- Jeff - These are paragraphs of 'special interest' I wish
to highlight from the long and detailed USAF report
that follows...my comments are in all caps:
-
-
-
-
-
-
ISRAEL BLACKMAILS US
-
- One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often
stated, but obvious, is their "use" on the United States. America
does not want Israel's nuclear profile raised.[144] They have been used
in the past to ensure America does not desert Israel under increased Arab,
or oil embargo, pressure and have forced the United States to support Israel
diplomatically against the Soviet Union. Israel used their existence to
guarantee a continuing supply of American conventional weapons, a policy
likely to continue.[145]
-
-
-
ISRAEL DICTATES TO US AND WE CONCEDE TO ISRAEL
-
- Israel went on full-scale nuclear alert again on the
first day of Desert Storm, 18 January 1991. Seven SCUD missiles were fired
against the cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa by Iraq (only two actually hit
Tel Aviv and one hit Haifa). This alert lasted for the duration of the
war, 43 days. Over the course of the war, Iraq launched around 40 missiles
in 17 separate attacks at Israel. There was little loss of life: two killed
directly, 11 indirectly, with many structures damaged and life disrupted.[98]
Several supposedly landed near Dimona, one of them a close miss.[99] Threats
of retaliation by the Shamir government if the Iraqis used chemical warheads
were interpreted to mean that Israel intended to launch a nuclear strike
if gas attacks occurred.
-
- One Israeli commentator recommended that Israel should
signal Iraq that "any Iraqi action against Israeli civilian populations,
with or without gas, may leave Iraq without Baghdad."[100] Shortly
before the end of the war the Israelis tested a "nuclear capable"
missile which prompted the United States into intensifying its SCUD hunting
in western Iraq to prevent any Israeli response.[101] The Israeli Air Force
set up dummy SCUD sites in the Negev for pilots to practice on"they
found it no easy task.[102] American government concessions to Israel for
not attacking (in addition to Israeli Patriot missile batteries) were:
-
- * Allowing Israel to designate 100 targets inside Iraq
for the coalition to destroy,
-
- * Satellite downlink to increase warning time on the
SCUD attacks (present and future),
-
- * Technical parity with Saudi jet fighters in perpetuity.[103]
-
- JFK demanded Israel allow inspectors to see Dimona, three
months later he was assassinated and pro-Israel Johnson is President:
-
- The Israelis aggressively pursued an aircraft delivery
system from the United States. President Johnson was less emphatic about
nonproliferation than President Kennedy-or perhaps had more pressing concerns,
such as Vietnam. He had a long history of both Jewish friends and pressing
political contributors coupled with some first hand experience of the Holocaust,
having toured concentration camps at the end of World War II.[51] Israel
pressed him hard for aircraft (A-4E Skyhawks initially and F-4E Phantoms
later) and obtained agreement in 1966 under the condition that the aircraft
would not be used to deliver nuclear weapons. The State Department attempted
to link the aircraft purchases to continued inspection visits. President
Johnson overruled the State Department concerning Dimona inspections.[52]
Although denied at the time, America delivered the F-4Es, on September
5, 1969, with nuclear capable hardware intact.[53]
-
-
JONATHAN POLLARD
-
- Not only were the Israelis interested in American nuclear
weapons development data, they were interested in targeting data from U.S.
intelligence. Israel discovered that they were on the Soviet target list.
American-born Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard obtained satellite-imaging data
of the Soviet Union, allowing Israel to target accurately Soviet cities.
This showed Israel's intention to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent
political lever, or retaliatory capability against the Soviet Union itself.
Israel also used American satellite imagery to plan the 7 June 1981 attack
on the Tammuz-1 reactor at Osiraq, Iraq. This daring attack, carried out
by eight F-16s accompanied by six F-15s punched a hole in the concrete
reactor dome before the reactor began operation (and just days before an
Israeli election). It delivered 15 delay-fused 2000 pound bombs deep into
the reactor structure (the 16th bomb hit a nearby hall). The blasts shredded
the reactor and blew out the dome foundations, causing it to collapse on
the rubble. This was the world's first attack on a nuclear reactor.[91]
-
- (PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT RUSSIA WAS ABLE TO PURGE THE
JEWISH BOLSHEVIK COMMUNISTS FROM THE KREMLIN STARTING IN THE LATE '30's
UNDER STALIN, SUBSEQUENTLY THE JEWISH POWER WAS GIVEN TOP POSITIONS IN
THE U.S.)
-
-
VERY SCARY
-
- Another speculative area concerns Israeli nuclear security
and possible misuse. What is the chain of decision and control of Israel's
weapons? How susceptible are they to misuse or theft? With no open, frank,
public debate on nuclear issues, there has accordingly been no debate or
information on existing safeguards. This has led to accusations of "monolithic
views and sinister intentions."[1360] Would a right wing military
government decide to employ nuclear weapons recklessly? Ariel Sharon, an
outspoken proponent of "Greater Israel" was quoted as saying,
"Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."[137] Could
the Gush Emunim, a right wing religious organization, or others, hijack
a nuclear device to "liberate" the Temple Mount for the building
of the third temple? Chances are small but could increase as radicals decry
the peace process.[138] A 1997 article reviewing the Israeli Defense Force
repeatedly stressed the possibilities of, and the need to guard against,
a religious, right wing military coup, especially as the proportion of
religious in the military increases.[139 ]
-
-
-
-
THE THIRD TEMPLE'S HOLY OF HOLIES -
ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS
-
By Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army
The Counterproliferation Papers
Future Warfare Series No. 2
USAF Counterproliferation Center
Air War College - Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
September 1999
-
- The Counterproliferation Papers Series was established
by the USAF Counterproliferation Center to provide information and analysis
to U.S. national security policy-makers and USAF officers to assist them
in countering the threat posed by adversaries equipped with weapons of
mass destruction. Copies of papers in this series are available from the
USAF Counterproliferation Center, 325 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB AL
36112-6427. The fax number is (334) 953-7538; phone (334) 953-7538.
-
- The internet address for the USAF Counterproliferation
Center is:
- http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm
-
- Contents:
-
- Page
- Disclaimer i
- The Author ii
- Acknowledgments iii
- Abstract iv
-
- I. Introduction 1
- II. 1948-1962: With French Cooperation 3
- III. 1963-1973: Seeing the Project Through to Completion
9
- IV. 1974-1999: Bringing the Bomb Up the Basement Stairs
15
-
- Appendix: Estimates of the Israeli Nuclear Arsenal 23
- Notes 25
- Disclaimer
-
- The views expressed in this publication are those solely
of the author and are not a statement of official policy or position of
the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, or the USAF
Counterproliferation Center.
-
-
The Author
-
- Colonel Warner D. "Rocky" Farr, Medical Corps,
Master Flight Surgeon, U.S. Army, graduated from the Air War College at
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama before becoming the Command Surgeon, U.S.
Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He also
serves as the Surgeon for the U.S. Army Special Forces Command, U.S. Army
Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, and the U.S. Army John
F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. With thirty-three years of
military service, he holds an Associate of Arts from the State University
of New York, Bachelor of Science from Northeast Louisiana University, Doctor
of Medicine from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences,
Masters of Public Health from the University of Texas, and has completed
medical residencies in aerospace medicine, and anatomic and clinical pathology.
He is the only army officer to be board certified in these three specialties.
Solo qualified in the TH-55A Army helicopter, he received flight training
in the T-37 and T-38 aircraft as part of his USAF School of Aerospace Medicine
residency.
