Has Israel nuclear weapons ?

SlabMurphy

The accusations are often thrown about that it has. Israel itself talks about its " nuclear ambiguity ". So what's your opinions folks ?

I believe they have and the world is bad enough with Pakistan and North Korea possibly having them, but I reckon Isreal would be surely be the one of the bookies favourites to use them :eek:

who the fug

Why would they be, they didn't use them in 1973 when they had their backs to the wall.

Or is this just a Israel bashing thread

minidazzler

No I highly doubt they actually have them, but the ambiguity is a more scary thought TBH.

Also, I doubt they would be the first to use them. Sure they use heavy handed tactics, but Nuclear weapons use turns the entire international community against them.

Avgas

There is a book a bit old now called the SAMSON OPTION by respected Journalist Seymour Hersh....gives a fairly good background as to why and how the Israeli's have an extensive range of Nukes.

It seems, they did get into a partial mobilisation phase with their IRBMs in 1991 when Saddam was lobbing Scuds at them...but the yanks talked some sense into them and gave them money and new toys and Patriots (that didn't work).

So...

Nuclear artillery shells 203mm/155mm (check!)
Free fall nuclear aerial bombs (check!)
Stand off nuclear air to ground missiles (Not sure but Prob)
tactical nuclear missiles to destroy enemy armour (check!)
IRBMs (check!)
Nuclear land mines on the Golan (check!)

Not clear if they have neutron warheads
Not clear if they have penetrator warheads for use against deep underground targets (in Iran).

You can also be sure they have a full range of chemical weapons if they feel they need them (Syria has/had extensive chemical warfare abilities).

Re whether Israel would use them....actually the USA is the most likely user of nukes simply on the basis that they alone have already used them TWICE.... but against that US has so much conventional power they wouldn't need to use them except in extremis.....

Also if you look at the map of Israel you can see that using nukes anywhere near their own borders (tactical use) would mean big problems for Israel as well........

Use of a very small scale penetrator nuke warhead against a deep Iranian target is a different matter.......but fall-out would be likely a huge problem...... so they are most likely looking at conventional ordnance for that scenario.......

Israeli planning has always been on 'worst possible' scenario factor as much as 'most likely'. They assumed for much of the 1970s that Iran and Egypt would be nuclear by the 1990s. You will note that Pakistan is a nuclear armed power...and an Islamic coup there is a possibility at any time. Libya has only recently quit its nuke project. Iran is borderline or has 'dirty bomb' capability already. Within a decade Iran will be certainly nuke armed unless a new government/regime changes policy. Saudi Arabia already has Chinese IRBMs and will likely try to buy the capability from Pakistan or China, especially if Iran goes nuke. The real worry then is if a Wahhabi Coup took over in S. Arabia...with nukes...

You now can see why Israel is nuclear armed and has been since the late 1960s.

Not saying I like/agree with it.

Not interested in either bashing or supporting Israel on this thread/forum.

gizmo555

Of course Israel has nuclear weapons.

SlabMurphy

who the fug wrote: »

Why would they be, they didn't use them in 1973 when they had their backs to the wall.

Well they were in a tight spot, but don't think it was that bad that they had to consider chucking a nuclear missile at say, Cairo.

Or is this just a Israel bashing thread

No, it's a Has Israel nuclear weapons thread.

SlabMurphy

minidazzler wrote: »

No I highly doubt they actually have them, but the ambiguity is a more scary thought TBH.

Also, I doubt they would be the first to use them. Sure they use heavy handed tactics, but Nuclear weapons use turns the entire international community against them.

Never cared about the international communtiy before as far as I can see, Yanks will back them up regardless of what they do.

Victor

Avgas wrote: »

Israeli planning has always been on 'worst possible' scenario factor as much as 'most likely'. They assumed for much of the 1970s that Iran and Egypt would be nuclear by the 1990s.

You do realise that until the Iranian Revolution in 1979 that Israel and Iran were allies?

Ping Chow Chi

Avgas wrote: »

Nuclear land mines on the Golan (check!)

