Israel's Nuclear Program - The Hard Evidence

[and then 47,992]

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.

How do you imagine this treaty will come about? I do not believe there are sufficient numbers of believers in positions of power who would be throwing up barriers to a peace deal based on the scriptures. No, we know the treaty WILL be signed. We also know it will be broken, precisely at the midpoint. I have often wondered what the catalyst would be that would cause Israel to make peace and basically disarm in doing so. IMO it will happen after they have been forced to nuke someone. If such an event occurred then the entire world would well and truly come against them if they did not disarm. Can you imagine any other scenario where an Israeli government would actually disarm (living without bars nor gates)? Edited February 1, 2015 by and then

[Raptor Witness 2,586]

How do you imagine this treaty will come about? I do not believe there are sufficient numbers of believers in positions of power who would be throwing up barriers to a peace deal based on the scriptures. No, we know the treaty WILL be signed. We also know it will be broken, precisely at the midpoint. I have often wondered what the catalyst would be that would cause Israel to make peace and basically disarm in doing so. IMO it will happen after they have been forced to nuke someone. If such an event occurred then the entire world would well and truly come against them if they did not disarm. Can you imagine any other scenario where an Israeli government would actually disarm (living without bars nor gates)?

Are you aware that circumcision is a form of birth control? It's a sexual lobotomy. So why link a birthright of land to genital mutilation?

Can a Christian forsake the Holy Covenant? Can a Muslim? Can anyone besides a person of Jewish faith?

That should narrow down your pool from which the Antichrist is drawn.

It's not for Israel's sake that God saves them from their final northern enemy, correct? Rather, isn't it for the sake of His Holy name?

In other words, He is saving them at the end to preserve His good name. So what are they doing in the end to risk God's good name? What error are are they engaged in, that they are not worthy of saving? Is it the treaty, or the betrayal of the peace treaty?

It has to be someone that Israel trusts, who can hand them over.

The Antichrist will do to Israel what Judas did to Jesus. It will be at that point that his body will be inhabited, and the rope he uses won't be a lifeline.

We would be foolish not to ask, what is that rope made of?

Edited February 1, 2015 by Raptor Witness

[and then 47,992]

I feel like I asked a question in English and the answer came back in Greek.

[Hammerclaw 29,428]

I feel like I asked a question in English and the answer came back in Greek.

Been there, done that. How many nuclear reactors does Israel have?

[Raptor Witness 2,586]

I feel like I asked a question in English and the answer came back in Greek.

How can you understand the treaty you expect without understanding the Holy Covenant's role?

[ellapenella 5,735]

@Raptor witness , you mention judas betraying jesus and yet you fail to mention who provoked it all to happen in the first place . just saying.

and don't forget , the treaty to bring peace into the land , is suppose to be a false treaty , that is - if you believe in what you're talking about.

[ellapenella 5,735]

Politics and religion have always played people. It shouldn't be that way - but it is.

Why is religion's primary focus the middleeast? maybe because life began there? I guess so did religion and empires too . Does anyone remember when Saddam Hussein rode a white horse across an area of the desert during the gulf war? but does anyone know why he did that ?

Does anyone remeber whenOsama Bin Laden said no planes flown by infidels were to fly over certain parts of the desert where holy land was . They had to fly around certain areas because they were not worthy . That is always gonna be the way of the middle east. I don't like it . And no one should have Nukes. Especially over there.

[RoofGardener 17,497]

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 ?

I think you have a valid point there. Consider the example of poor old Georgia, and more recently the Ukraine. They gave up all of their enriched weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, and dismantled their weapons development centers. And what did they get in return ? Invasion by Russia. I bet they wished they had kept the materials, and developed its own bombs. Russia wouldn't have DARED invade then.

[and then 47,992]

Been there, done that. How many nuclear reactors does Israel have?

I've only ever heard of one - at Dimona.

[Raptor Witness 2,586]

@Raptor witness , you mention judas betraying jesus and yet you fail to mention who provoked it all to happen in the first place . just saying.

and don't forget , the treaty to bring peace into the land , is suppose to be a false treaty , that is - if you believe in what you're talking about.

The point I'm trying to make, is that they are betrayed by one of their own, and it's a fairly small pool of people on earth who could do that. It's unrealistic to be looking for the betrayer outside of their own circle of faith.

So can there be no secular solutions for Israel's protection, while they are in The Land?

Yet, those nuclear weapons are a secular creation.

If they are removed, they will argue that something must be put in their place.

Asking Ukraine to join NATO is unhelpful, asking Israel is a better idea.

They need an alliance not a peace treaty.

Screw the "AntiChrist," he's out of the picture.

It's Medieval Christian ignorance that is standing in the way of any chance of peace in the Middle East.