-
- Colonel Farr was a Master Sergeant Special Forces medic
prior to receiving a direct commission to second lieutenant. He is now
the senior Special Forces medical officer in the U.S. Army with prior assignments
in the 5th, 7th, and 10th Special Forces Groups (Airborne), 1st Special
Forces, in Vietnam, the United States, and Germany. He has advised the
12th and 20th Special Forces Groups (Airborne) in the reserves and national
guard, served as Division Surgeon, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry),
and as the Deputy Commander of the U.S. Army Aeromedical Center, Fort Rucker,
Alabama.
-
-
Acknowledgments
-
- I would like to acknowledge the assistance, guidance
and encouragement from my Air War College (AWC) faculty research advisor,
Dr. Andrew Terrill, instructor of the Air War College Arab-Israeli Wars
course. Thanks are also due to the great aid of the Air University librarians.
The author is also indebted to Captain J. R. Saunders, USN and Colonel
Robert Sutton, USAF. Who also offered helpful suggestions.
-
-
Abstract
-
- This paper is a history of the Israeli nuclear weapons
program drawn from a review of unclassified sources. Israel began its search
for nuclear weapons at the inception of the state in 1948. As payment for
Israeli participation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, France provided nuclear
expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona capable
of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing. The United States
discovered the facility by 1958 and it was a subject of continual discussions
between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers. Israel used delay
and deception to at first keep the United States at bay, and later used
the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for a consistent American conventional
arms supply. After French disengagement in the early 1960s, Israel progressed
on its own, including through several covert operations, to project completion.
Before the 1967 Six-Day War, they felt their nuclear facility threatened
and reportedly assembled several nuclear devices. By the 1973 Yom Kippur
War Israel had a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them,
and considered using them. The Arabs may have limited their war aims because
of their knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons. Israel has most probably
conducted several nuclear bomb tests. They have continued to modernize
and vertically proliferate and are now one of the world's larger nuclear
powers. Using "bomb in the basement" nuclear opacity, Israel
has been able to use its arsenal as a deterrent to the Arab world while
not technically violating American nonproliferation requirements.
-
-
The Third Temple's Holy of Holies:
-
Israel's Nuclear Weapons
-
-
Warner D. Farr
-
-
I. Introduction
-
-
This is the end of the Third Temple.
-
- Attributed to Moshe Dayan
-
during the Yom Kippur War1
-
- As Zionists in Palestine watched World War II from their
distant sideshow, what lessons were learned? The soldiers of the Empire
of Japan vowed on their emperor's sacred throne to fight to the death and
not face the inevitability of an American victory. Many Jews wondered if
the Arabs would try to push them into the Mediterranean Sea. After the
devastating American nuclear attack on Japan, the soldier leaders of the
empire reevaluated their fight to the death position. Did the bomb give
the Japanese permission to surrender and live? It obviously played a military
role, a political role, and a peacemaking role. How close was the mindset
of the Samurai culture to the Islamic culture? Did David Ben-Gurion take
note and wonder if the same would work for Israel?2 Could Israel find the
ultimate deterrent that would convince her opponents that they could never,
ever succeed? Was Israel's ability to cause a modern holocaust the best
way to guarantee never having another one?
-
- The use of unconventional weapons in the Middle East
is not new. The British had used chemical artillery shells against the
Turks at the second battle of Gaza in 1917. They continued chemical shelling
against the Shiites in Iraq in 1920 and used aerial chemicals in the 1920s
and 1930s in Iraq.3
-
- Israel's involvement with nuclear technology starts at
the founding of the state in 1948. Many talented Jewish scientists immigrated
to Palestine during the thirties and forties, in particular, Ernst David
Bergmann. He would become the director of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission
and the founder of Israel's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bergmann,
a close friend and advisor of Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion,
counseled that nuclear energy could compensate for Israel's poor natural
resources and small pool of military manpower. He pointed out that there
was just one nuclear energy, not two, suggesting nuclear weapons were part
of the plan.4 As early as 1948, Israeli scientists actively explored the
Negev Desert for uranium deposits on orders from the Israeli Ministry of
Defense. By 1950, they found low-grade deposits near Beersheba and Sidon
and worked on a low power method of heavy water production.5
-
- The newly created Weizmann Institute of Science actively
supported nuclear research by 1949, with Dr. Bergmann heading the chemistry
division. Promising students went overseas to study nuclear engineering
and physics at Israeli government expense. Israel secretly founded its
own Atomic Energy Commission in 1952 and placed it under the control of
the Defense Ministry.6 The foundations of a nuclear program were beginning
to develop.
-
-
II. 1948-1962: With French Cooperation
-
-
It has always been our intention to develop a
nuclear potential.
-
- Ephraim Katzir7
-
- In 1949, Francis Perrin, a member of the French Atomic
Energy Commission, nuclear physicist, and friend of Dr. Bergmann visited
the Weizmann Institute. He invited Israeli scientists to the new French
nuclear research facility at Saclay. A joint research effort was subsequently
set up between the two nations. Perrin publicly stated in 1986 that French
scientists working in America on the Manhattan Project and in Canada during
World War II were told they could use their knowledge in France provided
they kept it a secret.8 Perrin reportedly provided nuclear data to Israel
on the same basis.9 One Israeli scientist worked at the U.S. Los Alamos
National Laboratory and may have directly brought expertise home.10
-
- After the Second World War, France's nuclear research
capability was quite limited. France had been a leading research center
in nuclear physics before World War II, but had fallen far behind the U.S.,
the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom, and even Canada. Israel and France were
at a similar level of expertise after the war, and Israeli scientists could
make significant contributions to the French effort. Progress in nuclear
science and technology in France and Israel remained closely linked throughout
the early fifties. Israeli scientists probably helped construct the G-1
plutonium production reactor and UP-1 reprocessing plant at Marcoule.11
France profited from two Israeli patents on heavy water production and
low-grade uranium enrichment.12 In the 1950s and into the early 1960s,
France and Israel had close relations in many areas. France was Israel's
principal arms supplier, and as instability spread through French colonies
in North Africa, Israel provided valuable intelligence obtained from contacts
with sephardic Jews in those countries.
-
- The two nations collaborated, with the United Kingdom,
in planning and staging the Suez Canal-Sinai operation against Egypt in
October 1956. The Suez Crisis became the real genesis of Israel's nuclear
weapons production program. With the Czech-Egyptian arms agreement in 1955,
Israel became worried. When absorbed, the Soviet-bloc equipment would triple
Egyptian military strength. After Egypt's President Nasser closed the Straits
of Tiran in 1953, Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion ordered the development
of chemical munitions and other unconventional munitions, including nuclear.13
Six weeks before the Suez Canal operation, Israel felt the time was right
to approach France for assistance in building a nuclear reactor. Canada
had set a precedent a year earlier when it had agreed to build a 40-megawatt
CIRUS reactor in India. Shimon Peres, the Director-General of the Defense
Ministry and aide to Prime Minister (and Defense Minister) David Ben-Gurion,
and Bergmann met with members of the CEA (France's Atomic Energy Commission).
During September 1956, they reached an initial understanding to provide
a research reactor. The two countries concluded final agreements at a secret
meeting outside Paris where they also finalized details of the Suez Canal
operation.14
-
- For the United Kingdom and France, the Suez operation,
launched on October 29, 1956, was a total disaster. Israel's part was a
military success, allowing it to occupy the entire Sinai Peninsula by 4
November, but the French and British canal invasion on 6 November was a
political failure. Their attempt to advance south along the Suez Canal
stopped due to a cease-fire under fierce Soviet and U.S. pressure. Both
nations pulled out, leaving Israel to face the pressure from the two superpowers
alone. Soviet Premier Bulganin and President Khrushchev issued an implicit
threat of nuclear attack if Israel did not withdraw from the Sinai.