Why would they mine something that they could just as easily bomb? .. why would they nuke the Golan heights anyway come to that ... wouldn't the fall out from that be in danger of landing over Israel?

who the fug

Victor wrote: »

You do realise that until the Iranian Revolution in 1979 that Israel and Iran were allies?

And afterwards they kept in contact Iran shipped oil to Israel well into the 1990s, and the YIDS sent them some TOW weapons and bits an pieces for their phantoms

who the fug

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Why would they mine something that they could just as easily bomb? .. why would they nuke the Golan heights anyway come to that ... wouldn't the fall out from that be in danger of landing over Israel?

I believe they run a version of MAD, as in if we can't have it then nobody bloody well will

who the fug

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Never cared about the international communtiy before as far as I can see, Yanks will back them up regardless of what they do.

The yanks are fickle allies, as France / England and the Shah found out

irishconvert

Victor wrote: »

You do realise that until the Iranian Revolution in 1979 that Israel and Iran were allies?

That was back when Iran had a puppet US leader.

Rented Mule

who the fug wrote: »

The yanks are fickle allies, as France / England and the Shah found out

Really ?

The Americans and English are the two closest allies each have.

The Shah received extensive medical care after being overthrown in 1979 in the United States. This act put the lives of the American Embassy hostages in great peril at the time.

The French ? Wow .....when have they ever been a close(and reliable) ally of anyone outside of being occupied ?

who the fug

Rented Mule wrote: »

Really ?

The Americans and English are the two closest allies each have.

The Shah received extensive medical care after being overthrown in 1979 in the United States. This act put the lives of the American Embassy hostages in great peril at the time.

The French ? Wow .....when have they ever been a close(and reliable) ally of anyone outside of being occupied ?

The Shah was allowed to come to America to receive treatment on sufferance before being shipped off to die . Many people who were in Iran at the time believe that the 1979 revelation was organized by M16 as the BBC world service did nothing but promote Khomeini


Suez 1956

Anglo/French/Israel joint venture that Ike quiet rightly put a stop to. (What was the point in going to war over a lease that was running out in 13 years)

who the fug

Re the US UK thing

The UK has to be nice to America because it has no nuclear deterrence without them.

Manic Moran

Although I would be in the 'I think they have 'em' camp, I would not say to quite the variety of munitions mentioned. Aerial, yes. Short/intermediate range ballistic, yes. Cruise, possible, but I doubt it. (Why bother?). Artillery, ground-laid etc, no.

NTM

Avgas

"You do realise that until the Iranian Revolution in 1979 that Israel and Iran were allies?"

Yes I am well aware. Iranian-Israeli links were strong pre 1979...the Iranians provided oil, the did joint training together and so on.


But if you read what I said, rather than immediately pounce, it was about.... 'worst possible scenario' planning which has and still does inform their nuke programme...so while yes Iran in mid 1970s was useful to the Israelis and shared common interests..... the fact that they as one of the premier powers in the region might evolve towards Nukes had to be planned for an anticipated....because it would lead to others going Nuke... (Egypt, S. Arabia, etc.).

In the mid 1970s it seemed as if many states were going nuke-S. Africa, Brazil Argentina all had programmes...

I was placing the Israeli expansion of its nuke programme in that context.

In any event Israeli work and decision to go nuclear was taken in the 1960s...and indeed probably goes much further back to decisions taken in the 1950s about the need for some autonomy in arms...not to be always reliant on French or US suppliers...in extreme situations.....etc. and fears that the Russians could provide an 'atomic umbrella' to the Egyptians.....in a stand-off situation.

According to Hersh Israeli Phantoms were trained to fly towards southern Russian with a free fall nuclear bomb.

gizmo555

Avgas wrote: »

In the mid 1970s it seemed as if many states were going nuke-S. Africa, Brazil Argentina all had programmes...

Well the Israelis would have known all about the South African programme, considering the Afrikaaners developed their nukes in close co-operation with Israel.

Avgas

Although I would be in the 'I think they have 'em' camp, I would not say to quite the variety of munitions mentioned. Aerial, yes. Short/intermediate range ballistic, yes. Cruise, possible, but I doubt it. (Why bother?). Artillery, ground-laid etc, no.