I also think the U.S. State Department is afraid the enemies of Israel will form an alliance with Russia or China, but that's an old world view.

I think most of the Arab states would rather see Israel as a member of NATO, then independent, with nuclear weapons.

I wonder why we never hear the Christian conservatives in the United States suggest that Israel be asked to join NATO?

Edited February 2, 2015 by Raptor Witness

[Leonardo 10,410]

Israel has had nukes for about 50 years. They have never threatened to annihilate anyone in all that time.

I can care less if they do have nukes. They have never threatened to blow anyone off the face of the earth.

Look up "Samson Option". It matter not that it is mooted as a retaliatory strike for the purpose of making an "aggressive defensive posture", it is still a threat to "annihilate" nations. The premise of MAD is fundamentally insane and purely based on spite.

[RavenHawk 11,490]

Look up "Samson Option". It matter not that it is mooted as a retaliatory strike for the purpose of making an "aggressive defensive posture", it is still a threat to "annihilate" nations. The premise of MAD is fundamentally insane and purely based on spite.

Just more irrational hatred spewed at Israel. Now it’s “aggressive”-defensive. Israel just can’t get a break. Any nation intent on defending itself seriously is by nature aggressive. Nice of you to bring up MAD because that is what the Samson Option is. So I guess the US and Russia had an aggressive defensive posture. So why pick on Israel? The difference between Israel and the other nuclear powers is that Israel has built its military around conventional superiority in order to avoid the last resort. In contrast, Iran is building strictly offensive platforms.

[Noteverythingisaconspiracy 19,030]

I've only ever heard of one - at Dimona.

Dimona is the only known reactor in Israel. It is based on a French design and started up sometimes between 1962 and 1964, so it is likely that Israel had a limited nuclear capability by the six day war (1967).

Based on the specification of the reactor design, they have made enough plutonium for atleast 100 weapons since then. If they have access to advanced bomb designs, they could have made many more than that. Possibly more than 200.

That is based only on Plutonium production at Dimona. It is unknown if they have a large scale capability to make weapons grade enriched uranium aswell. If they have that, the number of weapons that Israel have might be even higher.

Estimates range from 75 - 400. If the higher number is correct, they are actually the third lagest nuclear power today, after the US and Russia, ahead of France (300), the UK (225) and China (estimated 250) (http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/nuclear-forces)

I think that SIPRI's estimate of 80 seems like the most realistic number, but that is of course only an educated guess.

[Raptor Witness 2,586]

If they ever use these weapons, as they threatened to do when Saddam Hussein was lobbing warheads at them, it sets the stage for the infamous peace treaty, because at that point it could be Israel against the world, without any friends or allies left.

Then I could see someone making a peace treaty with Israel in exchange for their nuclear stockpiles.

ISIS wants their Mahdi, now. The Christian conservatives want Jesus, now. The Israelis will want their savior, now.

I won't be surprised to see someone claim to be all three, with the credentials to prove it.

[Leonardo 10,410]

Just more irrational hatred spewed at Israel.

Irrational hatred?

People in this thread claimed Israel had never threatened to "annihilate it's enemies". I simply pointed out that the "Samson Option" was exactly that - a threat to annihilate enemies, so rebutting the claim made.

Other nations incorporate such an "aggressive-defense" and where did I single out Israel as the only one who was "in the wrong"? I didn't - I said "The premise of MAD is fundamentally insane and purely based on spite." without qualifying whose policies incorporate MAD.

If anything, it is people such as you, who sees enemies where none exist and continue to hold Israel up as some "beacon of justice and civilisation", who poison the neutrals into a more "anti-Israel stance" by the partisan world-view you espouse.

[Black Red Devil 4,061]

Just more irrational hatred spewed at Israel. Now it's "aggressive"-defensive. Israel just can't get a break. Any nation intent on defending itself seriously is by nature aggressive. Nice of you to bring up MAD because that is what the Samson Option is. So I guess the US and Russia had an aggressive defensive posture. So why pick on Israel? The difference between Israel and the other nuclear powers is that Israel has built its military around conventional superiority in order to avoid the last resort. In contrast, Iran is building strictly offensive platforms.

Definitely the US and Russia had an aggressive defensive posture during the cold war. There were a few close calls but luckily, sense prevailed and we're still here to tell the tale.

Why pick on Israel? Because hypocritically, they expect everyone else to follow the rules but they're the first ones to defy them. Iran is an NPT member and because of that, they're expected to follow nuclear protocols (rightly so). Israel isn't, but threaten Iran because they're accusing them of defying NPT requirements. India and Pakistan (together with rogue state North Korea) have also reneged NPT membership but at least they've acknowledged they have nuclear weapons and allow IAEA inspectors to visit their sites. Israel has always defied inspectors and until 1986, when someone blew the whistle on them, nobody even new they were secretly building their reactors.

