Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Raptor Witness

Israel's Nuclear Program - The Hard Evidence

102 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hammerclaw

I suspect Japan has all the necessary components to assemble nuclear warheads on short notice, stockpiled, should the need for a home grown nuclear deterrent arise. That in no way violates any treaties or their constitution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
praetorian-legio XIII

Well, Israeli armored columns had crossed the Suez and cut off the Egyptian army in the southern Sinai and were headed north along the canal and were wreaking havoc in the Egyptian forces rear echelon units against token resistance. The Pyramids were on the horizon with Cairo was in striking distance. No nuclear scenario is necessary to see the peril of the situation. A little sabre rattling was necessary to dissuade the Soviets from any precipitous adventurism, and the possible consequence of having American and Soviet forces glowering at one-another across the canal. So, both sides were persuaded to make nice to each other. The Israeli military mystique of apparent invincibility never recovered from having been caught with their pants down in The Yom Kippur War. It was the first time they lost ground, permanently to Arab armed forces.

I don't agree that Israel was caught with their pants down at all. The fact is the Arab forces of Egypt-Syria-Jordan were humiliated by the one sided romp. The war however did lead to the realization that there was no guarantee that Israel would always militarily dominate the Arab states. As far as lost ground, the Sinai was returned to Egypt as part of the Camp David Accords, not because the Arab alliance had "won" it in battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

I don't agree that Israel was caught with their pants down at all. The fact is the Arab forces of Egypt-Syria-Jordan were humiliated by the one sided romp. The war however did lead to the realization that there was no guarantee that Israel would always militarily dominate the Arab states. As far as lost ground, the Sinai was returned to Egypt as part of the Camp David Accords, not because the Arab alliance had "won" it in battle.

With all do respect, I lived through that time. They were caught unprepared. Their defensive trench fortifications along the canal were amphibiously assaulted and overrun. The Israeli arm ed forces were unmobilised. They hastily sent out armored columns without close support infantry to halt the Egyptian advance. Those armored units were decimated by Egyptian infantry equipped,almost to a man, with Soviet anti-tank weapons. Many Israeli troops were killed or captured in the opening phase of the conflict. The territory overrun and occupied or "liberated" by Egyptian forces in the Sinai, was never retaken. The rest of the Israeli occuppied Egyptian territory was ceded back at Camp David, with the exception of the the Gaza Strip. The Egyptians didn't want it back. Edited by Hammerclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg

I have asked this before so what should Iran or other nations do to have some sort of strike capabilities? Why not everyone disarm their nukes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

I have asked this before so what should Iran or other nations do to have some sort of strike capabilities? Why not everyone disarm their nukes?

AFAIK there is no substitute weapon to counter a nuke for sheer destructive power. As bad a nukes are, they still are "better" (more precise/reliable) than bio or chemical weapons. As to the second part of the question I cite Russia as the answer. It collapsed economically and became a shell of it's former self about 30 years ago. Today people LISTEN when their little demigod speaks because he has an arsenal of nukes at hand. There is no greater power to wield in the modern world. I suspect that the only way nations would disarm their nukes would be if another even more devastating weapon is invented.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shrooma

Doesn't the possibility exist that we supplied Israel with nuclear weapons?

.

when you say 'we'.....

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

I suspect Japan has all the necessary components to assemble nuclear warheads on short notice, stockpiled, should the need for a home grown nuclear deterrent arise. That in no way violates any treaties or their constitution.

Japan is a perfect example of what is called a paranuclear state. That is a country that isn't a nuclear power, but could be at very short notice, if they should see the need. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranuclear)

They have a large stockpile of plutonium and they even have a satellite launcher, that could be converted into an ICBM in a very short time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-V)

I have asked this before so what should Iran or other nations do to have some sort of strike capabilities? Why not everyone disarm their nukes?

There are actually a few countries that have decided to get rid of their nuclear weapons voluntarily: South Africa, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

I have asked this before so what should Iran or other nations do to have some sort of strike capabilities? Why not everyone disarm their nukes?

Does it matter if someone attempts to disarm a nuclear strike ? I'm serious i don't know. I would think that once it's launched the damage is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Does it matter if someone attempts to disarm a nuclear strike ? I'm serious i don't know. I would think that once it's launched the damage is done.

If you are talking about stopping a nuclear strike that is underway, there will be some contamination with nuclear material if you shoot down a nuclear missile. But nothing remotely comparable to what would happen if the nuclear weapon detonate at its target.

The amount of radioactivity in a nuclear weapons in very small, compared to the amount of radioactivity produced by the detonation. (Particulaly if it is a thermonuclear device)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

If you are talking about stopping a nuclear strike that is underway, there will be some contamination with nuclear material if you shoot down a nuclear missile. But nothing remotely comparable to what would happen if the nuclear weapon detonate at its target.

