boy, misinformation alert.

Misinformation? Where?

1) Just because George Jr. defines a term doesn't mean that its the truth; he aint exactly a walking OED.

I never said so. But he is the commander in chief of a nation in war. And that commander in chief has just redefined his enemies. What I wanted to discuss was whether the objective is the one stated by Bush, or whether it's to use the circumstances to settle old debts. That's it.

2) "Israel started some wars on their own" Nope. Not true. They did initiate offenses in 67 and 82 against countries that had declared war against them and were still in that state of war at the time of the offensive.

So: If a ceasefire exists, but an Arab nation attacks Israel it's an aggressive action, while it's selfdefense if Israel attacks? Does that not strike you as hypocritical to some extent?

3) Free democratic states are not terrorist. PERIOD. Comparing Israel with Iraq is morally dubious and extremely naive at best.

I don't need you to question my moral or intellect, thank you. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, let's end this discussion here and now. Thanks.

There is absolutely nothing in the definition of terrorism that makes it impossible for democratic states to fall under that definition. My point was that Mr. Bush's broadened definition has made it even easier, that's why I question the real purpose behind it. Similar thoughts have been aired in US newspapers.

4) Israel does not threaten its neighbors. Its neighbors threaten Israel. (E.g. Saddam's totally unprovoked SCUD attacks during the Gulf War in which Israel was NOT a combatant) It has tried to reach peace with all of them and succeeded in cases where there was even nominal willingness on the other side. They gave enormous blocs of land back to Egypt in return. Keep in mind that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq still refuse to rescind their ongoing states of war with Israel.

Several UN resolutions make it blatantly clear that Israel occupies, and occupied, territory belonging to their neighbour. Of course that is a threat to their territorial integrity. I am no fan of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq or whatever, but let us at least use the same standard of measurement to judge actions.

5) Israel does not occupy any of its neighbors land other than the disputed Golan Heights. They don't return the Golan b/c Syria is still officially at war with them. The West Bank/Gaza used to be Jordanian territory but the Jordanians don't claim it anymore. So legally its a no man's land.

Where did you dig up that law?! What it all comes down to is that Israel still occupies neighbouring territory, and that they have captured neighbouring lands in several wars. Their present capitol for instance. If I was a neighbour I would definitely feel threatened.

BTW -- This makes Britain, US, China, Russia terrorist as well. A bit too Chomsky-esque for me.

Yes, US President Bush's definition might make other nations terrorists as well. That's the whole reason why I started this discussion. My point is that the broadened definition might just be new-speak to get an excuse for attacks on the usual suspects. I thought that point was pretty clear in my initial post, but appearantly I am mistaken.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(3908)]

Originally posted by Keynes

Oh boy, misinformation alert.

I agree!

Originally posted by Keynes

2) "Israel started some wars on their own" Nope. Not true. They did initiate offenses in 67 and 82 against countries that had declared war against them and were still in that state of war at the time of the offensive.

technically that is true but 48, 56, 67, 73 and 82-00 are all viewed as separate wars, and Israel initiated 67, 82 and to an extent 56 (when Nasser certainly was not looking for a fight.

Originally posted by Keynes

4) Israel does not threaten its neighbors.

That is quite a statement!!!!!

Originally posted by Keynes

5) Israel does not occupy any of its neighbors land other than the disputed Golan Heights. They don't return the Golan b/c Syria is still officially at war with them. The West Bank/Gaza used to be Jordanian territory but the Jordanians don't claim it anymore. So legally its a no man's land.

Umm Israel unilaterally annexed the Golan in 1981, unlike the Sinai which IIRC was never formally annexed.
As regards hte West Bank, oyur argument is absurd - just b/c it is supposedly a no-man's land, Israel has the right to seize it disregarding the actual inhabitants (the Palestinians)!!! Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950, in violation of the UN resolutions establishing Israel and Palestine. Only Britain, Jordan's protector recognized this. Between 1967-1988, Jordan had a dispute with Israel regarding the W BAnk and Jerusalem. But in 1988, the king of Jordan recognized the PLO as the sole legal representative of the Palestinians and as part of that and the subsequent "declaration of independence" and creation of an imaginary state, Jordan also withdrew all claims to the West Bank. So under no circumstances is the WB a no mans land, by international law it belongs ot the Palestinians and even the Jordanians accept this.

 

[unmerged(90)]

My first mail was not intended to start yet another debate on Israel, but I must admit that I particularly like Keynes' semantic !

2) "Israel started some wars on their own" Nope. Not true. They did initiate offenses in 67 and 82 against countries that had declared war against them and were still in that state of war at the time of the offensive.

Great one ! One has the right to call "initiating offenses" as "starting a war" (I do personnaly).

3) Free democratic states are not terrorist. PERIOD.

Yes they are not supposed to be but can. They call this Special operations often... Remember the Rainbow Warrior ?
Then (my personal bit of oil on the fire, sorry), if Israel is without doubt the most democratic state of the Near-East area -and by far- it is "more free and democratic" a state for a certain category of people than for others, a bit like the former South Africa was more free and democratic for whites than for non-whites...

