Does Israel have a .....

[Yamato]

No links, nothing else to follow, just a question---

Where is the evidence that Israel ACTUALLY has nuclear weapons? OK, it is assumed (Internationally) that Israel may have up to 80 Nuclear warheads, but no-one is actually offering any evidence of this - certainly NOT Israel.

So are all the assumptions simply reinforced to dupe the rest of the Middle East (Israel is not european, it is ME) to believe that Israel is Untouchable? To make the rest of the ME believe that Israel has capabilities beyond its ability to deliver?

It is also assumed, on this forum, that Israel DOES have a Nuclear capability, but what if it doesn´t, how does this change the politics in the M.E??

Alleged to have hundreds of nukes. No evidence they tested a single one. Derp!

The evidence is an IAEA inspection away, but I must be some kind of radical suggesting we inspect Israel's arsenals.

[Yamato]

Still does not constitute unequivocal evidence that Israel has any such weapons. It could all just be a Red Herring to make the rest of the world "believe" that Israel has a nuclear capabilty. I remain to be convinced otherwise

I'm not convinced either and yet paradoxically I think that Israel does have nuclear weapons. They're just US nuclear weapons. And I have a bad feeling that's what makes this "special relationship" of ours so hard to reform. The US has given so many "unbreakable" guarantees to Israel's security, I think those guarantees went nuclear behind closed doors.

[MordorOrc]

No evidence they tested a single one.

It's alleged that they tested one in the southern Indian Ocean in 1979.

They're just US nuclear weapons.

Oh ye of little faith. The US did very little in the development of Israel's nuclear program. Everything was either sourced from states that were willing to sell nuclear materials to Israel or they did it themselves. The CIA routinely said that Israel had nuclear warheads in the 60's and 70's although they were at the sort of level that the US was in the 50's. As well as that, Israel has delivery systems that could target anywhere in the Middle East, either from aircraft, submarine or ballistic missile.

[Yamato]

It's alleged that they tested one in the southern Indian Ocean in 1979.

Oh ye of little faith. The US did very little in the development of Israel's nuclear program. Everything was either sourced from states that were willing to sell nuclear materials to Israel or they did it themselves. The CIA routinely said that Israel had nuclear warheads in the 60's and 70's although they were at the sort of level that the US was in the 50's. As well as that, Israel has delivery systems that could target anywhere in the Middle East, either from aircraft, submarine or ballistic missile.

Do you have examples of the CIA routinely saying these things?

[MordorOrc]

Do you have examples of the CIA routinely saying these things?

Are you OK with PDF files?

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB240/snie.pdf

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB190/03.pdf

The second link is about the events in 1979 surrounding the Vela Incident, which is claimed by some to be a joint South African-Israeli nuclear weapons test.

[Yamato]

Are you OK with PDF files?

http://www2.gwu.edu/...EBB240/snie.pdf

http://www2.gwu.edu/...SAEBB190/03.pdf

The second link is about the events in 1979 surrounding the Vela Incident, which is claimed by some to be a joint South African-Israeli nuclear weapons test.

In the first link, it "believes" Israel has nuclear weapons based on acquiring uranium.

The second link is pure conjecture, almost every statement there

"The Israelis might have conceivably foreseen..."

"that could be..."

"Or they might have..."

"Israel's strategists might even have been interested..."

"If they were to have developed reliable nuclear devices,..."

"Israeli nuclear weapons designers would probably..."

"could have enabled them..."

"Israeli authorities could not have..."

"The dangers would have..."

"The Israelis would have..."

"The Department of Energy believes..."

"Israel may well have had..."

"We believe..."

and it goes on and on and on

"If the South Africans had considered..."

"would have been carefully weighed..."

"The Israelis would have calculated..."

"South Africa would have had every reason..."

"The Israelis also could have..."

"On the other hand, unless the Israelis had..."

"South African weapons developers would probably..."

"The Defense Intelligence Agency believes that South Africa would probably have..."