Didn't take a big Google effort to get information on how Israel deceitfully developed their nuclear program. Then again, if you want to play the three monkeys when it comes down to Israel.....

In Dimona, French engineers poured in to help build Israel a nuclear reactor and a far more secret reprocessing plant capable of separating plutonium from spent reactor fuel. This was the real giveaway that Israel's nuclear programme was aimed at producing weapons.

By the end of the 50s, there were 2,500 French citizens living in Dimona, transforming it from a village to a cosmopolitan town, complete with French lycées and streets full of Renaults, and yet the whole endeavour was conducted under a thick veil of secrecy. The American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in his book The Samson Option: "French workers at Dimona were forbidden to write directly to relatives and friends in France and elsewhere, but sent mail to a phony post-office box in Latin America."

The British were kept out of the loop, being told at different times that the huge construction site was a desert grasslands research institute and a manganese processing plant. The Americans, also kept in the dark by both Israel and France, flew U2 spy planes over Dimona in an attempt to find out what they were up to.

The Israelis admitted to having a reactor but insisted it was for entirely peaceful purposes. The spent fuel was sent to France for reprocessing, they claimed, even providing film footage of it being supposedly being loaded onto French freighters. Throughout the 60s it flatly denied the existence of the underground reprocessing plant in Dimona that was churning out plutonium for bombs.

Israel refused to countenance visits by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), so in the early 1960s President Kennedy demanded they accept American inspectors. US physicists were dispatched to Dimona but were given the run-around from the start. Visits were never twice-yearly as had been agreed with Kennedy and were subject to repeated postponements. The US physicists sent to Dimona were not allowed to bring their own equipment or collect samples. The lead American inspector, Floyd Culler, an expert on plutonium extraction, noted in his reports that there were newly plastered and painted walls in one of the buildings. It turned out that before each American visit, the Israelis had built false walls around the row of lifts that descended six levels to the subterranean reprocessing plant.

As more and more evidence of Israel's weapons programme emerged, the US role progressed from unwitting dupe to reluctant accomplice. In 1968 the CIA director Richard Helms told President Johnson that Israel had indeed managed to build nuclear weapons and that its air force had conducted sorties to practise dropping them.

link

Edited February 3, 2015 by Black Red Devil

[RoofGardener 17,497]

If they ever use these weapons, as they threatened to do when Saddam Hussein was lobbing warheads at them, it sets the stage for the infamous peace treaty, because at that point it could be Israel against the world, without any friends or allies left.

Ummm..... DID they make any such threat ? I really don't think they did ?

[Sir Smoke aLot 3,653]

The world must make sure that Israel will not be harmed or we are all going to be nuked. What comes out of that? Only one thing of course - we must stop Iran from getting those damn nukes.

[Hammerclaw 29,428]

The world must make sure that Israel will not be harmed or we are all going to be nuked. What comes out of that? Only one thing of course - we must stop Iran from getting those damn nukes.

If Iran gets nukes, every city and military base will be automatically targeted by every other nuclear power in what if scenarios. They effectively paint a big nuclear bullseye on their country and will be assigned a nuclear missile sub, cruising their littoral waters, for quick response.

[and then 47,992]

Ummm..... DID they make any such threat ? I really don't think they did ?

I vaguely recall the PM saying that Israel's retribution would be on a "Biblical" scale.

[and then 47,992]

If Iran gets nukes, every city and military base will be automatically targeted by every other nuclear power in what if scenarios. They effectively paint a big nuclear bullseye on their country and will be assigned a nuclear missile sub, cruising their littoral waters, for quick response.

Yes but they expect this. They would not actually use them in a suicidal first strike. Despite their rhetoric the religious leaders are really cowards imo. What they WILL do is use the threat of their use to coerce neighbors and gain hegemony in the region. And the greater danger is that a hair trigger response will be set by Israel.

[Raptor Witness 2,586]

I'm not buying the argument that because Israel doesn't threaten its neighbors, they'll never use these weapons.

Are they purely for defensive purposes? I have no doubt about that.

Nuclear weapons are the rich man's terror tool, of choice.

So we're all terrorists. Nuclear weapons are the stick that speaks for itself. You don't have to threaten anyone when you've got nuclear weapons in your arsenal.

A surefire way to unite the Arab world under one banner, would be to force Israel to use at least one of their nuclear weapons.

If I were in charge of ISIS that would be my strategic objective.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Raptor Witness

[RavenHawk 11,490]

If they ever use these weapons, as they threatened to do when Saddam Hussein was lobbing warheads at them, it sets the stage for the infamous peace treaty, because at that point it could be Israel against the world, without any friends or allies left.

There’s faulty logic in that. The world will either stay clear or will side with Israel. Primarily because they will be targeted just as Israel is. People will begin to realize that this is not Biblical prophecy but Islamic aggression.