-
- On 7 November 1956, a secret meeting was held between
Israeli foreign minister Golda Meir, Shimon Peres, and French foreign and
defense ministers Christian Pineau and Maurice Bourges-Manoury. The French,
embarrassed by their failure to support their ally in the operation, found
the Israelis deeply concerned about a Soviet threat. In this meeting, they
substantially modified the initial understanding beyond a research reactor.
Peres secured an agreement from France to assist Israel in developing a
nuclear deterrent. After further months of negotiation, agreement was reached
for an 18-megawatt (thermal) research reactor of the EL-3 type, along with
plutonium separation technology. France and Israel signed the agreement
in October 1957.15 Later the reactor was officially upgraded to 24 megawatts,
but the actual specifications issued to engineers provided for core cooling
ducts sufficient for up to three times this power level, along with a plutonium
plant of similar capacity. Data from insider reports revealed in 1986 would
estimate the power level at 125-150 megawatts.16 The reactor, not connected
to turbines for power production, needed this increase in size only to
increase its plutonium production. How this upgrade came about remains
unknown, but Bourges-Maunoury, replacing Mollet as French prime minister,
may have contributed to it.17 Shimon Peres, the guiding hand in the Israeli
nuclear program, had a close relationship with Bourges-Maunoury and probably
helped him politically.18
-
- Why was France so eager to help Israel? DeMollet and
then de Gaulle had a place for Israel within their strategic vision. A
nuclear Israel could be a counterforce against Egypt in France's fight
in Algeria. Egypt was openly aiding the rebel forces there. France also
wanted to obtain the bomb itself. The United States had embargoed certain
nuclear enabling computer technology from France. Israel could get the
technology from America and pass it through to France. The U.S. furnished
Israel heavy water, under the Atoms for Peace program, for the small research
reactor at Soreq. France could use this heavy water. Since France was some
years away from nuclear testing and success, Israeli science was an insurance
policy in case of technical problems in France's own program.19 The Israeli
intelligence community's knowledge of past French (especially Vichy) anti-Semitic
transgressions and the continued presence of former Nazi collaborators
in French intelligence provided the Israelis with some blackmail opportunities.20
The cooperation was so close that Israel worked with France on the preproduction
design of early Mirage jet aircraft, designed to be capable of delivering
nuclear bombs.21
-
- French experts secretly built the Israeli reactor underground
at Dimona, in the Negev desert of southern Israel near Beersheba. Hundreds
of French engineers and technicians filled Beersheba, the biggest town
in the Negev. Many of the same contractors who built Marcoule were involved.
SON (a French firm) built the plutonium separation plants in both France
and Israel. The ground was broken for the EL-102 reactor (as it was known
to France) in early 1958.
-
- Israel used many subterfuges to conceal activity at Dimona.
It called the plant a manganese plant, and rarely, a textile plant. The
United States by the end of 1958 had taken pictures of the project from
U-2 spy planes, and identified the site as a probable reactor complex.
The concentration of Frenchmen was also impossible to hide from ground
observers. In 1960, before the reactor was operating, France, now under
the leadership of de Gaulle, reconsidered and decided to suspend the project.
After several months of negotiation, they reached an agreement in November
that allowed the reactor to proceed if Israel promised not to make nuclear
weapons and to announce the project to the world. Work on the plutonium
reprocessing plant halted. On 2 December 1960, before Israel could make
announcements, the U.S. State Department issued a statement that Israel
had a secret nuclear installation. By 16 December, this became public knowledge
with its appearance in the New York Times. On 21 December, Ben-Gurion announced
that Israel was building a 24-megawatt reactor "for peaceful purposes."22
-
- Over the next year, relations between the U.S. and Israel
became strained over the Dimona reactor. The U.S. accepted Israel's assertions
at face value publicly, but exerted pressure privately. Although Israel
allowed a cursory inspection by well known American physicists Eugene Wigner
and I. I. Rabi, Prime Minister Ben-Gurion consistently refused to allow
regular international inspections. The final resolution between the U.S.
and Israel was a commitment from Israel to use the facility for peaceful
purposes, and to admit an U.S. inspection team twice a year. These inspections
began in 1962 and continued until 1969. Inspectors saw only the above ground
part of the buildings, not the many levels underground and the visit frequency
was never more than once a year. The above ground areas had simulated control
rooms, and access to the underground areas was kept hidden while the inspectors
were present. Elevators leading to the secret underground plutonium reprocessing
plant were actually bricked over.23 Much of the information on these inspections
and the political maneuvering around it has just been declassified.24
-
- One interpretation of Ben-Gurion's "peaceful purposes"
pledge given to America is that he interpreted it to mean that nuclear
weapon development was not excluded if used strictly for defensive, and
not offensive purposes. Israel's security position in the late fifties
and early sixties was far more precarious than now. After three wars, with
a robust domestic arms industry and a reliable defense supply line from
the U.S., Israel felt much more secure. During the fifties and early sixties
a number of attempts by Israel to obtain security guarantees from the U.S.
to place Israel under the U.S. nuclear umbrella like NATO or Japan, were
unsuccessful. If the U.S. had conducted a forward-looking policy to restrain
Israel's proliferation, along with a sure defense agreement, we could have
prevented the development of Israel's nuclear arsenal.
-
- One common discussion in the literature concerns testing
of Israeli nuclear devices. In the early phases, the amount of collaboration
between the French and Israeli nuclear weapons design programs made testing
unnecessary. In addition, although their main efforts were with plutonium,
the Israelis may have amassed enough uranium for gun-assembled type bombs
which, like the Hiroshima bomb, require no testing. One expert postulated,
based on unnamed sources, that the French nuclear test in 1960 made two
nuclear powers not one"such was the depth of collaboration.25 There
were several Israeli observers at the French nuclear tests and the Israelis
had "unrestricted access to French nuclear test explosion data."26
Israel also supplied essential technology and hardware.27 The French reportedly
shipped reprocessed plutonium back to Israel as part of their repayment
for Israeli scientific help.
-
- However, this constant, decade long, French cooperation
and support was soon to end and Israel would have to go it alone.
-
-
-
III. 1963-1973: Seeing the Project to Completion
-
- Israel would soon need its own, independent, capabilities
to complete its nuclear program. Only five countries had facilities for
uranium enrichment: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom,
France, and China. The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, or
NUMEC, in Apollo, Pennsylvania was a small fuel rod fabrication plant.
In 1965, the U.S. government accused Dr. Zalman Shapiro, the corporation
president, of "losing" 200 pounds of highly enriched uranium.
Although investigated by the Atomic Energy Commission, the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other government agencies
and inquiring reporters, no answers were available in what was termed the
Apollo Affair.29 Many remain convinced that the Israelis received 200 pounds
of enriched uranium sometime before 1965.30 One source links Rafi Eitan,
an Israeli Mossad agent and later the handler of spy Jonathan Pollard,
with NUMEC.31 In the 1990s when the NUMEC plant was disassembled, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission found over 100 kilograms of plutonium in the structural
components of the contaminated plant, casting doubt on 200 pounds going
to Israel.32
-
- The joint venture with France gave Israel several ingredients
for nuclear weapons construction: a production reactor, a factory to extract
plutonium from the spent fuel, and the design. In 1962, the Dimona reactor
went critical; the French resumed work on the underground plutonium reprocessing
plant, and completed it in 1964 or 1965. The acquisition of this reactor
and related technologies was clearly intended for military purposes from
the outset (not "dual-use"), as the reactor has no other function.