I haven't seen that much would since I woke up this morning.

I'm not saying we presume Israel has nukes based on no CIA conjecture at all. I'm saying we presume it with no evidence at all. Not a single test is known about, not a single warhead has ever been seen. We know nearly nothing about this secretive nuclear rogue.

Incidentally, those links have quite a bit of their content whited out. We could fill in the blanks with even more conjecture, but no.

[+and-then]

In the first link, it "believes" Israel has nuclear weapons based on acquiring uranium.

The second link is pure conjecture, almost every statement there

"The Israelis might have conceivably foreseen..."

"that could be..."

"Or they might have..."

"Israel's strategists might even have been interested..."

"If they were to have developed reliable nuclear devices,..."

"Israeli nuclear weapons designers would probably..."

"could have enabled them..."

"Israeli authorities could not have..."

"The dangers would have..."

"The Israelis would have..."

"The Department of Energy believes..."

"Israel may well have had..."

"We believe..."

and it goes on and on and on

"If the South Africans had considered..."

"would have been carefully weighed..."

"The Israelis would have calculated..."

"South Africa would have had every reason..."

"The Israelis also could have..."

"On the other hand, unless the Israelis had..."

"South African weapons developers would probably..."

"The Defense Intelligence Agency believes that South Africa would probably have..."

I haven't seen that much would since I woke up this morning.

I'm not saying we presume Israel has nukes based on no CIA conjecture at all. I'm saying we presume it with no evidence at all. Not a single test is known about, not a single warhead has ever been seen. We know nearly nothing about this secretive nuclear rogue.

Incidentally, those links have quite a bit of their content whited out. We could fill in the blanks with even more conjecture, but no.

Her neighbors haven't been overly inclined to take the risk so far. Someday they might, who knows.

[RoofGardener]

If Israel did NOT have nukes, why would it bother producing the Jericho series of missiles ? These ballistic rockets can only carry around 1000Kg over a range of 5000km, and an accuracy of around 1000m. (1km).

The ONLY purpose for such a missile is to deliver one (or more) nuclear warheads.

I mean... what POSSIBLE purpose would a conventional warhead serve ? Only 1000Kg, and a margin of error of +/- 500m ? That would be utterly pointless. A 1-Megaton fusion warhead, on the other hand, doesn't NEED accuracy.

[+and-then]

If Israel did NOT have nukes, why would it bother producing the Jericho series of missiles ? These ballistic rockets can only carry around 1000Kg over a range of 5000km, and an accuracy of around 1000m. (1km).

The ONLY purpose for such a missile is to deliver one (or more) nuclear warheads.

I mean... what POSSIBLE purpose would a conventional warhead serve ? Only 1000Kg, and a margin of error of +/- 500m ? That would be utterly pointless. A 1-Megaton fusion warhead, on the other hand, doesn't NEED accuracy.

I understand the logic but you are dealing with people who refuse to acknowledge that spending 100 billion dollars on nuclear based electricity production - including reinforced underground fuel production - is rational and has NO possible connection to bomb making. They are incapable of even being honest with themselves on the issue.

[Yamato]

If Israel did NOT have nukes, why would it bother producing the Jericho series of missiles ? These ballistic rockets can only carry around 1000Kg over a range of 5000km, and an accuracy of around 1000m. (1km).

The ONLY purpose for such a missile is to deliver one (or more) nuclear warheads.

I mean... what POSSIBLE purpose would a conventional warhead serve ? Only 1000Kg, and a margin of error of +/- 500m ? That would be utterly pointless. A 1-Megaton fusion warhead, on the other hand, doesn't NEED accuracy.

*double take*

Why have a rocket program? Nuclear ICBMs are the only purpose? No. It's not limited to warheads. Rockets are used to put payloads into orbit. Careful with the absolutist language of "only", "always", and "never".

