Talk:Nuclear weapons and Israel/Archive 1

Archive 1

First Sentence

User:Hornplease recently removed the first sentence-

"Israel was the sixth country in the world to develop nuclear weapons, although it maintains an official policy of "nuclear opacity" and says that it "will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East."

I have reverted this back for the time being considering that Nuclear weapons and the United States and Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom use similar formating with regard to what number country it is to acquire nuclear weapons. All evidence points to beyond a doubt that Israel had weapons before after 1964 but before 1972, thereby making it the sixth nuclear power (after China, before India); this is cited later in the article but can of course be cited in the lead. Because Israel has never officially tested a weapon nor confirmed their existence, I only feel it proper to amend the first statement with the policy of nuclear opacity. This would be included in the lead anyways, because the lead should mention all major aspects of the ensuing article.--Joshdboz 20:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A mention of nuclear opacity should be in the lead paragraph, but not front and centre. Other statements of policy do not need to be there. The exact date of development is unknown and contested, and does not belong in the lead; the China article does not mention anything other than incontestable dates of tests. Hornplease 00:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine if you want to move opacity to later in the paragraph, but I'm not going to go along with removing the line "sixth in the world to develop nuclear weapons." I'm fine qualifying it, as I said above, but to not say so would be ignoring everything written and reported about the Israeli nuclear program. That would be purposely withholding a verifiable and essential fact, which would be POV.Joshdboz 01:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not removing it again immediately, but I certainly will unless you indicate precisely how the date of development is a verifiable fact. Hornplease 08:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], every authoritative source will say that Israel was the sixth. Here's Avner Cohen from just this past May, who wrote the definitive scholarly account on the Israeli nuclear program Israel and the Bomb: "Forty years ago, Israel became the world's sixth nuclear nation." [4] Not including this verified info is POV, there's no way around it. By the way WP:Verifiability states that:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

The notion that Israel is the sixth nuclear power clearly follows this policy, as shown above. Joshdboz 11:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Joshdboz, the sources (plus this one from the Federation of American Scientists) are quite clear on the issue. Number 57 12:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. Consider then, these, as a representative example. John B Ritch, the director-general of the World Nuclear Association and the former US rep to IAEA and the UN: "Thus, when India became the world's sixth nuclear power in 1974..".[5]; Michael Nacht of Harvard in the American Political Science Review:"It was rather surprising, therefore, that it took almost a decade before India became the sixth nuclear nation by conducting a 'peaceful nuclear explosion'"[6]; and many others, including George Perkovich and Dennis Kux. You see the problem? Hornplease 13:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the difference is that India was the sixth country to test and declare nuclear weapons, whereas Israel was the sixth country to develop nuclear weapons. Number 57 13:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but that is unknown. In fact, the date of actual development by India prior to the first test in 1974 is unknown as well, as is most information about the weapons programme at that stage. It certainly is very ambiguous, and thus does not belong in the lead, unless it is qualified, at least. Hornplease 13:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're getting too caught up in the fact that Israel has never spoken about nor admitted its nuclear activities. In fact, it is known that Israel developed nuclear weapons in the late 1960s. Every expert and reliable published account says so. The only debate, as far as what I have read, is the exact year Israel built its first nuclear device, whether it was in late 1966, 1967, or sometime in 1968. Joshdboz 03:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And several published accounts suggest a similar level of development to the Indian nuclear programme at the time, which is as secret, if not more so, because it never produced any Vanunus. Here is what I would like to point out: I can add "sixth nuclear-armed nation" to India as well to Israel, and source it in both cases, but it would not be sensible. Naturally, it is best to replace that phrase in the lead with "almost certainly developed by 1970", which seems correct. Hornplease 01:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you read this account [7] of the beginnings of India's first bomb, which while very interesting in itself, seems to make clear that it wasn't until at least after 1970 that India actually had concrete models and actual atomic weapons, whereas Israel, according to all published accounts in recent years, certainly had weapons before 1970, thereby making it the sixth country to develop weapons. I think you'll find that most places which refer to India as the "sixth nuclear power" are referring to it with regard to its nuclear test. See this example:

"India’s explosion of a so-called ‘peaceful nuclear device’ in 1974 made it the sixth country in the world to develop nuclear weapons and fixed its place in the history of global nuclear non-proliferation policy." [8]

So yes, you can certainly add to the India that India was the sixth country to successfully test nuclear weapons, but you cannot then take that away from the Israeli article. I would be willing to change the first sentence to "Israel is widely believed to be the sixth country in the world to develop nuclear weapons" if you would agree to that, as that would express that there is largely a consensus on the issue, although some doubt naturally exists without an actual nuclear test. Joshdboz 11:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is considerable belief that weapons development in India was completed well before Sarabhai died, and I think he died in early 1971. Be that as it may, the question remains: why not state what is known rather than the inferences that are drawn on the best guesses of the progress of other programmes? I continue to be puzzled by the desire for inaccuracy in the lead. Hornplease 06:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we're arguing about different things. If you really think that this statement doesn't belong in the lead, that's fine, it can be mentioned later in the article. But what I can't understand is how you can keep doubting the statement without ever presenting concrete evidence to the contrary. I have yet to find or receive any reliable source (or any source for that matter) that says India had a bomb before 1968. So I'm not trying to be stubborn about the lead...I frankly don't care that much about a single sentence; I just can't understand how you can keep attacking its verifiability without presenting evidence about India's own bomb construction. As said above, general statements about India being the sixth nuclear power are in many cases in reference to its nuclear test, and therefore do not negate the fact that Israel was the sixth. I would love to read evidence to the contrary, but I can't find any that exists. Joshdboz 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative First Sentences

I'm still with those who think the first sentence could be improved. Instead of rehashing arguments, though, and without making a change that might start an edit war, I propose that those who still think it could be improved offer suggested first sentences here. My own offering, "Although Israel has never confirmed or denied the claim, it is widely believed to be the sixth country...etc. etc." (With the obvious citations of that "widely believed" claim.)Czrisher 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Beefing Up Nuclear Strategy Section

I spent some time substantially DRAFTING a much better version of the Samson Option page, but I find that a lot of the informaton really belongs on this page as an introduction under "POLICY" and in the "Use" section. (Also "Use" should come after "Possession.")

Below is a LONGISH draft of that information. :-) I'll integrate where relevant and delete unnecessary and especially duplicative material already in the article. ANY MAJOR PROBLEMS, DO TELL NOW...

Israel’s deterrence doctrine is shaped by its small size, concentrated population, strategic vulnerability - and its abundance of enemies who accuse it of being a colonialist and apartheid state. Thus the threat of massive retaliation is seen as necessary to its survival.

According to historian Avner Cohen, at least limited use of nuclear weapons might be triggered by successful Arab penetration of populated areas, destruction of the Israeli Air Force, massive air strikes or chemical/biological strikes on Israeli cities, and Arab use of nuclear weapons. Seymour Hersh writes that during the Cold War two major uses of the weapons were to convince the United States to support Israel with conventional weapons and to discourage the former Soviet Union from arming and aiding Arab nations. Israel went on nuclear alert during the 1973 Yom Kippur war to accomplish both goals. Hersh points out that before Israel obtained its own satellite capability, it engaged in espionage against the United States to obtain nuclear targeting information on Soviet targets.

A Federation of American Scientists website writes of Israeli doctrine: “Strategically, Israel uses its long-range missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft (and, some say, submarines with nuclear-armed cruise missiles) to deter both conventional and unconventional attacks, or to launch ‘the Samson Option’, an all-out attack against an adversary should defenses fail and population centers be threatened. In addition, despite Israel's insistence that it ‘will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East,’ these systems represent an effective preemptive strike force.”

Israel's nuclear policy became increasingly preemptive with the success of the Likud Party, especially during Ariel Sharon's tenure as Israeli Defense Minister during the early 1980s and Israeli Prime Minister from 2001 to 2006. Israeli military and nuclear doctrine increasingly focused on preemptive war against any possible attack with conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, or even a potential conventional attack on Israel's weapons of mass destruction. Sharon and his allies also saw preemption as a means of protecting Israel’s illegal settlement of the West Bank and Gaza, redrawing the map of the Middle East to increase Israel’s security and ensuring an Israeli nuclear monopoly in the Middle East.