The security at Dimona (officially the Negev Nuclear Research Center) was
particularly stringent. For straying into Dimona's airspace, the Israelis
shot down one of their own Mirage fighters during the Six-Day War. The
Israelis also shot down a Libyan airliner with 104 passengers, in 1973,
which had strayed over the Sinai.33 There is little doubt that some time
in the late sixties Israel became the sixth nation to manufacture nuclear
weapons. Other things they needed were extra uranium and extra heavy water
to run the reactor at a higher rate. Norway, France, and the United States
provided the heavy water and "Operation Plumbat" provided the
uranium.
-
- After the 1967 war, France stopped supplies of uranium
to Israel. These supplies were from former French colonies of Gabon, Niger,
and the Central Africa Republic.34 Israel had small amounts of uranium
from Negev phosphate mines and had bought some from Argentina and South
Africa, but not in the large quantities supplied by the French. Through
a complicated undercover operation, the Israelis obtained uranium oxide,
known as yellow cake, held in a stockpile in Antwerp. Using a West German
front company and a high seas transfer from one ship to another in the
Mediterranean, they obtained 200 tons of yellow cake. The smugglers labeled
the 560 sealed oil drums "Plumbat," which means lead, hence "Operation
Plumbat."35 The West German government may have been involved directly
but remained undercover to avoid antagonizing the Soviets or Arabs.36 Israeli
intelligence information on the Nazi past of some West German officials
may have provided the motivation.37
-
- Norway sold 20 tons of heavy water to Israel in 1959
for use in an experimental power reactor. Norway insisted on the right
to inspect the heavy water for 32 years, but did so only once, in April
1961, while it was still in storage barrels at Dimona. Israel simply promised
that the heavy water was for peaceful purposes. In addition, quantities
much more than what would be required for the peaceful purpose reactors
were imported. Norway either colluded or at the least was very slow to
ask to inspect as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rules required.38
Norway and Israel concluded an agreement in 1990 for Israel to sell back
10.5 tons of the heavy water to Norway. Recent calculations reveal that
Israel has used two tons and will retain eight tons more.39
-
- Author Seymour Hersh, writing in the Samson Option says
Prime Minister Levi Eshkol delayed starting weapons production even after
Dimona was finished.40 The reactor operated and the plutonium collected,
but remained unseparated. The first extraction of plutonium probably occurred
in late 1965. By 1966, enough plutonium was on hand to develop a weapon
in time for the Six-Day War in 1967. Some type of non-nuclear test, perhaps
a zero yield or implosion test, occurred on November 2, 1966. After this
time, considerable collaboration between Israel and South Africa developed
and continued through the 1970s and 1980s. South Africa became Israel's
primary supplier of uranium for Dimona. A Center for Nonproliferation Studies
report lists four separate Israel-South Africa "clandestine nuclear
deals." Three concerned yellowcake and one was tritium.41 Other sources
of yellowcake may have included Portugal.42
-
- Egypt attempted unsuccessfully to obtain nuclear weapons
from the Soviet Union both before and after the Six-Day War. President
Nasser received from the Soviet Union a questionable nuclear guarantee
instead and declared that Egypt would develop its own nuclear program.43
His rhetoric of 1965 and 1966 about preventive war and Israeli nuclear
weapons coupled with overflights of the Dimona rector contributed to the
tensions that led to war. The Egyptian Air Force claims to have first overflown
Dimona and recognized the existence of a nuclear reactor in 1965.44 Of
the 50 American HAWK antiaircraft missiles in Israeli hands, half ringed
Dimona by 1965.45 Israel considered the Egyptian overflights of May 16,
1967 as possible pre-strike reconnaissance. One source lists such Egyptian
overflights, along with United Nations peacekeeper withdrawal and Egyptian
troop movements into the Sinai, as one of the three "tripwires"
which would drive Israel to war.46 There was an Egyptian military plan
to attack Dimona at the start of any war but Nasser vetoed it.47 He believed
Israel would have the bomb in 1968.48 Israel assembled two nuclear bombs
and ten days later went to war.49 Nasser's plan, if he had one, may have
been to gain and consolidate territorial gains before Israel had a nuclear
option.50 He was two weeks too late.
-
- The Israelis aggressively pursued an aircraft delivery
system from the United States. President Johnson was less emphatic about
nonproliferation than President Kennedy-or perhaps had more pressing concerns,
such as Vietnam. He had a long history of both Jewish friends and pressing
political contributors coupled with some first hand experience of the Holocaust,
having toured concentration camps at the end of World War II.51 Israel
pressed him hard for aircraft (A-4E Skyhawks initially and F-4E Phantoms
later) and obtained agreement in 1966 under the condition that the aircraft
would not be used to deliver nuclear weapons. The State Department attempted
to link the aircraft purchases to continued inspection visits. President
Johnson overruled the State Department concerning Dimona inspections.52
Although denied at the time, America delivered the F-4Es, on September
5, 1969, with nuclear capable hardware intact.53
-
- The Samson Option states that Moshe Dayan gave the go-ahead
for starting weapon production in early 1968, putting the plutonium separation
plant into full operation. Israel began producing three to five bombs a
year. The book Critical Mass asserts that Israel had two bombs in 1967,
and that Prime Minister Eshkol ordered them armed in Israel's first nuclear
alert during the Six-Day War.54 Avner Cohen in his recent book, Israel
and the Bomb, agrees that Israel had a deliverable nuclear capability in
the 1967 war. He quotes Munya Mardor, leader of Rafael, the Armament Development
Authority, and other unnamed sources, that Israel "cobbled together"
two deliverable devices.55
-
- Having the bomb meant articulating, even if secretly,
a use doctrine. In addition to the "Samson Option" of last resort,
other triggers for nuclear use may have included 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.56
-
- In 1971, Israel began purchasing krytrons, ultra high-speed
electronic switching tubes that are "dual-use," having both industrial
and nuclear weapons applications as detonators. In the 1980s, the United
States charged an American, Richard Smith (or Smyth), with smuggling 810
krytrons to Israel.57 He vanished before trial and reportedly lives outside
Tel Aviv. The Israelis apologized for the action saying that the krytrons
were for medical research.58 Israel returned 469 of the krytrons but the
rest, they declared, had been destroyed in testing conventional weapons.
Some believe they went to South Africa.59 Smyth has also been reported
to have been involved in a 1972 smuggling operation to obtain solid rocket
fuel binder compounds for the Jericho II missile and guidance component
hardware.60 Observers point to the Jericho missile itself as proof of a
nuclear capability as it is not suited to the delivery of conventional
munitions.61
-
- On the afternoon of 6 October 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked
Israel in a coordinated surprise attack, beginning the Yom Kippur War.
Caught with only regular forces on duty, augmented by reservists with a
low readiness level, Israeli front lines crumbled. By early afternoon on
7 October, no effective forces were in the southern Golan Heights and Syrian
forces had reached the edge of the plateau, overlooking the Jordan River.
This crisis brought Israel to its second nuclear alert.
-
- Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, obviously not at his best
at a press briefing, was, according to Time magazine, rattled enough to
later tell the prime minister that "this is the end of the third temple,"
referring to an impending collapse of the state of Israel. "Temple"
was also the code word for nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Golda Meir and
her "kitchen cabinet" made the decision on the night of 8 October.
The Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton atomic bombs. The number and in
fact the entire story was later leaked by the Israelis as a great psychological
warfare tool. Although most probably plutonium devices, one source reports
they were enriched uranium bombs. The Jericho missiles at Hirbat Zachariah
and the nuclear strike F-4s at Tel Nof were armed and prepared for action
against Syrian and Egyptian targets. They also targeted Damascus with nuclear
capable long-range artillery although it is not certain they had nuclear
artillery shells.62
-
- U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was notified
of the alert several hours later on the morning of 9 October. The U.S.
decided to open an aerial resupply pipeline to Israel, and Israeli aircraft
began picking up supplies that day. Although stockpile depletion remained
a concern, the military situation stabilized on October 8th and 9th as
Israeli reserves poured into the battle and averted disaster. Well before
significant American resupply had reached Israeli forces, the Israelis
counterattacked and turned the tide on both fronts.