[Yamato]

I understand the logic but you are dealing with people who refuse to acknowledge that spending 100 billion dollars on nuclear based electricity production - including reinforced underground fuel production - is rational and has NO possible connection to bomb making. They are incapable of even being honest with themselves on the issue.

Nobody said that, EVER. Epic strawman once again.

Israeli nukes are like so much else in the Middle East. People with ginormous word counts talking about things they know nearly nothing about.

[+and-then]

Nobody said that, EVER. Epic strawman once again.

Israeli nukes are like so much else in the Middle East. People with ginormous word counts talking about things they know nearly nothing about.

You know exactly what I meant, and whether you choose to be honest or not it is what you imply. Otherwise you are admitting that Iran may well have a nuclear weapons program - which admission you have consistently denied since forever. So no strawman - just a dodge on your part.

[Yamato]

You know exactly what I meant, and whether you choose to be honest or not it is what you imply. Otherwise you are admitting that Iran may well have a nuclear weapons program - which admission you have consistently denied since forever. So no strawman - just a dodge on your part.

Don't ever put words in my mouth and tell me I'm the dishonest one.

There's no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Grovel with it.

Iran's been inspected to death. It's Israel's turn.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Yamato

[+and-then]

Don't ever put words in my mouth and tell me I'm the dishonest one.

There's no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Grovel with it.

Iran's been inspected to death. It's Israel's turn.

You act like a fool Yam. Is it that you are just that arrogant? You don't seem stupid to me. If your bias was not complete you would admit what is right before your eyes. If it was the US or Israel in the place Iran is in you would be ALL OVER the facts pointing to a weapons program. Stop the dishonesty. Or deal with it yourself. You bore me.

[Yamato]

You act like a fool Yam. Is it that you are just that arrogant? You don't seem stupid to me. If your bias was not complete you would admit what is right before your eyes. If it was the US or Israel in the place Iran is in you would be ALL OVER the facts pointing to a weapons program. Stop the dishonesty. Or deal with it yourself. You bore me.

There's no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. It's all just speculation and conjecture from the usual Zionist spin room.

If you think Armageddon is unavoidable, what types of Armageddon are palatable for you? Just can't do an Iranian nuke, huh? That's the one Armageddon that you just can't quite politically deal with, right?

You contradict yourself 12 ways to Sunday. Here again, you claim that Armageddon can't be prevented, and so therefore policy and how people are treated over there doesn't even matter. And yet you're the most militant defender of Zionist policy here. That doesn't wash. You can't have it both ways. It's either God's will be done, or humans do indeed decide their own destiny.

[+and-then]

There's no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. It's all just speculation and conjecture from the usual Zionist spin room.

If you think Armageddon is unavoidable, what types of Armageddon are palatable for you? Just can't do an Iranian nuke, huh? That's the one Armageddon that you just can't quite politically deal with, right?

You contradict yourself 12 ways to Sunday. Here again, you claim that Armageddon can't be prevented, and so therefore policy and how people are treated over there doesn't even matter. And yet you're the most militant defender of Zionist policy here. That doesn't wash. You can't have it both ways. It's either God's will be done, or humans do indeed decide their own destiny.

Yam why would Iran spend billions of dollars on reinforced deeply buried uranium enrichment facilities? If they really just want to do medical research and create electricity then why not build those facilities above ground and save billions? And remember that they were secret for years - they only came to light a few years ago. Why?

The horrors of the last days are unavoidable. But the command to be a blessing to Israel's descendants does not have an expiration date either. For myself, I believe that all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates is promised to them but they will not inherit it until Christ comes. In the meantime I support the people of Israel.

[Yamato]

Yam why would Iran spend billions of dollars on reinforced deeply buried uranium enrichment facilities? If they really just want to do medical research and create electricity then why not build those facilities above ground and save billions? And remember that they were secret for years - they only came to light a few years ago. Why?

The horrors of the last days are unavoidable. But the command to be a blessing to Israel's descendants does not have an expiration date either. For myself, I believe that all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates is promised to them but they will not inherit it until Christ comes. In the meantime I support the people of Israel.