4) Israel does not threaten its neighbors.

Point of view of the neighbours: YES it does !

Its neighbors threaten Israel. Keep in mind that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq still refuse to rescind their ongoing states of war with Israel.

A "state of war" does not mean an actual military threat. Especially here I believe.

5) Israel does not occupy any of its neighbors land other than the disputed Golan Heights. They don't return the Golan b/c Syria is still officially at war with them. The West Bank/Gaza used to be Jordanian territory but the Jordanians don't claim it anymore. So legally its a no man's land.

This is the greatest one.
Lebanon : Chebaa area still occupied, South Lebanon occupied for 18 years.
Syria : Golan heights
I am sure that the Palestinians are happy to be "no-men" living in a no-man's land. That this area has a special international status does not make them unoccupied. They are not Israel's territory. Israel maintains its rule on it through military occupation.

And the issue won't be settled in an internet forum. Israel is not a terrorist state but a violent state in a violent region...

 

[Keynes]

Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt were in an official state of war with Israel from 48 to to the present; with Egypt dropping out after 79. This isn't just empty formalism. These countries have taken warlike action against Israel at ALL points in this period including the present, from actually dropping missiles on Israel (Iraq during Gulf War; Syria and Lebanon to the present day) to blockades to sending armed infiltrators across the border to kill Israeli soldiers.

Basically - the Arab states position is - were at war with you and act accordingly, but any action you take to deal with this fact is aggression. THAT, my friends, is BS rhetoric 101. So initiating offensives is not starting a war any more than TORCH or D-DAY can be characterized as the US starting a war against Germany because German troops weren't actually on US soil killing people. The distinction is relevant.

Israel made a deal with Lebanon and returned the border areas. Lebanon broke the deal and let Hezbollah keep shelling Israel. Now they say they want crappy little Sheeba farms. Does anyone really think that if Lebanon gets Sheeba, the attacks will stop?

The Golan: Annexation is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Barak offered to give it back to Syria in return for full normalization of relations. Syria refused. THEY DONT WANT PEACE.

Israel occupies the West Bank. True. The West Bank is not the territory of its neighbors. Also true. Hence Israel does not occupy the territory of its neighbors other than (1) Sheeba farms which is legitmately disputed before the UN and which is about 2 acres, and (2) Golan which is claimed by a country still at war with Israel.

The real issue here is one of moral reasoning, specifically the inability to make relevant moral distinctions.

Example: Engels was a Communist, Stalin is a Communist, therefore Engels was as bad as Stalin. This is faulty moral reasoning because Stalin's moral evil derives from the murder of millions of innocents and his tyranny, not with his interest in reading 18th Brumaire.

Similarly, one can always define the word terrorism to make Israel and France terrorist nations as well as Saddam's Iraq or Hamas. But there is NO moral equivalency here and the implication that there is amounts to a serious defect in moral reasoning.

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by D. Marlborough

But in 1988, the king of Jordan recognized the PLO as the sole legal representative of the Palestinians and as part of that and the subsequent "declaration of independence" and creation of an imaginary state, Jordan also withdrew all claims to the West Bank. So under no circumstances is the WB a no mans land, by international law it belongs ot the Palestinians and even the Jordanians accept this.

So let me get this straight:
1) The PLO and the King Jordan got together and created "an imiginary state" (your words!), and
2) By "international law" this imaginary act of state creation now means that the area "belongs to the Palestinians"

So if I can just get the King of Jordan to renounce his claim to Frankfurt in favor of me, I'll be the legal owner of the whole city by operation of international law!

PS As per my post on the War thread of the OT forum, I am officially resigning my position as defender of the State of Israel on these boards for the sake of my own future mental stability. So plug away at your hearts content.

 

[unmerged(90)]

All the points I write below just to stress out that neither the Arab States nor Israel are all white or all black and that ALL pursue a destructive logic of war... And that neither has any moral authority to do what they do...

Originally posted by Keynes
Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt were in an official state of war with Israel from 48 to to the present; with Egypt dropping out after 79. This isn't just empty formalism. These countries have taken warlike action against Israel at ALL points in this period including the present, from actually dropping missiles on Israel (Iraq during Gulf War; Syria and Lebanon to the present day) to blockades to sending armed infiltrators across the border to kill Israeli soldiers.

Yes and the other way round also (Israel keeps bombarding Lebanon regularly just for the sake of destroying its newly rebuilt infrastructure under the excuse that Hezbollah was there (under the bridge, in the power plant, in the phone relay stations...), the Israeli bombing of Irak nuclear power plant (nice one though), the shooting down of Syrian helicopter above the Bekaa valley, destruction of Syrian radar station in Lebanon, etc.

Basically - the Arab states position is - were at war with you and act accordingly, but any action you take to deal with this fact is aggression. THAT, my friends, is BS rhetoric 101. So initiating offensives is not starting a war any more than TORCH or D-DAY can be characterized as the US starting a war against Germany because German troops weren't actually on US soil killing people. The distinction is relevant.