Israeli strategists call this "nonconventional compellence." Shimon Peres explains that "acquiring a superior weapons system(read nuclear) would mean the possibility of using it for compellent purposes - that is forcing the other side to accept Israeli political demands, which presumably include a demand that the traditional status quo be accepted and a peace treaty signed." Louis Rene Beres, who contributed to Project Daniel, urges that Israel continue and improve these policies, in concert with the increasingly preemptive nuclear policies of the United States, as revealed in the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations.

After Iraq attacked Israel with Scud missiles during the 1991 First Gulf War, Israel went on full-scale nuclear alert and mobile nuclear missile launchers were deployed. In the build up the United States 2003 invasion of Iraq, there were concerns that Israel would launch a nuclear attack on Iraq if it again attacked Israel. After discussions with President George W. Bush Sharon warned "If our citizens are attacked seriously - by a weapon of mass destruction, chemical, biological or by some mega-terror attack act - and suffer casualties, then Israel will respond." It is believed Bush gave Sharon the green-light to attack Baghdad, but only if Iraq struck Israel before the American military invasion.

Carol Moore 02:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Almost the entire section starting "Maintaining a Nuclear Monopoly" is provably false. The Israeli press and gov't have not made any public statements on the activities of 6 Sep 2007. John Bolton claimed that there was nuclear material in Syria. Israel has said nothing to that effect. Israel has not once threatened a nuclear attack on Iran. Alhamenajad has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Israel has stated that they will use military force if necessary to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, but has never stated anything regarding nuclear involvement in such strikes. (If nothing else, this would conflict with their policy of nuclear ambiguity, which was discussed briefly earlier in the article.) Much of this article is pure speculation. 'They are said to have ... ' etc. I also find the lack of references more than slightly suspicious. Of the 97 references on the page, around 70 are from three people, and around 60 are from two specific books with known bias. Elf, 1654 06 Oct 2007 UTC User:elflng —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write, only edited and moved original Monopoly section, so did not look carefully at weaknesses you note in sentences 1-4. Will correct after further research. ALSO, I can find more explicit threats Israel might nuke Iran, since Israeli leaders made lots over last few years.

Ahmadinejad has said the Zionist regime should be wiped off the map through a referendum of ALL inhabitants of Israel/Palestine, and of course the majority would want a NON-ZIonist regime. Sensationalist claims they'd try to do so through military force may sell newspapers and fill up fundraising coffers and excuse settlement of more Palestinian land, but that doesn't mean they are accurate. Israel's nuclear ambiguity is only because they fear losing US monetary and military and diplomatic aid. But with Bush letting them do whatever they want, why bother? Because Hillary or Julie-annie might get tough on them? HA! Of course if Ron Paul won...

As for the references, authors Cohen and Hersh are highly respected academics and journalists. And there are a couple dozen other sources that look pretty respectable. Could there be more references that support points made even better? SURE! A work in progress.

Carol Moore 20:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Weasel

Has it been actually confirmed that Israel has atomic weapons? Is there a source? It looks like speculation to me. Just because they won't talk about atomic weapons doesn't mean they have them. Contralya 23:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Massive amounts of evidence is hardly weaselly. Didn't you see the photograph Vanunu brought out?? Israeli leaders have repeatedly hinted at it, but might lose US aid if they admitted it. Plus it's hard to play the victim when you outright admit you have 400 nukes and could take out dozens of major Arab, Muslim and Russian Cities tomorrow. They prefer to just hint at what they could do.(See Samson Option.)

Carol Moore 23:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Contralya, I have never seen a reputable (non-Israeli gov) source that denied Israel had nuclear weapons; all reporting has concluded that Israel maintains a sizeable nuclear arsenal. What kind of proof is necessary, "a mushroom cloud"...sorry that last comment was just too easy. Joshdboz 22:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging Samson Option to this article??