The amount of radioactivity in a nuclear weapons in very small, compared to the amount of radioactivity produced by the detonation. (Particulaly if it is a thermonuclear device)

Yeah exactly like that. But I don't think that the amount of the dangerous destructive activity is really determined . Of course if it hits targeted destination that's the worst possible scenario but the destruction that plant life will endure and water would be devastating , right ?

wouldn't it be in the air as well ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Yeah exactly like that. But I don't think that the amount of the dangerous destructive activity is really determined . Of course if it hits targeted destination that's the worst possible scenario but the destruction that plant life will endure and water would be devastating , right ?

wouldn't it be in the air as well ?

All nuclear weapons contain a core of plutonium-239 or Uranium-235, which would contaminate the surrounding areas. Both materials are nasty stuff !

The big factor would be whether the core of the weapon remain intact or not. If it does, there will be only minimal damage. If the core waporizes, it will get into the air (and eventually water) and it is time to run away really fast (downwind) !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MordorOrc

This is just off of the top of my head, but remember, back in the 70s or early 80s mention of mysterious powerful explosions detected in the south atlantic, far from the shipping lanes. They were written off as possibly meteoric in origin.

The Vela Incident has been mooted as a potential Israeli nuclear test. However, it relies on circumstantial evidence rather than hard proof. The lack of ambient radiation after said test also points towards it not being a nuclear test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ogbin

Why not everyone disarm their nukes?

:lol: not gonna happen, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor Witness

Anyone who still doesn't believe that Israel has nuclear weapons hasn't done their homework.

There's a long, long trail of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MordorOrc

Anyone who still doesn't believe that Israel has nuclear weapons hasn't done their homework.

There's a long, long trail of evidence.

So do you know how many warheads Israel has? What kind of yield they have? When they entered service?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

I suspect only the Israelis "know" those answers, MordorOrc.

If you do a browse on google and Wikipedia, the 'concensus' appears to be....

Number of warheads "on the shelf": ZERO.

Number of warheads that could be created in a few hours by bolting pre-prepared modules together: between 80-200 ?

Yield: enhanced fission bombs... probably 20-30 Kton range ?

Some have speculated that Israel has produced thermonuclear bombs (e.g. Hydrogen bombs) in the 200 Kton range, but - as with all the others - it is all guesswork.

I would hypothesise that Israel developed the atomic bomb specifically to deter Arab "massed Tanks" attacks. Israel - at the time - was potentially vulnerable to such attacks, as it has so little space to "fall back" in. So the purpose of the atom bombs would be to destroy concentrated tank armies in their tracks (if you'll pardon the pun).

In theory, Israel is capable of producing high-yield thermonuclear bombs, and enhanced radiation devices such as neutron bombs. However, they are VERY expensive, and I can't really see how they would enhance Israel's defences. Its existing atomic bombs can reach afar as Moscow, courtesy of the Jericho III missile, and would act as an effective deterence against a Soviet attack. The presumption is that Israel simply isn't worth destroying, if it would involve massive destruction of Russian army bases and airfields.(or gasfields and refineries.)

In my opinion (and it is ONLY my opinion), the atomic bomb development program was primarily a 1950's reaction to the 1948 war, in which Israel had very little armour or anti-tank capability, and was aware of the Arab nations (esp. Egypt and Syria) acquiring huge amount of Soviet tanks. Israel couldn't - at the time - match this level of tank production, so the atomic bomb was an attractive alternative.

By the 1960's, Israel was still outnumbered by the Arab tank armies, but the gap was closing, and by the 1970's it was closed, with domestic tank production stepping up, and with the Arab nations effectively cowed following the 1973 Yom Kippur tank massacres.Russia itself was leery of giving more and more thousands of tanks to the Arab states, only to see them used ineffectively and destroyed by a mixture of American and Israeli-built equipment.

Couple this with the development of more effective anti-tank weapons (especially airborne guided missiles), and the rationale for Nukes had pretty much gone. They where a 1950's solution to a 1950's problem that doesn't really exist any more.

Still; when surrounded by semi-stable nations that frequently make bloodthirsty threats, they're handy to have on the shelf. Even if in pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg

My question was slightly different. I am thinking from Iran's perspective , it considers Israel and USA as it's arch enemies both of which have nukes. Now there isn't much choice for it than to develop nukes for it's self defense or preemptive strike. Similarly what about other nations who don't want to join NATO but need to have some protection? What is acceptable to western countries ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

All nuclear weapons contain a core of plutonium-239 or Uranium-235, which would contaminate the surrounding areas. Both materials are nasty stuff !