-
- On 11 October, a counterattack on the Golan broke the
back of Syria's offensive, and on 15 and 16 October, Israel launched a
surprise crossing of the Suez Canal into Africa. Soon the Israelis encircled
the Egyptian Third Army and it was faced with annihilation on the east
bank of the Suez Canal, with no protective forces remaining between the
Israeli Army and Cairo. The first U.S. flights arrived on 14 October.63
Israeli commandos flew to Fort Benning, Georgia to train with the new American
TOW anti-tank missiles and return with a C-130 Hercules aircraft full of
them in time for the decisive Golan battle. American commanders in Germany
depleted their stocks of missiles, at that time only shared with the British
and West Germans, and sent them forward to Israel.64
-
- Thus started the subtle, opaque use of the Israeli bomb
to ensure that the United States kept its pledge to maintain Israel's conventional
weapons edge over its foes.65 There is significant anecdotal evidence that
Henry Kissinger told President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, that the reason for
the U.S. airlift was that the Israelis were close to "going nuclear."66
-
- A similar Soviet pipeline to the Arabs, equally robust,
may or may not have included a ship with nuclear weapons on it, detected
from nuclear trace emissions and shadowed by the Americans from the Dardanelles.
The Israelis believe that the Soviets discovered Israeli nuclear preparations
from COSMOS satellite photographs and decided to equalize the odds.67 The
Soviet ship arrived in Alexandria on either 18 or 23 October (sources disagree),
and remained, without unloading, until November 1973. The ship may have
represented a Soviet guarantee to the Arab combatants to neutralize the
Israeli nuclear option.68 While some others dismiss the story completely,
the best-written review article concludes that the answer is "obscure."
Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev threatened, on 24 October, to airlift Soviet
airborne troops to reinforce the Egyptians cut off on the eastern side
of the Suez Canal and put seven Soviet airborne divisions on alert.69 Recent
evidence indicates that the Soviets sent nuclear missile submarines also.70
Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine claimed that the two Soviet
SCUD brigades deployed in Egypt each had a nuclear warhead. American satellite
photos seemed to confirm this. The U.S. passed to Israel images of trucks,
of the type used to transport nuclear warheads, parked near the launchers.71
President Nixon's response was to bring the U.S. to worldwide nuclear alert
the next day, whereupon Israel went to nuclear alert a third time.72 This
sudden crisis quickly faded as Prime Minister Meir agreed to a cease-fire,
relieving the pressure on the Egyptian Third Army.
-
- Shimon Peres had argued for a pre-war nuclear demonstration
to deter the Arabs. Arab strategies and war aims in 1967 may have been
restricted because of a fear of the Israeli "bomb in the basement,"
the undeclared nuclear option. The Egyptians planned to capture an eastern
strip next to the Suez Canal and then hold. The Syrians did not aggressively
commit more forces to battle or attempt to drive through the 1948 Jordan
River border to the Israeli center. Both countries seemed not to violate
Israel proper and avoided triggering one of the unstated Israeli reasons
to employ nuclear weapons.73 Others discount any Arab planning based on
nuclear capabilities.74 Peres also credits Dimona with bringing Anwar Sadat
to Jerusalem to make peace.75 This position was seemingly confirmed by
Sadat in a private conversation with Israeli Defense Minister Ezer Weizman.76
-
- At the end of the Yom Kippur War (a nation shaking experience),
Israel has her nuclear arsenal fully functional and tested by a deployment.
The arsenal, still opaque and unspoken, was no longer a secret, especially
to the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union.
-
-
-
IV. 1974-1999: Bringing the Bomb up the Basement
Stairs
-
-
Never Again!
-
- Reportedly welded on the first Israeli nuclear
bomb77
-
- Shortly after the 1973 war, Israel allegedly fielded
considerable nuclear artillery consisting of American 175 mm and 203 mm
self-propelled artillery pieces, capable of firing nuclear shells. If true,
this shows that Dimona had rapidly solved the problems of designing smaller
weapons since the crude 1967 devices. If true, these low yield, tactical
nuclear artillery rounds could reach at least 25 miles. The Israeli Defense
Force did have three battalions of the 175mm artillery (36 tubes), reportedly
with 108 nuclear shells and more for the 203mm tubes. Some sources describe
a program to extend the range to 45 miles. They may have offered the South
Africans these low yield, miniaturized, shells described as, "the
best stuff we got."78 By 1976, according to one unclassified source,
the Central Intelligence Agency believed that the Israelis were using plutonium
from Dimona and had 10 to 20 nuclear weapons available.79
-
- In 1972, two Israeli scientists, Isaiah Nebenzahl and
Menacehm Levin, developed a cheaper, faster uranium enrichment process.
It used a laser beam for isotope separation. It could reportedly enrich
seven grams of Uranium 235 sixty percent in one day.80 Sources later reported
that Israel was using both centrifuges and lasers to enrich uranium.81
-
- Questions remained regarding full-scale nuclear weapons
tests. Primitive gun assembled type devices need no testing. Researchers
can test non-nuclear components of other types separately and use extensive
computer simulations. Israel received data from the 1960 French tests,
and one source concludes that Israel accessed information from U.S. tests
conducted in the 1950s and early 1960s. This may have included both boosted
and thermonuclear weapons data.82 Underground testing in a hollowed out
cavern is difficult to detect. A West Germany Army Magazine, Wehrtechnik,
in June 1976, claimed that Western reports documented a 1963 underground
test in the Negev. Other reports show a test at Al-Naqab, Negev in October
1966.83
-
- A bright flash in the south Indian Ocean, observed by
an American satellite on 22 September 1979, is widely believed to be a
South Africa-Israel joint nuclear test. It was, according to some, the
third test of a neutron bomb. The first two were hidden in clouds to fool
the satellite and the third was an accident"the weather cleared.84
Experts differ on these possible tests. Several writers report that the
scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory believed it to have been a
nuclear explosion while a presidential panel decided otherwise.85 President
Carter was just entering the Iran hostage nightmare and may have easily
decided not to alter 30 years of looking the other way.86 The explosion
was almost certainly an Israeli bomb, tested at the invitation of the South
Africans. It was more advanced than the "gun type" bombs developed
by the South Africans.87 One report claims it was a test of a nuclear artillery
shell.88 A 1997 Israeli newspaper quoted South African deputy foreign minister,
Aziz Pahad, as confirming it was an Israeli test with South African logistical
support.89
-
- Controversy over possible nuclear testing continues to
this day. In June 1998, a Member of the Knesset accused the government
of an underground test near Eilat on May 28, 1998. Egyptian "nuclear
experts" had made similar charges. The Israeli government hotly denied
the claims.90
-
- Not only were the Israelis interested in American nuclear
weapons development data, they were interested in targeting data from U.S.
intelligence. Israel discovered that they were on the Soviet target list.
American-born Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard obtained satellite-imaging data
of the Soviet Union, allowing Israel to target accurately Soviet cities.
This showed Israel's intention to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent
political lever, or retaliatory capability against the Soviet Union itself.