VOTE NO Someone who deleted the evidence of why the Samson Option is so controversial now wants to move it here. I think it is important enough to have its own article with just a minor reference here. On the other hand more people might read about the Samson Option if it was a Whole Section in this article and see all the evidence that Israel intends to use nuclear weapons to provoke world nuclear war if it ever loses too much land or too many people. What do people think? Carol Moore 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

No There is no compelling reason why Samson Option cannot stand as its own article. This article is concerned with all things nuclear and Israel related, so there's no problem with more specific articles on various aspects of that. Joshdboz 18:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from the Samson Option talk page, the person who wants to merge is opposed to any evidence there is one from being presented in the article! (Besides the most general types of sources, like used in this article). This includes sourced and well known quotations from Israeli leaders! Obviously if the article is gutted of content, there would be no choice but to merge it here. I'm about to put up a version that deals with legitimate criticisms, but I know it will be immediately reverted. Any other comments on Samson Option talk page you want to make on why it should remain its own article and dealing with the NPOV criticism appreciated. I'll try to be NPOV if others will :-)

Carol Moore 17:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

No The Samson Option is a very unique and extremely controversial Israeli doctrine that needs its own article. Israel's nuclear weapons program is obviously relevant, but they couldn't be merged without losing coherency and maintaining the necessary amount of information on both. --J.StuartClarke 11:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note I have re-written the Samson Option page with lots of sourced and accurate but controversial info. Please take a look in case it gets gutted (again) and put in your two cents. :-)

Carol Moore 03:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Re: Carol Moore- you shouldn't "re-write" articles just because you dissagree with what they say. Delete unfactual information. Add what you think is write. Talk about areas where you disagree on the talk page. Don't simply re-make it in your image. Rudy Breteler

'Don't Merge' The Samson Option is important and seperate enough for it's own article. It should not be merged. However, it should be remembered that Wikipedia is not a Democracy, and votes are neither encouraged nor binding. Rudy Breteler 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Stockpile section

This section seems overly confusing. The estimates are all over the place, and they really don't add anything to the article. I think it would be better just to put a range (70-400), and add that the most likely or most agreed upon estimates are in the 100-200 range. Also, as far as I know, they may have the capability to develop thermonuclear weapons, but it is extremely unlikely that they have actually done so. Objections? Dchall1 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. This entry could use a fair bit of attention, especially the group of sections recently added under the super-heading "Policy", some of which overlap with previous sections. I removed several of the biggest problems including commentary both unsourced or sourced to non-RS and the paraphrasing of commentary from an editorial. One edit which could be checked is the claim that the nuclear program was meant to protect Israeli settlements, sourced to Hersh, 288-289. I don't see how a 1991 book could comment on Sharon's mindset, or what exactly the line meant - who would have been "nuked"? I find it hard to believe that the Palestinians would have been on the receiving end. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually corrected this before noticing talk section, so will have to keep my eyes open. Anyway, I think US Air Force estimates have as much credibility as Federation of American Scientists when it comes to number of Israeli nukes.

U.S. Air Force: Israel has 400 nukes, building naval force

Carol Moore 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

It's not the US Air Force's estimate, and that article is very misleading about the report and what it says. See Talk:Samson Option. The 400 figure is an intentionally high estimate from 1997 by a private analyst, the report (which is the opinion of a USAF analyst, not an official statement of the USAF) is just quoting it among many other estimates. I don't think we should let one extremely high and purposefully high estimate be portrayed as a standard one; almost all third party guesses put it in the 200 range. The 400 estimate can stand on its own in the big "list of estimates" section, with a direct reference to its actual source, but I think that's as much as we should deal with it. I say this not because I have some big axe to grind, but because the 400 figure looks VERY high to anyone familiar with the literature and as such sends off "this article is unreliable" flags in my head. The dubious WorldTribune.com sourcing doesn't help that. ---24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think most analysts think Israel has thermonuclear weapons. Vanunu's detailed descriptions of lithium-deuteride production (used in staged thermonuclear weapons) were beyond that available in unclassified sources according to Frank Barnaby, ex-UK Atomic Weapons Establishment physicist who interviewed him. Rwendland 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The stockpile section of estimates is a leftover from Israel and weapons of mass destruction that I copied over here when I began this article. Feel free to edit or trash, but I'm sure something can be salvaged. Joshdboz 18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As for thermonuclear weapons, this is again part of the guessing game. Most sources I've seen, mostly based off the Vanunu info, believe that there is a strong possibility that Israel has them. Joshdboz 18:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Renamed?