The big factor would be whether the core of the weapon remain intact or not. If it does, there will be only minimal damage. If the core waporizes, it will get into the air (and eventually water) and it is time to run away really fast (downwind) !

vegetation will die in both land and water. even with strategic defense programs I don't think it matters if a national leader decoded the final code for a strike to occur. In the U.S codes are exchanged through minutemen soldiers or something . I don't know for certain if a president has the final , final say over an official head of military , pentagon , C.I.A and all others that may have more knowledge them he would have , if it all came down to that . I just hope heads are level minded , always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor Witness

My question was slightly different. I am thinking from Iran's perspective , it considers Israel and USA as it's arch enemies both of which have nukes. Now there isn't much choice for it than to develop nukes for it's self defense or preemptive strike. Similarly what about other nations who don't want to join NATO but need to have some protection? What is acceptable to western countries ?

The only thing acceptable to the Christian right in the United States is nuclear war in the Middle East to be mitigated by Jesus Christ's second coming.

It's the exact same thing that we accuse ISIS of doing in terms of their "end of days" world view.

At least that's what we heard from the joint news conference given by Secretary Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey a few months ago. It's a playbook right out of FOXNews.

“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision, and which will eventually have to be defeated,” Dempsey said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/chuck-hagel-isil-defense-james-foley-110241.html#ixzz3QPjzM9xl

What about the Israeli "end.of days" worldview?

Has anybody here read that? They're expecting a savior to bail them out too.

That's the three largest religions on earth who insist on an apocalypse.

If there was ever a time to show a little pride for our species, it would be now.

Jesus was an ultra liberal in His day. If He appeared today, the conservatives would try to kill Him again, not the Liberals. The liberals would love Him.

He would despise the Christian conservatives, A forecast He actually made, but they don't have a clue where to find that.

In the Christian conservative mind, every possible peace treaty with Israel is a deal with the Devil.

Edited by Raptor Witness
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

My question was slightly different. I am thinking from Iran's perspective , it considers Israel and USA as it's arch enemies both of which have nukes. Now there isn't much choice for it than to develop nukes for it's self defense or preemptive strike. Similarly what about other nations who don't want to join NATO but need to have some protection? What is acceptable to western countries ?

Slightly ? you don't say. I dunno know about this statement . What exactly is the concerned interest for Iran about ? Seriously , the last thing I've heard from them was some annihilation campaign speech regarding Israel .

Why would anyone want Iran to have nukes? I don't trust what they are capable of doing . I don't want anyone to have nukes. There should not be weaponized nukes in the universe at all. none whatsoever.

Do you think that nations need to have protection from NATO ? I really don't know too much about NATO . Do you think it's a sort of Global Union of Military superiority on the rise or something ?

I don't blame Putin for not wanting NATO on his doorstep. But if NATO is a good thing and could stop global terrorism then why wouldn't anyone want to unite for that cause? Maybe they could dispose of all Nukes one day , that's may be wishful thinking ...

If I had but only one wish , that may be it .it would suck to have only one wish though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

The only thing acceptable to the Christian right in the United States is nuclear war in the Middle East to be mitigated by Jesus Christ's second coming.

It's the exact same thing that we accuse ISIS of doing in terms of their "end of days" world view.

At least that's what we heard from the joint news conference given by Secretary Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey a few months ago. It's a playbook right out of FOXNews.

"This is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision, and which will eventually have to be defeated," Dempsey said.

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz3QPjzM9xl

What about the Israeli "end.of days" worldview?

Has anybody here read that? They're expecting a savior to bail them out too.

That's the three largest religions on earth who insist on an apocalypse.

If there was ever a time to show a little pride for our species, it would be now.

Jesus was an ultra liberal in His day. If He appeared today, the conservatives would try to kill Him again, not the Liberals. The liberals would love Him.

He would despise the Christian conservatives, A forecast He actually made, but they don't have a clue where to find that.

In the Christian conservative mind, every possible peace treaty with Israel is a deal with the Devil.

Rubbish . you are so not being honest here. There is no such thing as a christian politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

The only thing acceptable to the Christian right in the United States is nuclear war in the Middle East to be mitigated by Jesus Christ's second coming.

SNIP

In the Christian conservative mind, every possible peace treaty with Israel is a deal with the Devil.

I consider myself a Christian conservative (though no one ever gave me the secret decoder ring or handshake) and I believe you are projecting a falsehood about them. Christians who are awaiting the coming of our Lord are not in the midst of some bloodlust as you seem to be implying. Apparently non believers scoff at the possibility we just might be right but also fear we are on to something real and they want to blame us - kind of like killing the messenger so to speak. I speak of horrific death at the end of this age because it is what's WRITTEN by someone a very long time ago that was inspired (I believe) by the Creator himself. I do not cause it to happen and certainly am not happy it is going to happen - no sane person would be. Some Christians believe they will be"raptured" or snatched away before this horror descends on the earth. I have my doubts about that - no other generation of believers were ever saved from persecution. But whethe I am hre for it or not I still would not wish what is said to be coming on ANYONE. I have never hated anyone enough to want them to go through what Christ referred to as "great tribulation". He said it would be worse than anything ever has been before or ever will be again. With a population of about 7 billion at the beginning of this 3.5 years there will only be about 2.4 billion who survive. That's ALMOST 5 THOUSAND MILLION DEAD. WWII saw only about 50 million dead. Again I say - speaking about one's belief is not the same as lusting after the event to happen. If I knew a massive hurricane was coming and tried to spread the word would I be responsible for the hurricane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

The only thing acceptable to the Christian right in the United States is nuclear war in the Middle East to be mitigated by Jesus Christ's second coming.