Israel also used American satellite imagery to plan the 7 June 1981 attack
on the Tammuz-1 reactor at Osiraq, Iraq. This daring attack, carried out
by eight F-16s accompanied by six F-15s punched a hole in the concrete
reactor dome before the reactor began operation (and just days before an
Israeli election). It delivered 15 delay-fused 2000 pound bombs deep into
the reactor structure (the 16th bomb hit a nearby hall). The blasts shredded
the reactor and blew out the dome foundations, causing it to collapse on
the rubble. This was the world's first attack on a nuclear reactor.91
-
- Since 19 September 1988, Israel has worked on its own
satellite recon- naissance system to decrease reliance on U.S. sources.
On that day, they launched the Offeq-1 satellite on the Shavit booster,
a system closely related to the Jericho-II missile. They launched the satellite
to the west away from the Arabs and against the earth's rotation, requiring
even more thrust. The Jericho-II missile is capable of sending a one ton
nuclear payload 5,000 kilometers. Offeq-2 went up on 3 April 1990. The
launch of the Offeq-3 failed on its first attempt on 15 September 1994,
but was successful 5 April 1995.92
-
- Mordechai Vanunu provided the best look at the Israeli
nuclear arsenal in 1985 complete with photographs.93 A technician from
Dimona who lost his job, Vanunu secretly took photographs, immigrated to
Australia and published some of his material in the London Sunday Times.
He was subsequently kidnapped by Israeli agents, tried and imprisoned.
His data shows a sophisticated nuclear program, over 200 bombs, with boosted
devices, neutron bombs, F-16 deliverable warheads, and Jericho warheads.94
The boosted weapons shown in the Vanunu photographs show a sophistication
that inferred the requirement for testing.95 He revealed for the first
time the underground plutonium separation facility where Israel was producing
40 kilograms annually, several times more than previous estimates. Photographs
showed sophisticated designs which scientific experts say enabled the Israelis
to build bombs with as little as 4 kilograms of plutonium. These facts
have increased the estimates of total Israeli nuclear stockpiles (see Appendix
A).96 In the words of one American, "[the Israelis] can do anything
we or the Soviets can do."97 Vanunu not only made the technical details
of the Israeli program and stockpile public but in his wake, Israeli began
veiled official acknowledgement of the potent Israeli nuclear deterrent.
They began bringing the bomb up the basement stairs if not out of the basement.
-
- Israel went on full-scale nuclear alert again on the
first day of Desert Storm, 18 January 1991. Seven SCUD missiles were fired
against the cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa by Iraq (only two actually hit
Tel Aviv and one hit Haifa). This alert lasted for the duration of the
war, 43 days. Over the course of the war, Iraq launched around 40 missiles
in 17 separate attacks at Israel. There was little loss of life: two killed
directly, 11 indirectly, with many structures damaged and life disrupted.98
Several supposedly landed near Dimona, one of them a close miss.99 Threats
of retaliation by the Shamir government if the Iraqis used chemical warheads
were interpreted to mean that Israel intended to launch a nuclear strike
if gas attacks occurred. One Israeli commentator recommended that Israel
should signal Iraq that "any Iraqi action against Israeli civilian
populations, with or without gas, may leave Iraq without Baghdad."100
Shortly before the end of the war the Israelis tested a "nuclear capable"
missile which prompted the United States into intensifying its SCUD hunting
in western Iraq to prevent any Israeli response.101 The Israeli Air Force
set up dummy SCUD sites in the Negev for pilots to practice on"they
found it no easy task.102 American government concessions to Israel for
not attacking (in addition to Israeli Patriot missile batteries) were:
-
- Allowing Israel to designate 100 targets inside Iraq
for the coalition to destroy,
- Satellite downlink to increase warning time on the SCUD
attacks (present and future),
- "Technical parity with Saudi jet fighters in perpetuity."103
- All of this validated the nuclear arsenal in the minds
of the Israelis. In particular the confirmed capability of Arab states
without a border with Israel, the so-called "second tier" states,
to reach out and touch Israel with ballistic missiles confirmed Israel's
need for a robust first strike capability.104 Current military contacts
between Israel and India, another nuclear power, bring up questions of
nuclear cooperation.105 Pakistani sources have already voiced concerns
over a possible joint Israeli-Indian attack on Pakistan's nuclear facilities.106
A recent Parameters article speculated on Israel's willingness to furnish
nuclear capabilities or assistance to certain states, such as Turkey.107
A retired Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Amnon
Shahak, has declared, "all methods are acceptable in withholding nuclear
capabilities from an Arab state."108
-
- As the Israeli bomb comes out of the basement, open discussion,
even in Israel, is occurring on why the Israelis feel they need an arsenal
not used in at least two if not three wars. Avner Cohen states: "It
[Israel] must be in a position to threaten another Hiroshima to prevent
another holocaust."109 In July 1998 Shimon Peres was quoted in the
Jordan Times as saying, "We have built a nuclear option, not in order
to have a Hiroshima, but to have an Oslo,"110 referring to the peace
process.
-
- One list of current reasons for an Israeli nuclear capability
is:
-
- To deter a large conventional attack,
- To deter all levels of unconventional (chemical, biological,
nuclear) attacks,
- To preempt enemy nuclear attacks,
- To support conventional preemption against enemy nuclear
assets,
- To support conventional preemption against enemy non-nuclear
(conventional, chemical, biological) assets,
- For nuclear warfighting,
- The "Samson Option" (last resort destruction).111
-
- The most alarming of these is the nuclear warfighting.
The Israelis have developed, by several accounts, low yield neutron bombs
able to destroy troops with minimal damage to property.112 In 1990, during
the Second Gulf War, an Israeli reserve major general recommended to America
that it "use non-contaminating tactical nuclear weapons" against
Iraq.113 Some have speculated that the Israelis will update their nuclear
arsenal to "micronukes" and "tinynukes" which would
be very useful to attack point targets and other tactical or barrier (mining)
uses.114 These would be very useful for hardened deeply buried command
and control facilities and for airfield destruction without exposing Israeli
pilots to combat.115 Authors have made the point that Israeli professional
military schools do not teach nuclear tactics and would not use them in
the close quarters of Israel. Many Israeli officers have attended American
military schools where they learned tactical use in crowded Europe.116
-
- However, Jane's Intelligence Review has recently reported
an Israeli review of nuclear strategy with a shift from tactical nuclear
warheads to long range missiles.117 Israel always has favored the long
reach, whether to Argentina for Adolph Eichmann, to Iraq to strike a reactor,
Entebbe for hostages, Tunisia to hit the PLO, or by targeting the Soviet
Union's cities. An esteemed Israeli military author has speculated that
Israel is pursuing an R&D program to provide MIRVs (multiple independent
reentry vehicles) on their missiles.118
-
- The government of Israel recently ordered three German
Dolphin Class 800 submarine, to be delivered in late 1999. Israel will
then have a second strike capability with nuclear cruise missiles, and
this capability could well change the nuclear arms race in the Middle East.119
Israeli rhetoric on the new submarines labels them "national deterrent"
assets. Projected capabilities include a submarine-launched nuclear missile
with a 350-kilometer range.120 Israel has been working on sea launch capability
for missiles since the 1960s.121 The first basing options for the new second-strike
force of nuclear missile capable submarines include Oman, an Arab nation
with unofficial Israeli relations, located strategically near Iran.122
A report indicates that the Israel Defense Ministry has formally gone to
the government with a request to authorize a retaliatory nuclear strike
if Israel was hit with first strike nuclear weapons. This report comes
in the wake of a recent Iran Shihab-3 missile test and indications to Israel
that Iran is two to three years from a nuclear warhead.123 Israeli statements
stress that Iran's nuclear potential would be problem to all and would