Various links re Israeli possible use of tactical nuclear landmines…

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=106770&sectionid=351020206 (Iranian propaganda but like much propaganda may have grain of truth behind it)

Another source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6506/is_16_52/ai_n28812413/

Another more interesting link that sheds light on how and why the might use such a land mine tactically-it would be a low blast yield directional weapon emitting intense radiation for a short period only… see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/715637/posts
And the same story is reported a bit better here:
http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/lofiversion/index.php/t20527.html [note dismissive comments by PAK commentators]

See also http://www.mediamonitors.net/easbokhari3.html
(which ends with a dimissive quote from an Israeli source on the issue of mines…but they would say that wouldn’t they?)

And there is this site which is generally more reputable
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/doctrine/index.html
It mentions 175mm nuclear artillery shells and yes..nuclear land mines….

And more details…
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.html
(but this sites claim re nuclear land mines are based on Hersh’s work (1992))

NOTE the reference to a "nuclear landmine" might be confusing as it may be more a demolition type ordnance…remember that the Syrians had fortified the Golan heights before 1967 and it was assumed the Israelis would have grave difficulty taking the Golan…of course they had a spy who provided the details of the defences…but a nuclear demolition charge was standard US 1950s thinking (:D ) on how in some cases nuclear weapons might be used.. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Atomic_Demolition_Munition


Maybe we could get the Israelis to nuke Eyjafjallajökull to sleep for us …


But then maybe if they got it wrong we’d be grounded 4ever?

SlabMurphy

who the fug wrote: »

The yanks are fickle allies, as France / England and the Shah found out

I'd agree with you there. And when it become's expedient for the Yanks to ditch Isreal they'll do it without a thought and then it's good bye Isreal.

BlaasForRafa

SlabMurphy wrote: »

I'd agree with you there. And when it become's expedient for the Yanks to ditch Isreal they'll do it without a thought and then it's good bye Isreal.

Thats a stupid comment.

Israel survived before american help and could survive without it. Sure it wouldn't make things quite as easy but they are still superior to the arabs.

SlabMurphy

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Thats a stupid comment.

Israel survived before american help and could survive without it. Sure it wouldn't make things quite as easy but they are still superior to the arabs.

Ok, maybe you have a point in the first few years, but the Isreali's have received possible a hundred billion or even more dollars offically from the Yank govt for decades. It would be like saying Anglo Irish bank could survive without NAMA. Look at the Suez crisis 1956, no American support and the zionists weren't too long pulling their arses out of the Sinai.

BlaasForRafa

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Ok, maybe you have a point in the first few years, but the Isreali's have received possible a hundred billion or even more dollars offically from the Yank govt for decades. It would be like saying Anglo Irish bank could survive without NAMA. Look at the Suez crisis 1956, no American support and the zionists weren't too long pulling their arses out of the Sinai.

Israel is currently getting $3billion a year from America so to say they have gotten $100billion from the states would be a gross overestimation.

Also you seem to completely misinterpret what happened in the Suez crisis, Israel did not invade so as to take over territory and keep it they invaded to make a cassus belli for Britain and France to intervene. When things went tits up for Britain and France then there was no point in Israel being there.

Also Israel got nuclear technology from france not long after which more than ample consideration for Israels participation.

SlabMurphy

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Israel is currently getting $3billion a year from America so to say they have gotten $100billion from the states would be a gross overestimation.

It wouldn't be a bad idea if you could somehow take in what I posted - " but the Isreali's have received possible a hundred billion or even more dollars offically from the Yank govt for decades. " America has been financing Isreal for quite a while, particuliarily sine 1967.



And there is also millions of unoffical aid in the form of favourable tax breaks to companies who invest in Israel, 'charities' such as Jewish American groups, Christian zionists, etc where the money is sent to the Israeli govt to spend as they like - quite a lot of it directly and indirectly ending up of the military of course.

Also you seem to completely misinterpret what happened in the Suez crisis, Israel did not invade so as to take over territory and keep it they invaded to make a cassus belli for Britain and France to intervene. When things went tits up for Britain and France then there was no point in Israel being there.

