(10-05-2009 07:58 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-05-2009 12:45 AM)RobertN Wrote:  So which country helped Israel develop theirs? I think we ALL know.

Moral equivalency? I think not. Israel has not once said it intends to push the Muslims into the Med.

Maybe in your fantasy world that is correct.

(10-07-2009 12:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  “'We have heard that Netanyahu came with a list and concrete evidence showing that Russians are helping the Iranians to develop a bomb,' a source close to the Russian defense minister told the Times."

Does anyone besdes me find it interesting that the leak on this story appears to be on the Russian side instead of the Israeli side?

This seems consistent with a number of other situations. By way of example, an Egyptian candidate for UNESCO was recently rejected due to anti-semitic statements. Israel itself did not oppose the candinacy on an official basis:

Quote:Israel: UNESCO Was Right to Reject Farouk Hosni
"Farouk Hosni's latest anti-Semitic outburst shows that UNESCO was right not to elect him to the head of an organization that is supposed to combat the epidemic of anti-Semitism around the world," a senior Israeli official said Thursday. Hosni said Wednesday that a Western conspiracy "cooked up in New York" prevented him from winning, and that "European countries and the world's Jews" wanted him to lose. The official said, "the primitive notion that Jews are to blame for everything is not fitting for someone who competed for the job of UNESCO head."

Israel had not opposed his candidacy after Prime Minister Netanyahu reached a deal over the matter with Egyptian President Mubarak. Official Israel remains mum over Hosni's loss, seeking to avoid tension with Egypt. (Jerusalem Post)

(10-07-2009 12:31 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-07-2009 11:59 AM)I45owl Wrote:  The US did not give Israel the technology to develop nuclear power. You have your history wrong if you believe that. The US Government did not systematically give the technology to develop nuclear weapons. There is some dispute as to whether any material or plans did come from the US - many of those claims are speculative. But, it is irresponsible and baseless to suggest that the US gave Israel assembled nuclear weapons or that Israel obtained assembled weapons in any form from any country - that just has not basis in reality.

They were helped by the US, whether you want to admit to it or not. Isreal did not (and really still does not) have the resources to get the nuclear material, let alone be able to design and test their designs.

So, which US President was the one to order cooperation with the Israeli nuclear weapons program?

I'm not sure that there was ever anything written... but most of the historical research points to the fact that the US knew about the main research facility (in 1960!) and did nothing about it. Once the CIA claimed that the Israeli's had, in fact, built their first weapon, Nixon essentially told them to ignore it. Either the US fed them info directly, or allowed Israeli spies to get the information needed to build their first weapons.

(10-07-2009 12:58 PM)mlb Wrote:  I'm not sure that there was ever anything written... but most of the historical research points to the fact that the US knew about the main research facility (in 1960!) and did nothing about it. Once the CIA claimed that the Israeli's had, in fact, built their first weapon, Nixon essentially told them to ignore it. Either the US fed them info directly, or allowed Israeli spies to get the information needed to build their first weapons.

This is really a far cry from what you said earlier in the thread (including the allegation that the US supplied them with a complete nuclear weapon). At best, this is exactly what I referred to as the allegations in dispute above. You have completely disregarded the role the French played in supplying nuclear technology and material to Israel, and I think it is highly unlikely that any nation has supplied anything more than a fraction of weapons grade material to Israel in any fashion.

Among the points in this summary are a description of intelligence failures by the CIA, opposition to Israeli development of nuclear weapons by at least two presidents, and the source of nuclear cooperation with Israel (primarily France, but also Britain and Italy according to other sources). It should be noted that Israel's primary allies during the period where it developed its nuclear capability were France and Britain ... those alliances diminished after the Suez crisis and the US became Israel's main ally beginning in the late 1960s and 1970s. Prior to the six day war, I don't think the US was a strong ally of Israel ... purportedly, Israel had weapons "ready" just prior to the six day war.

I'm a firm believer that the vast majority of their information for building a bomb was thanks to US scientific work. As to whether we meant to help them or not, I'd argue that the US turned a blind eye at the time. Obviously I wasn't there, just a gut feeling.

(10-07-2009 02:46 PM)mlb Wrote:  I'm a firm believer that the vast majority of their information for building a bomb was thanks to US scientific work. As to whether we meant to help them or not, I'd argue that the US turned a blind eye at the time. Obviously I wasn't there, just a gut feeling.

The French Premier at the time was reported to have said "I owe Israel the bomb". Aside from the Germans, I'm not sure that any nation can claim to have developed nuclear technology without saying it was thanks to "US scientific work". What I believe that you mean (given the context of the shifting tack of your arguments) is that there was military, political, and intelligence assistance by the US, and I think that take is wrong.