require "American leadership, with serious participation of the G-7
. . . ."124
-
- A recent study highlighted Israel's extreme vulnerability
to a first strike and an accompanying vulnerability even to a false alarm.125
Syria's entire defense against Israel seems to rest on chemical weapons
and warheads.126 One scenario involves Syria making a quick incursion into
the Golan and then threatening chemical strikes, perhaps with a new, more
lethal (protective-mask-penetrable) Russian nerve gas if Israel resists.127
Their use would drive Israel to nuclear use. Israeli development of an
anti- missile defense, the Arrow, a fully fielded (30-50128) Jericho II
ballistic missile, and the soon-to-arrive strategic submarine force, seems
to have produced a coming change in defense force structure. The Israeli
newspaper Ha'aretz, quotes the Israeli Chief of Staff discussing the establishment
of a "strategic command to . . . prepare an adequate response to the
long term threats. . . "129
-
- The 1994 accord with Jordan, allowing limited Israeli
military presence in Jordanian skies, could make the flying distance to
several potential adversaries considerably shorter.130 Israel is concerned
about Iran's desire to obtain nuclear weapons and become a regional leader,
coupled with large numbers of Shiite Moslems in southern Lebanon. The Israeli
Air Force commanding general issued a statement saying Israel would "consider
an attack" if any country gets "close to achieving a nuclear
capability."131 The Israelis are obviously considering actions capable
of stopping such programs and are buying aircraft such as the F-15I with
sufficient operational range. At the first delivery of these 4,000 kilometer
range fighters, the Israeli comment was, "the aircraft would help
counter a growing nuclear threat."132 They consider such regional
nation nuclear programs to be a sufficient cause for war. Their record
of accomplishment is clear: having hit the early Iraqi nuclear effort,
they feel vindicated by Desert Storm. They also feel that only the American
and Israeli nuclear weapons kept Iraq's Saddam Hussein from using chemical
or biological weapons against Israel.133
-
- Israel, like Iran, has desires of regional power. The
1956 alliance with France and Britain might have been a first attempt at
regional hegemony. Current debate in the Israeli press considers offering
Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and perhaps Syria (after a peace agreement) an Israeli
nuclear umbrella of protection.134 A nuclear Iran or Iraq might use its
nuclear weapons to protect some states in the region, threaten others,
and attempt to control oil prices.135
-
- Another speculative area concerns Israeli nuclear security
and possible misuse. What is the chain of decision and control of Israel's
weapons? How susceptible are they to misuse or theft? With no open, frank,
public debate on nuclear issues, there has accordingly been no debate or
information on existing safeguards. This has led to accusations of "monolithic
views and sinister intentions."1360 Would a right wing military government
decide to employ nuclear weapons recklessly? Ariel Sharon, an outspoken
proponent of "Greater Israel" was quoted as saying, "Arabs
may have the oil, but we have the matches."137 Could the Gush Emunim,
a right wing religious organization, or others, hijack a nuclear device
to "liberate" the Temple Mount for the building of the third
temple? Chances are small but could increase as radicals decry the peace
process.138 A 1997 article reviewing the Israeli Defense Force repeatedly
stressed the possibilities of, and the need to guard against, a religious,
right wing military coup, especially as the proportion of religious in
the military increases.139
-
- Israel is a nation with a state religion, but its top
leaders are not religious Jews. The intricacies of Jewish religious politics
and rabbinical law do affect their politics and decision processes. In
Jewish law, there are two types of war, one obligatory and mandatory (milkhemet
mitzvah) and the one authorized but optional (milkhemet reshut).140 The
labeling of Prime Minister Begin's "Peace for Galilee" operation
as a milchemet brera ("war of choice") was one of the factors
causing it to lose support.141 Interpretation of Jewish law concerning
nuclear weapons does not permit their use for mutual assured destruction.
However, it does allow possession and threatening their use, even if actual
use is not justifiable under the law. Interpretations of the law allow
tactical use on the battlefield, but only after warning the enemy and attempting
to make peace. How much these intricacies affect Israeli nuclear strategy
decisions is unknown.142
-
- The secret nature of the Israeli nuclear program has
hidden the increasing problems of the aging Dimona reactor and adverse
worker health effects. Information is only now public as former workers
sue the government. This issue is now linked to continued tritium production
for the boosted anti-tank and anti-missile nuclear warheads that Israeli
continues to need. Israel is attempting to obtain a new, more efficient,
tritium production technology developed in India.143
-
- One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often
stated, but obvious, is their "use" on the United States. America
does not want Israel's nuclear profile raised.144 They have been used in
the past to ensure America does not desert Israel under increased Arab,
or oil embargo, pressure and have forced the United States to support Israeli
diplomatically against the Soviet Union. Israel used their existence to
guarantee a continuing supply of American conventional weapons, a policy
likely to continue.145
-
- Regardless of the true types and numbers (see Appendix
A) of Israeli nuclear weapons, they have developed a sophisticated system,
by myriad methods, and are a nuclear power to be reckoned with. Their nuclear
ambiguity has served their purposes well but Israel is entering a different
phase of visibility even as their nuclear capability is entering a new
phase. This new visibility may not be in America's interest.146 Many are
predicting the Israeli nuclear arsenal will become less useful "out
of the basement" and possibly spur a regional arms race. If so, Israel
has a 5-10 year lead time at present before mutual assured destruction,
Middle East style, will set in. Would regional mutual second strike capability,
easier to acquire than superpower mutual second strike capability, result
in regional stability? Some think so.147 Current Israeli President Ezer
Weizman has stated "the nuclear issue is gaining momentum [and the]
next war will not be conventional.148
-
-
Appendix A
-
-
Estimates of the Israeli Nuclear Arsenal
-
-
-
Notes
-
- 1. Hersh, Seymour M., The Samson Option. Israel's Nuclear
Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (New York: Random House, 1991), 223.
-
- 2. Aronson, Slomo and Brosh, Oded, The Politics and Strategy
of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East, the Opacity Theory, and Reality,
1960-1991-An Israeli Perspective (Albany, New York: State University of
New York Press, 1992), 20.
-
- 3. Karsh, Efraim, Between War and Peace: Dilemmas of
Israeli Security (London, England: Frank Cass, 1996), 82.
-
- 4. Cohen, Avner, Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1998), 16.
-
- 5. Cordesman, Anthony, Perilous Prospects: The Peace
Process and the Arab-Israeli Military Balance (Boulder, Colorado: Westview
Press, 1996), 118.
-
- 6. Pry, Peter, Israel's Nuclear Arsenal (Boulder, Colorado:
Westview, 1984), 5-6.
-
- 7. Quoted in Weissman, Steve and Krosney, Herbert. The
Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East. (New York,
New York: Times Books, 1981), 105.
-
- 8. "Former Official Says France Helped Build Israel's
Dimona Complex." Nucleonics Week October 16, 1986, 6.
-
- 9. Milhollin, Gary, "Heavy Water Cheaters."
Foreign Policy (1987-88): 101-102.
-
- 10. Cordesman, 1991, 127.
-
- 11. Federation of American Scientists, "Israel's
Nuclear Weapons Program." 10 December 1997, n.p. On-line. Internet,
27 October 1998. Available from http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Israel/Isrhist.html.
-
- 12. Nashif, Taysir N., Nuclear Weapons in Israel (New
Delhi: S. B. Nangia Books, 1996), 3.
-
- 13. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, 48-49.
-
- 14. Bennett, Jeremy, The Suez Crisis. BBC Video. n.d.
Videocassette and Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi. Every Spy a Prince. The
Complete History of Israel's Intelligence Community. (Boston, Massachusetts:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990), 63-69.
-
- 15. Weissman and Krosney, 112.
-
- 16. "Revealed: The Secrets of Israel's Nuclear Arsenal"
(London) Sunday Times No. 8,461, 5 October 1986, 1, 4-5.