Also you seem to completely misinterpret what happened in the Suez crisis, things went tits up for Britain and France AND THE ISRAELI'S when the Yanks became negative about the whole fiasco. You miss the point, big brother America was and will call the shots, not Israel ( Britain or France ).

Also Israel got nuclear technology from france not long after which more than ample consideration for Israels participation.

Maybe, that's the question of the thread.

SlabMurphy

A bit off topic but just wondering, can a non Jewish foreign citizen, ( say a Catholic from Ireland ), join the IDF ? And if so, are their many in it ?

BlaasForRafa

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Also you seem to completely misinterpret what happened in the Suez crisis, things went tits up for Britain and France AND THE ISRAELI'S when the Yanks became negative about the whole fiasco. You miss the point, big brother America was and will call the shots, not Israel ( Britain or France ).

I haven't misinterpreted it at all, Israel were NEVER going to stay in the Sinai, they were always going to retreat after Britain and France had seized the canal.

arybvtcw0eolkf

SlabMurphy wrote: »

A bit off topic but just wondering, can a non Jewish foreign citizen, ( say a Catholic from Ireland ), join the IDF ? And if so, are their many in it ?

Here ya go.

SlabMurphy

Stefan Flabby Schoolteacher wrote: »

Here ya go.

Thanks, interesting.

" Dear Friend of Israel,
We know your heart is with us in Israel and we greatly appreciate your offer to volunteer for the Israel Defense Forces.....Among the thousands of Machal volunteers who came to defend the new born State of Isreal in 1948 there were many non-Jews....... Since then however, the policy has been to restrict service in the armed forces to citizens of Israel, Jews as well as Christians, Moslems, Druze and others, and to non-Israeli Jews and their non-Jewish children, grandchildren and spouses, so as to avoid placing at risk persons who do not have this connection to Israel...... Unfortunately no exception can be made. "

http://www.mahal-idf-volunteers.org/about/non-Jewish-volunteer.htm

gizmo555

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Unfortunately no exception can be made.

That's rubbish - everyone knows the Mossad is full of Irish passport holders . . .

arybvtcw0eolkf

gizmo555 wrote: »

That's rubbish - everyone knows the Mossad is full of Irish passport holders . . .

lol.

A friend from my unit served in Lebanon, mid 80's - came home and went back over in 1987 and joined the IDF. I met him in 1988 riding an M60 Main Battle Tank north of Naqoura, Lebanon!.

I was almost making the same trip myself back in 1989, didn't do it. Then they (Israel) changed its policy on non-Jew's/non-Israeli joining - their mistake, I'd have made a great IDF commander.

Frogeye

Hi Lads

I was in Japan recently and went to Nagasaki. There is a museum there as you would expect on the bomb and such. Saw an interesting video on nuclear tests. Apparently there have been over 2000 of them.(cause of global warming maybe? ). anyway one of the pieces mentioned a undeclared explosion in the south atlantic in 1979.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Rumour had it it was an israeli bomb being tested in conjuction with the south africans. SA apparently had a program in the late 70's since they were surrounded by commies and such.

Frogeye

Avgas

Hi Frogeye,

The SA nuke test is well established in so far as things things can be. The Israeli swapped know how and in return got a quantity of uranium...they have some of their own but they wanted more/different qualities...which...suggests that have more than a few warheads.....

Very strong SA and Israeli links in the 1970s and 1980s...SA got Israeli model rifles (modified and built under license) and fast attack boats.....which didn't work well in rough seas off the Cape.

AFAIK SA nuke programme was wound down before and after transition away from Apartheid.

vixdname

Nuclear weapons
Main article: Nuclear weapons and Israel
Although no official statistics exist, 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.[3][4][5] Delivery mechanisms include Jericho intercontinental ballistic missiles, with a range of 11,500 km.[6] Additionally, Israel is believed to have an offshore nuclear second-strike capability, using submarine launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles.[7] The Israeli government maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity on whether it has nuclear weapons, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East."[8] Former International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei regarded Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons.[9]
Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, on July 13, 2008, Israel took part in a regional conference of the Union for the Mediterranean which pledged to pursue a Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction.[10]