Nice one too but very rhetorical and "scholar"... I do not see any problem in the common view that 1948 was a common aggression, 1956 a Franco-British-Israeli aggression, 1967 an Israeli aggression, 1973 an Arab aggression and 1982 an Israeli aggression (on Lebanon). One can argue that no Peace was broken but breaking a several year old truce is quite the same in practice.

Israel made a deal with Lebanon and returned the border areas.

That's false. There were absolutely no deal between Lebanon and Israel in this matter. Israel singlehandedly decided to evacuate South Lebanon.

Lebanon broke the deal

False, as there was no deal.

and let Hezbollah keep shelling Israel.

Unfortunately yes, but as you state it, both country are at war and Israel keeps bombarding Lebanon that leads to further Hezbollah shelling that leads... Well you see.

Now they say they want crappy little Sheeba farms. Does anyone really think that if Lebanon gets Sheeba, the attacks will stop?

Whatever small, whatever crappy, your territory is your territory, one cannot deny that, whatever your nationality. If Lebanon gets Sheeba back, the attacks will probably not stop but it will be yet another step in the right direction, towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

The Golan: Annexation is irrelevant.

Yeah sure, say that to Syrians...

What is relevant is that Barak offered to give it back to Syria in return for full normalization of relations. Syria refused. THEY DONT WANT PEACE.

That one is true.

Israel occupies the West Bank. True. The West Bank is not the territory of its neighbors. Also true.

Well, let's say it's Palestine's territory and Palestine is one of Israel's neighbours... no ?

Hence Israel does not occupy the territory of its neighbors other than (1) Sheeba farms which is legitmately disputed before the UN and which is about 2 acres, and (2) Golan which is claimed by a country still at war with Israel.

That's it : Hence Israel does occupy territory of its neighbours. And things will be made easier when all get back their land and accept it as a peace condition.

The real issue here is one of moral reasoning, specifically the inability to make relevant moral distinctions.

Example: Engels was a Communist, Stalin is a Communist, therefore Engels was as bad as Stalin. This is faulty moral reasoning because Stalin's moral evil derives from the murder of millions of innocents and his tyranny, not with his interest in reading 18th Brumaire.

Similarly, one can always define the word terrorism to make Israel and France terrorist nations as well as Saddam's Iraq or Hamas. But there is NO moral equivalency here and the implication that there is amounts to a serious defect in moral reasoning.

Just realize that Israel's harassment of the Palestinians can hardly be morally considered as a "free and democratic" way of acting by anyone.

 

[unmerged(3908)]

Originally posted by Keynes


So let me get this straight:
1) The PLO and the King Jordan got together and created "an imiginary state" (your words!), and
2) By "international law" this imaginary act of state creation now means that the area "belongs to the Palestinians"

So if I can just get the King of Jordan to renounce his claim to Frankfurt in favor of me, I'll be the legal owner of the whole city by operation of international law!

PS As per my post on the War thread of the OT forum, I am officially resigning my position as defender of the State of Israel on these boards for the sake of my own future mental stability. So plug away at your hearts content.

I am sorry I was not very clear, by imaginary I do not mean a fictional fantasy, when I said imaginary, I meant a state that exists on paper, and that should exist in fact but does not. There should be a palestinian state on the WB and Gaza and perhaps other bits of historic Palestine, and the independence of this state was declared, but it was meaningless declaration since it did not physically exist due to hte Israeli occupation.
Also when I say international law, I refer to the UN resolutions whish predate the declaration. The Jordainian renunciation did not make the Palestinian claim legal by default, hte Palestinian laim exists b/c they are the local indiginous inhabitants of the land. That claim does not need to be validated by some Jordanian King making assorted proclamations. Your analogy is patently false as you surely know, and this I believe you are willfully misinterpreting (not very honest, unless you are trying to make a joke)!

Regarding your previous post, I dont have much to add to what yndewal said except on the point regarding Syria wanting peace. Syria will accept peace when all its territory is returned, as Egypt did wiht the Sinai. They may accept conditions like the Golan should be demilitarized like the Sinai, but they will not accept only a partial return of their territory (and why should they?). Barak for all his grandiose statements never offered this, Israel only offered a part of the Golan back and with conditions attached such as demilitarization and listeing posts etc, while refusing Syrian desires for parity with similar conditions (a demilitarized zone on the Israeli side etc). Syria's rejection of Israel's offer does not imply anything other than they are not desperate for peace on any terms.
The same thing applies for the so called ultimate deal offered to hte Palestinians at Camp David. Israel may have offered 95%, even 99%, of the territories but that says nothing about the quality of what was on offer (naturally Israel would not belabour that point, 95% is great PR for them). The Palestinian point being that the 5% being roads, settlements with the best land etc, all fragmenting Palestine into discontinuous little bits. In any case the 95% was from the Palestinian perspective only 76% (IIRC), since Israel having annexed East Jerusalem and some settlements did not include those land in its calculations. Ando f course there was the issue of refugees..