The article was renamed to "Israel and nuclear weapons" from "Nuclear weapons and Israel" on the basis of "alphabetical order". I thought it was the latter originally because of consistency with other articles like Nuclear weapons and the United States and Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom, etc. In any case it should be made consistent. --24.147.86.187 16:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It was, I'm contacting the editor who changed it. Joshdboz (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

400 "atomic and hydrogen weapons" (copied from Talk:Samson Option)

The intro says: "It is estimated Israel has as many as 400 atomic and hydrogen nuclear weapons." The reference is this dubious article (at least, the internet-based news site is unknown to me and not notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it), which mangles things a bit. It refers to this report by an USAF Colonel and takes practically the last line of the report as the story: "1997: >400 deliverable thermonuclear and nuclear weapons." (Note here that "thermonuclear" doesn't necessarily mean that it is a hydrogen bomb, as the Wikipedia line implies. It is much easier to imagine them deploying boosted weapons than it is hydrogen bombs; the latter definitely require testing to be sure that they work, whereas you could get away with the former without testing.) This section is about other people's estimates on the Israeli nuclear capacity and in fact the next line says "1999: 74-130 bombs (@ 5 kg/warhead)" which is a significantly lower number. The 400 estimate (by far the largest I have ever seen of Israel's nuclear capacity) comes from an article in Jane’s Intelligence Review, which is not a bad source but is not quite as official as the article citing this article makes it out to be (which claims it is the USAF making that estimate). In any case I haven't seen the Jane's article in question but quotes from it elsewhere make it seem that Brower was intentionally trying to guess very high, arguing that it's not inconceivable that they could have a program more sophisticated than others had been estimating. While an interesting point, it is a pretty specific estimate—specific to one person and one set of assumptions—and not anywhere near the level of generality that this article implies.

Anyway—my suggestion is to instead use the source and number that is used in List of states with nuclear weapons, which is much more in the ballpark of standard estimates, between 75-200 weapons, type unspecified, given by the National Resources Defense Council, whose estimates are pretty well respected and can be considered pretty conservative. In any case, the weird chain of citations here does not warrant the current sentence on this page, and is not exactly a showcased effort of Wikipedia's sourcing policy. I'm going to change it, but I wanted to make it clear why I was doing so (I'm no crackpot, I don't have an agenda except making Wikipedia look reliable). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI. Brower's number is included in the widely reproduced Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army article The Third Temple's Holy Of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons, USAF Counterproliferation Center,Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. He references: Brower, Kenneth S., “A Propensity for Conflict: Potential Scenarios and Outcomes of War in the Middle East,” Jane's Intelligence Review, Special Report no. 14, (February 1997), 14-15.

So some note that the number 400 is out there should be made, even if it is shown as being highly speculative, or else it looks like Wikipedia is out of the loop.

I'm sure the CIA and Russian intelligence have their own estimates (and likely locations) for all those first strike contingency plans they are always making against other nuclear nations - for example if it ever looks like Israel really is getting ready to use the Samson Option. Come on, boys, cough it up for wikipedia!!

Carol Moore 19:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I think that the present solution of including both numbers is a good one. --Marvin Diode 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent detective work 24.147.86.187, however, I would suggest that any higher estimates be included in a footnote for thoroughness. Joshdboz (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Copying this whole section over confuses the issue since not clear what you want to do in THIS article with what turns out to be the final references. Note that Brower is already referenced in this article, with rather unclear qualifier. So I added explanation of "high estimate" comment to footnote. It would be interesting to detail how these estimates are come by, inclding on how many bombs they could produce with current facilities if they got all the material they needed. Carol Moore 04:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Fair use rationale for Image:Vanuunu-Article.jpg

Image:Vanuunu-Article.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)