You don't know how much they spent. Where's that coming from? Why would they build underground? Because they've been threatened by terrorists from Israel on a regular basis.

No evidence of a weapons program in Iran doesn't mean "only electricity". It means what I said it means. They've been heavily inspected, there is no evidence whatsoever.

Israel, on the other hand, needs immediate IAEA inspections brought in to account for its arsenals. The rotgut double standards for Israel you pine for are mind blowing.

[+and-then]

You don't know how much they spent. Where's that coming from? Why would they build underground? Because they've been threatened by terrorists from Israel on a regular basis.

No evidence of a weapons program in Iran doesn't mean "only electricity". It means what I said it means. They've been heavily inspected, there is no evidence whatsoever.

Israel, on the other hand, needs immediate IAEA inspections brought in to account for its arsenals. The rotgut double standards for Israel you pine for are mind blowing.

Believe what you will Yam. If Israel decides to bomb these sites - which I doubt - then I'm not sure what your rationale for that would be. Perhaps they just really hate Iranians and want their land too? Israel has not threatened anyone with the nukes they have possessed for 40 years. THAT is the difference regarding inspections. If those like you had their way Israel would have been annihilated long ago. But the bible says that is never going to happen. Disregard that at your own peril Yam.

[RoofGardener]

*double take*

Why have a rocket program? Nuclear ICBMs are the only purpose? No. It's not limited to warheads. Rockets are used to put payloads into orbit. Careful with the absolutist language of "only", "always", and "never".

Well, fair point. A lot of it IS speculation, though not entirely without evidence. Israel has openly declared its Jericho program, including the existence and deployment of the Jericho 3.

As for the orbital payload concept: Israel has a separate rocket for that; the "Shavit". Israel has stated that the Shavit IS based on the Jericho 3.

So we are left with the question: If the Shavit is for orbital insertion, what is the Jericho 3 (and its predecessors) for ?

Of course, the entire multi-billion Jericho program could be a bluff to make the world think that Israel has nuclear weapons. If so, it is a remarkably expensive one.

Edited March 20, 2014 by RoofGardener

[jeem]

Believe what you will Yam. If Israel decides to bomb these sites - which I doubt - then I'm not sure what your rationale for that would be. Perhaps they just really hate Iranians and want their land too? Israel has not threatened anyone with the nukes they have possessed for 40 years. THAT is the difference regarding inspections. If those like you had their way Israel would have been annihilated long ago. But the bible says that is never going to happen. Disregard that at your own peril Yam.

But Israel did consider to use nuclear weapon as their last strike in 1973 war

[Yamato]

Believe what you will Yam. If Israel decides to bomb these sites - which I doubt - then I'm not sure what your rationale for that would be. Perhaps they just really hate Iranians and want their land too? Israel has not threatened anyone with the nukes they have possessed for 40 years. THAT is the difference regarding inspections. If those like you had their way Israel would have been annihilated long ago. But the bible says that is never going to happen. Disregard that at your own peril Yam.

Wrong, Israeli bureaucrats have made threats with nukes. Please do homework! Does ALL your education have to come from other posters here or can you bring some real information that isn't in the form of blind denial of reality? Are you paid to dump your laundry list of incorrect statements about Israel in blase ignorance of what the facts are? You know this. We've been over this. It's more than just being uneducated or having a bad memory I think. I don't know why you even bother denying reality in front of me though. Hopefully I'll go away?

The Bible doesn't say anything about the nation that was created in 1948. And the real Semites are the ones quietly being wiped off the map every day. The Arabs. There's nothing more anti-Semitic than Zionist Israeli policy. They're destroying God's people. God's chosen ones aren't white-skinned Ashkenazi transplants from Europe. Jesus Christ was a brown-eyed brown-skinned Palestinian, like those whom you persecute.