What do you mean by only thing acceptable? You make no sense. A Christian waiting for the Second Coming is not a call to arms for the end of days. It is an appeal to prepare oneself for the end times and that is the moment of our deaths; to be ready whenever it comes. The Christian has no control over egging on this nuclear war of yours. True, an attitude shared by many is “Hey, I’m ready. Let’s get this party going.” I can see where that sense of peace would scare atheists.

The Jews await the coming of the Messiah and I believe that that will be the Second Coming. But before the Messiah appears, the Temple must be rebuilt and if you understand what the Temple is, then you’d know it can’t be rebuilt. The function of the Temple is to house the Ark of the Covenant. And that has been lost to antiquity. Unless Obama can pull it out of his back pocket, the end times is not going to happen. And Christians and Jews understand that. The End of Days is an allegory to prepare oneself for the next life. So if you believe this rush to nuclear war, then you’re brainwashed in the Hollywood/Liberal mindset, which is just as bad as the Islamic mindset and the Caliphate or 12th Imam.

On a side note, the Sunni and Shia have a similar belief of the Mahdi. One awaits his arrival and the other awaits his second coming. But both believe that it is an actual event that will happen. And Jesus will be there too. Of all the other prophets like Elijah or Mosses, it’s Jesus that will defeat Ad-Dajjal.

It's the exact same thing that we accuse ISIS of doing in terms of their "end of days" world view.

Not hardly. Whereas Islam uses it as a war cry, Christians are more mature and just see another historical clash of cultures on the horizon. History is filled with them. It’s the Liberal leadership of the West which is not preparing for this NON-end of days war.

At least that's what we heard from the joint news conference given by Secretary Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey a few months ago. It's a playbook right out of FOXNews.

Wow!

“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision, and which will eventually have to be defeated,” Dempsey said.

Ok, right (referring to ISIS). That’s their end of days, not the worlds. This is an indication of the level of determination they have. Compare that to how our leadership refuses to call them Islamic terrorists. If we are not prepared for their determination then we need to get use to prayer 5 times a day. Sorry, no end of days here for you, just a slide into another Dark Ages.

Jesus was an ultra liberal in His day. If He appeared today, the conservatives would try to kill Him again, not the Liberals. The liberals would love Him.

Back then, to be Conservative was being radical. Jesus pushed personal responsibility. When he called for us to give to the less fortunate, it was meant to be from the individual, not taken from the individual by the state and then doled out. Love one another as I love you was meant to mean that we should take care of our brother and not have the state declare itself as mother and father. The Parable of the Talents is an example of how Jesus supported the idea of free enterprise.

I think I read where Hawking and Gates have both stated that they fear AI. I don’t think it is the AI itself but from where it will be programmed. In the Startrek episode, “Ultimate Computer”, Dr. Daystrom programs the M5 with his own engrams which lead to faulty action. McCoy pointedly comments that compassion is something computers lack. Daystrom was too much the Liberal to add Asimov’s Laws. But that’s what Hawking and Gates fear. Liberal AI. Unfortunately, we live in a predominately Liberal/Socialist world. To a Liberal, compassion is enslavement. You take out the individual from the equation. The individual is to benefit the state (as in Colossus).

He would despise the Christian conservatives, A forecast He actually made, but they don't have a clue where to find that.

Good luck with finding that. He railed against hardening of the heart and arrogance. But those are Liberal traits.

In the Christian conservative mind, every possible peace treaty with Israel is a deal with the Devil.

Another wow! Most Christians see Israel more like a little brother, not the devil. I guess some people see their little brother as a devil.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor Witness

One obstacle to peace in the Middle East is fear of the AntiChrist's 7 year treaty.

So what's the alternative?

War?

Nuclear War?

It's a suicide mission or pact, which leaves no room for faith in humanity.

I think it's a test to see if we'll choose life.

Perhaps by choosing life as a species we are found worthy of an upgrade.

I can believe in peace through understanding the pitfalls of my own faith, without sacrificing it.

Faith in anything demands reason.

We were made to ask the tough questions..

What we expect of Islam we should be willing to do ourselves. If our faith cannot stand the test of self examination, then it's not real.

Edited by Raptor Witness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.