What confuses me is your continued belief in the face of arguments that have caused you to shift your initial claims, much less your shift from "They were helped by the US, whether you want to admit to it or not" to "I'm a firm believer ... whether we meant to help them or not ... just a gut feeling" without really posting a shred of evidence. Even the allegations that Israel came into possession of US nuclear material I think refers to an incident in the 1970s, but it's been a while since I've seen information on that. The FAS is a good place for relatively unbiased information: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

edit: I appear to be wrong about the time frame. The allegation is that Israel obtained about 200 pounds of enriched Uranium from Pennsylvania around 1965.

(10-07-2009 12:31 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-07-2009 11:59 AM)I45owl Wrote:  The US did not give Israel the technology to develop nuclear power. You have your history wrong if you believe that. The US Government did not systematically give the technology to develop nuclear weapons. There is some dispute as to whether any material or plans did come from the US - many of those claims are speculative. But, it is irresponsible and baseless to suggest that the US gave Israel assembled nuclear weapons or that Israel obtained assembled weapons in any form from any country - that just has not basis in reality.

They were helped by the US, whether you want to admit to it or not. Isreal did not (and really still does not) have the resources to get the nuclear material, let alone be able to design and test their designs.

Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard: Do those names ring any bells? I think the Israeli have the brain power and many were involved, no instrumental with the US development of the Nuclear Bomb. To think otherwise is to deny the History.

(10-07-2009 03:29 PM)I45owl Wrote:  The French Premier at the time was reported to have said "I owe Israel the bomb". Aside from the Germans, I'm not sure that any nation can claim to have developed nuclear technology without saying it was thanks to "US scientific work". What I believe that you mean (given the context of the shifting tack of your arguments) is that there was military, political, and intelligence assistance by the US, and I think that take is wrong.

Shifting? Nah. Maybe rewording, yes. The US through many ways "supported" Israel's pursuit of nuclear technology. Specifics may be lacking, but it is well known that the US essentially let them build their facilities while knowing what they were doing from a very early stage.

Quote:What confuses me is your continued belief in the face of arguments that have caused you to shift your initial claims, much less your shift from "They were helped by the US, whether you want to admit to it or not" to "I'm a firm believer ... whether we meant to help them or not ... just a gut feeling" without really posting a shred of evidence. Even the allegations that Israel came into possession of US nuclear material I think refers to an incident in the 1970s, but it's been a while since I've seen information on that. The FAS is a good place for relatively unbiased information: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

edit: I appear to be wrong about the time frame. The allegation is that Israel obtained about 200 pounds of enriched Uranium from Pennsylvania around 1965.

I reworded it, nothing more, nothing less. Either the US actively supported them, or supported them by turning their shoulder on what was going on. Simple as that.

Read "The Samson Option" by Seymour Hirsch or "Foxbats Over Dimona" by the husband-and-wife team of Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez for an interesting perspective.

Both have been blasted by some as being partisan distortions. All I can say is that I was privy to a lot of intel from that part of the world at the time the authors address, and without compromising anything I can only say that to the extent that any specific assertions can be confirmed or denied by anything I know, they all check out.

(10-08-2009 01:58 PM)mlb Wrote:  I reworded it, nothing more, nothing less. Either the US actively supported them, or supported them by turning their shoulder on what was going on. Simple as that.

By that standard, I can now claim to have personally supported any conceivable advancement in weapons technology. "Specifics may be lacking" are convenient weasel words for not having anything to substantiate your argument, whatever that may be.

mlb - do you stand by your intimation that the US provided complete nuclear weapons to Israel, or have you given up on this claim?

As for your rewording - if "turning your shoulder" is your allegation, then that's a pretty insubstantial claim, and doesn't form any basis for argument - especially since the actions that the US did in fact take to try to inhibit nuclear proliferation to Israel were apparently ineffective. But, the US did not go to the extent of sanctioning France, Britain, and others who were actively involved in supporting the Israeli nuclear weapons program (and by supporting, I mean a reasonable interpretation of the word, not mere passivity).

Your original wording was "It is ridiculous to state that the US didn't essentially give them the technology to build the bombs". I will state clearly and unequivocally that I have never seen any evidence to support the notion that the US gave the Israelis the technology to build the bombs. It is highly unlikely at this stage that there is any such evidence. And, you have provided nothing except a gut feeling.

From an interview with Gideon Remez (co-author of Foxbats):

Gideon Remez Wrote:In retrospect, there's a tendency to ascribe to the US in 1967 a commitment to Israel's security that's much greater than what actually existed in 1967. The US, which was then deeply mired in Vietnam was very reluctant to take on any further commitment to actual military involvement. And, in the case of Israel in 1967, Israel was warned repeatedly that not only if you go it alone, that is if you strike first you will be on your own, there were even warnings that the US may intervene on Egypt's side if the Israelis struck first.