[RoofGardener]

Wrong, Israeli bureaucrats have made threats with nukes. Please do homework! Does ALL your education have to come from other posters here or can you bring some real information that isn't in the form of blind denial of reality? Are you paid to dump your laundry list of incorrect statements about Israel in blase ignorance of what the facts are? You know this. We've been over this. It's more than just being uneducated or having a bad memory I think. I don't know why you even bother denying reality in front of me though. Hopefully I'll go away?

The Bible doesn't say anything about the nation that was created in 1948. And the real Semites are the ones quietly being wiped off the map every day. The Arabs. There's nothing more anti-Semitic than Zionist Israeli policy. They're destroying God's people. God's chosen ones aren't white-skinned Ashkenazi transplants from Europe. Jesus Christ was a brown-eyed brown-skinned Palestinian, like those whom you persecute.

Jesus was - probably - a brown-eyed, brown-skinned Galilian. He was born in a town called Bethlehem in a region called Gallilee, (modern day northern Israel), which had previously been part of either ancient Israel or Judea.

There no nation, group, peoples or ethnicity called Palestine around at the time. Indeed, they didn't appear in common parlance untill around 1965.

[Yamato]

Jesus was - probably - a brown-eyed, brown-skinned Galilian. He was born in a town called Bethlehem in a region called Gallilee, (modern day northern Israel), which had previously been part of either ancient Israel or Judea.

There no nation, group, peoples or ethnicity called Palestine around at the time. Indeed, they didn't appear in common parlance untill around 1965.

What **** was called thousands of years ago matters to how we legislate nations today? Are you touched?

Nothing called Palestine that you know of you mean.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't know better. And Then did know better and his Zionist amnesia pretended he forgot as always.

Not that modern day borders have squat to do with the Bible, because they don't, but you clearly don't know your geography and should do some homework with some maps before you tell me where Bethlehem is.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bethlehem/@31.6990334,35.1811594,11z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x1502d865aec80d67:0xf5c4213de4baf1f8

As if floating this stupid and hypocritical BS from thousands of years ago even matters. Where do you live? Let's see who lived there thousands of years ago and kick you out of your home. Talk about a mirror moment.

[RoofGardener]

Bit of a strawman argument there Yamato, surely ?

I never argued that there was no such region as Palestine (though it went under different spellings - and meanings - since first being recorded around 5BC).

However, depending on which authority you wish to cite, the region incorporated modern-day Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and possibly even bits of Egypt. (in addition to a host of other tribes and nations that didn't last until modern times, such as the Assyrians, Pheonicians etc).

To put it another way: the term "Palestine" is similar to terms like "The Middle East" or "South-east Asia" or (in a UK context) "The Midlands". It is a cartographical convenience. (There is an interesting Wikipedia article on the nomenclature of Palestine that's worth a browse.

As for "The Palestinians" - implying a political/national distinct group of people, that is a very modern creation, only declared in around 1988. This was somewhat theoretical, as the declaration was made in Algiers, and there was no State presence or infrastructure in the "Palestine" that it was declaring. The first governmental structures formed only after the Oslo peace accords in 1993 with the forming of the Palestine National Authority.

So I will happily stand by my original statement. There has never previously existed a nation of peoples called "Palestinians". There is no Palestinian Language, no unique historical cultural artefacts, architecture, music or art that is uniquely "Palestinian". Perhaps there WILL be in the future, but nothing from the past.

If every self-identified Palestinian was to be teleported to Canada, and alien Sociologists/Historians/Archaeologists where to land in the Levant, they would not find a shred of evidence that the Palestinians ever existed as a unique peoples . They would just find traces of Israelis, Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians.... in short, lots of Arabs.

Or am I wrong ?

[Yamato]

It was an ancient name for the region. This unique rhetorical standard for Israel is interesting, and now an ancient name for the region must also be a nation! Zionism is the most fanatical nationalism so I can understand a Zionist making this kind of nationalistic argument.