Then I could see someone making a peace treaty with Israel in exchange for their nuclear stockpiles.

As if that will ever happen. Why not make a deal with Iran for its nukes? You do that then Israel wouldn’t be threatened. And they then could rely on their conventional forces.

ISIS wants their Mahdi, now. The Christian conservatives want Jesus, now. The Israelis will want their savior, now.

Islam is more literal so that may be so but hardly a desire of the other two. Both are passive to this event. It will come when it comes and no one can alter that. The Christian will prepare and the Jew will wait.

I won't be surprised to see someone claim to be all three, with the credentials to prove it.

It is the same entity. The three different groups don’t realize it yet. Islam is needing one more prophet to come to abrogate the old and reform it to fit the other two. The Mahdi *IS* Isa.

[RavenHawk 11,490]

Irrational hatred?

You single out Israel for having a Samson Option when in fact just about every nation has one to some effect.

People in this thread claimed Israel had never threatened to "annihilate it's enemies". I simply pointed out that the "Samson Option" was exactly that - a threat to annihilate enemies, so rebutting the claim made.

That’s not what Israel did. Israel has never threatened its neighbors with nuclear attack for the purpose of conquest or destruction (as say the Arab League, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran et al have). Only in the case where Israel’s enemies may destroy her, will she take her enemies with her. The two are quite different. So Israel saying that she will take her enemies with her is bad? And having Iran state that the regime in Jerusalem needs to be erased from the pages of time is ok?

Other nations incorporate such an "aggressive-defense" and where did I single out Israel as the only one who was "in the wrong"?

Oh, I don’t know… Your post… It wasn’t that there were others that have a Samson Option, it was that you singled out Israel. And having a Samson Option is not wrong.

I didn't - I said "The premise of MAD is fundamentally insane and purely based on spite." without qualifying whose policies incorporate MAD.

That didn’t stop you from singling out Israel. And a Muslim nation attacking Israel isn’t for spite?

If anything, it is people such as you, who sees enemies where none exist and continue to hold Israel up as some "beacon of justice and civilisation", who poison the neutrals into a more "anti-Israel stance" by the partisan world-view you espouse.

This is what I mean by irrational. So ISIS is not Islamic nor a terrorist organization. They’re not enemies, just misunderstood. We shouldn’t judge them because they behead people. Why don’t you hold Israel as a beacon of justice and civilization being defiant to Dhimmitude? Israel happens to be the only Democracy in the region. “Poison the neutrals to be *more* anti-Israeli”? If they were neutral then why would they be anti-Israeli in the first place? Time for a wakeup call, this world *IS* divided up between us and them. The only question for you is which side do you stand on? I not only espouse it, that is the real world, welcome to it.

[RavenHawk 11,490]

Why pick on Israel? Because hypocritically, they expect everyone else to follow the rules but they're the first ones to defy them.

They are not part of the NPT so how can they be hypocritical? So how can they defy the rules when the rules don’t apply to Israel? Why shouldn’t Israel expect that signatories of the NPT abide by the rules? Why shouldn’t everybody expect that?

Iran is an NPT member and because of that, they're expected to follow nuclear protocols (rightly so). Israel isn't, but threaten Iran because they're accusing them of defying NPT requirements.

And Iran does defy the requirements. Israel isn’t threatening Iran to follow the rules, they are promising to act if Iran threatens Israel. Israel would be perfectly content if Iran stays within her borders as far as aggression toward Israel goes. But because Iran continues to violate the NPT, reduces the treaty to just more bureaucratic paperwork. Because of Iran and the lack of action by the other members, the treaty is now defunct. Was Israel the only one that foresaw that?

India and Pakistan (together with rogue state North Korea) have also reneged NPT membership but at least they've acknowledged they have nuclear weapons and allow IAEA inspectors to visit their sites. Israel has always defied inspectors and until 1986, when someone blew the whistle on them, nobody even new they were secretly building their reactors.

And you’ve never wondered why? No one would ever try to disarm India, Pakistan or even NK. But the world would be pushed out of its way into disarming Israel. And Israel has been the most responsible nuclear state in the short history of the Nuclear Age. So where is this jealousy to harm Israel come from? We’ve seen world history where Jewish security is in the hands of someone else. Why should Israel allow that again?

Didn't take a big Google effort to get information on how Israel deceitfully developed their nuclear program. Then again, if you want to play the three monkeys when it comes down to Israel.....

Non Sequitur. I certainly don’t deny Israel has nukes and has been deceitful in protecting that. Why is it that when Israel is shown to be deceitful that that confirms that they have nukes and that makes them evil but if Iran is shown to be deceitful that they are just misunderstood and they don’t have nukes? Sounds like a suspicious double standard.