(10-08-2009 05:13 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-08-2009 01:58 PM)mlb Wrote:  I reworded it, nothing more, nothing less. Either the US actively supported them, or supported them by turning their shoulder on what was going on. Simple as that.

By that standard, I can now claim to have personally supported any conceivable advancement in weapons technology. "Specifics may be lacking" are convenient weasel words for not having anything to substantiate your argument, whatever that may be.

mlb - do you stand by your intimation that the US provided complete nuclear weapons to Israel, or have you given up on this claim?

As for your rewording - if "turning your shoulder" is your allegation, then that's a pretty insubstantial claim, and doesn't form any basis for argument - especially since the actions that the US did in fact take to try to inhibit nuclear proliferation to Israel were apparently ineffective. But, the US did not go to the extent of sanctioning France, Britain, and others who were actively involved in supporting the Israeli nuclear weapons program (and by supporting, I mean a reasonable interpretation of the word, not mere passivity).

Your original wording was "It is ridiculous to state that the US didn't essentially give them the technology to build the bombs". I will state clearly and unequivocally that I have never seen any evidence to support the notion that the US gave the Israelis the technology to build the bombs. It is highly unlikely at this stage that there is any such evidence. And, you have provided nothing except a gut feeling.

From an interview with Gideon Remez (co-author of Foxbats):

Gideon Remez Wrote:In retrospect, there's a tendency to ascribe to the US in 1967 a commitment to Israel's security that's much greater than what actually existed in 1967. The US, which was then deeply mired in Vietnam was very reluctant to take on any further commitment to actual military involvement. And, in the case of Israel in 1967, Israel was warned repeatedly that not only if you go it alone, that is if you strike first you will be on your own, there were even warnings that the US may intervene on Egypt's side if the Israelis struck first.

I knew that this was going to touch off this debate. I've kept partially out of it. But, there seems to be an effort to make the moral equivalence, that since Israel has the bomb (however it was acquired) that Iran has the same right to build its own Nuke. That begs the question, way not just let whoever have Weapons of Mass Destruction? See how ridiculous that sounds. See how taking that argument to it's logical conclusion does not make anyone in the world any safer. It really angers me to know that the US has said that Iran or NK with a Nuke is unacceptable, but has never done a damn thing to prevent it from happening. I guess we should have read the writing on the wall with India, Pakistan, we even had the intel that AQ Khan was selling a Nuke Design to Libya, Nk, Iran and did nothing. I hate that the US has become an ineffectual nation. I hate that Clinton gave China all our nuclear test data, by hook or crook. I fear that a nuclear event, with no return address, somewhere in the world is inevitable. And that it really may be our fault.

Something that I learned out of this is that the Soviets ended the suez crisis with the threat of nuclear weapons. That was at least part of the motivation for Israel and the French to develop nuclear weapons.

(10-07-2009 12:52 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-07-2009 12:31 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-07-2009 11:59 AM)I45owl Wrote:  The US did not give Israel the technology to develop nuclear power. You have your history wrong if you believe that. The US Government did not systematically give the technology to develop nuclear weapons. There is some dispute as to whether any material or plans did come from the US - many of those claims are speculative. But, it is irresponsible and baseless to suggest that the US gave Israel assembled nuclear weapons or that Israel obtained assembled weapons in any form from any country - that just has not basis in reality.

They were helped by the US, whether you want to admit to it or not. Isreal did not (and really still does not) have the resources to get the nuclear material, let alone be able to design and test their designs.

So, which US President was the one to order cooperation with the Israeli nuclear weapons program?

None. The first Israeli nukes were actually based on a French warhead design that the Mossad obtained. In fact the reactor at Dimona where they processed their nuclear material is a French reactor.

I think much of what has been called "gifts" of nuclear technology to Israel by numerous nations is more Israeli Intelligence obtaining technology by whatever means they use.

From the FAS site and other sites I've seen, it looks like the Israels helped the French nuclear development and the French overtly reciprocated with Israel. There is the purported quote above from the French Premier that "I owe Israel the bomb". Also interesting is the idea that the French and British coaxed Israel into provoking the 1957 Suez crisis out of their own interests, the Soviets quashed the crisis under their nuclear umbrella thus motivating the French and Israelis to develop their own nuclear weapons. That is really the narrative that makes the most sense to me out of the context of that era, and the Foxbats over Dimona book seems to provide a reasonable continuation of that.

In the late 1940s, the Israel military built up weapons supplies basically by misappropriating guns and ammunition from the vast US depots across Europe that had essentially become surplus due to the end of WWII. IMHO, the nuclear effort was probably the result of more overt help by the French and other Europeans as opposed to spy efforts.

BTW - dwr - if you're reading this thread, could you just ping it with one post?