-
- 17. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, 57-59.
-
- 18. Peres, Shimon, Battling for Peace. A Memoir (New
York, New York: Random House, 1995), 122.
-
- 19. Pry, 10.
-
- 20. Loftus, John and Aarons, Mark, The Secret War Against
the Jews. How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People (New York, New
York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1994), 287-303.
-
- 21. Green, Stephen, Taking Sides. America's Secret Relations
with a Militant Israel (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1984), 152.
-
- 22. Cohen, Avner, "Most Favored Nation." The
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 51, no. 1 (January-February 1995): 44-53.
-
- 23. Hersh, The Samson Option, 196.
-
- 24. See Cohen, Avner, "Israel's Nuclear History:
The Untold Kennedy-Eshkol Dimona Correspondence." Journal of Israeli
History, 1995 16, no. 2, 159-194 and Cohen, Avner, Comp. "Recently
Declassified 1963 Correspondence between President Kennedy and Prime Ministers
Ben-Gurion and Eshkol." Journal of Israeli History, 1995 16, no. 2,
195-207. Much of the documentation has been posted to http:\\www.seas.gwu.edu/nsarchive/israel.
-
- 25. Weissman and Krosney, op. cit.,114-117
-
- 26. Cohen, op. cit., Israel and the Bomb, 82-83.
-
- 27. Spector, Leonard S., The Undeclared Bomb (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishers, 1988), 387 (n.22).
-
- 28. Quoted in Stevens, Elizabeth. "Israel's Nuclear
Weapons"A Case Study." 14 pages. On line. Internet, 23 October
1998. Available from
- http://infomanage.com/nonproliferation/najournal/israelinucs.html.
-
- 29. Green, Taking Sides, 148-179 and Raviv, Dan and Melman,
Yossi, 1990, 197-198.
-
- 30. Weissman and Krosney, 119-124.
-
- 31. Black, Ian and Morris, Benny, Israel's Secret Wars.
A history of Israel's Intelligence Services (New York, New York: Grove
Weidenfeld, 1991), 418-419.
-
- 32. Hersh, 257.
-
- 33. Green, Stephen, Living by the Sword: America and
Israel in the Middle East, 1968-1987 (London: Faber, 1988), 63-80.
-
- 34. Cordesman, 1991, 120.
-
- 35. Weissman and Krosney, 124-128 and Raviv, Dan and
Melman, Yossi, 1990, 198-199.
-
- 36. Spector, The Undeclared Bomb, 395(n. 57).98-199
-
- 37. Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, 1990, 58.
-
- 38. Milhollin, 100-119.
-
- 39. Stanghelle, Harold, "Israel to sell back 10.5
tons." Arbeiderbladet, Oslo, Norway, 28 June 1990 in: Center for Nonproliferation
Studies, "Nuclear Developments," 28 June 1990, 34-35; on-line,
Internet 22 November 1998, available from http://cns.miis.edu.
-
- 40. Hersh, op. cit., 139.
-
- 41. Center for Nonproliferation Studies. "Israeli
Friends," ISIS Report, May 1994, 4; on-line, Internet 22 November
1998, available from http://cns.miis.edu.
-
- 42. Abecasis, Rachel, "Uranium reportedly offered
to China, Israel." Radio Renascenca, Lisbon, 9 December 1992 quoted
in Center for Nonproliferation, "Proliferation Issues," 23 December,
1992, 25; on-line, Internet 22 November 1998, available from http://cns.miis.edu.
-
- 43. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, op. cit., 231-232 and
256-257.
-
- 44. Nordeen, Lon O., Nicolle, David, Phoenix over the
Nile (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1996), 192-193.
-
- 45. O'Balance, Edgar, The Third Arab-Israeli War (London:
Faber and Faber, 1972), 54.
-
- 46. Brecher, Michael, Decision in Crisis. Israel, 1967
and 1973 (Berkley, California: University of California Press, 1980), 104,
230-231.
-
- 47. Cohen, Avner. "Cairo, Dimona, and the June 1967
War." Middle East Journal 50, no. 2 (Spring 1996), 190-210.
-
- 48. Creveld, Martin van. The Sword and the Olive. A Critical
History of the Israeli Defense Force (New York, New York: Public Affairs,
1998), 174.
-
- 49. Burrows, William E. and Windrem, Robert, Critical
Mass. The Dangerous Race for Superweapons in a Fragmenting World (New York,
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 282-283.
-
- 50. Aronson, Shlomo, Israel's Nuclear Options, ACIS Working
Paper No. 7. Los Angeles, California: University of California Center for
Arms Control and International Security, 1977, 3, and Sorenson, David S.,
"Middle East Regional Studies-AY99," Air War College: Maxwell
Air Force Base, AL, 542.
-
- 51. Hersh, op. cit., 126-128.
-
- 52. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, op. cit., 210-213.
-
- 53. Spector, Leonard S., "Foreign-Supplied Combat
Aircraft: Will They Drop the Third World Bomb?" Journal of International
Affairs 40, no. 1(1986): 145 (n. 5) and Green, Living by the Sword, op.
cit., 18-19.
-
- 54. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 280.
-
- 55. Cohen, op. cit., Israel and the Bomb, 237.
-
- 56. Ibid., 273-274.
-
- 57. Milhollin, op. cit., 103-104.
-
- 58. Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, Friend in Deed: Inside
the U.S.-Israel Alliance (New York New York: Hyperion, 1994), 299.
-
- 59. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 464-465 and Raviv,
Dan and Melman, Yossi, op. cit., 1990, 304-305.
-
- 60. Spector, The Undeclared Bomb, op. cit., 179.
-
- 61. Dowty, Alan. "Israel and Nuclear Weapons."
Midstream 22, no. 7 (November 1976), 8-9.
-
- 62. Hersh, op. cit., 217, 222-226, and Weissman and Krosney,
op. cit., 107.
-
- 63. Green, op. cit., Living by the Sword, 90-99.
-
- 64. Loftus and Aarons, op. cit., 316-317.
-
- 65 Smith, Gerard C. and Cobban, Helena. "A Blind
Eye To Nuclear Proliferation." Foreign Affairs 68, no. 3(1989), 53-70.
-
- 66. Hersh, op. cit., 230-231.
-
- 67. O'Balance, Edgar, No Victor, No Vanquished. The Yom
Kippur War (San Rafael, California: Presido Press, 1978), 175.
-
- 68. Ibid., 234-235 and Aronson, S, op. cit., 15-18.
-
- 69. Spector, The Undeclared Bomb, op. cit., 396 (n. 62);
Garthoff, Raymond L., Détente and Confrontation: American-Soviet
Relations from Nixon to Reagan (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute,
1994), 426, n76 and Bandmann, Yona and Cordova, Yishai. "The Soviet
Nuclear Threat Towards the Close of the Yom Kippur War." Jerusalem
Journal of International Relations 1980 5, no. 1, 107-9.
-
- 70. Cherkashin, Nikolai, "On Moscow's Orders."
Russian Life, 39, no. 10 (October 1996), 13-15.
-
- 71. Brownlow, Cecil. "Soviets poise three-front
global drive. Nuclear weapons in Egypt, artillery buildup at Guantanamo,
Communist concentrations in Vietnam aimed at political gains." Aviation
Week and Space Technology 99, no. 19 (5 November 1973), 12-14; Holt, Robert.
"Soviet Power Play." Aviation Week and Space Technology 99, no.
19 (5 November 1973), 7 and Gur-Arieh, Danny, "A non-Conventional
Look at Israel During '73 War." IsraelWire Tuesday, October 6, 1998
17, 23; on-line, Internet 20 November 1998, available from http://www.israelwire.com/new/981006/9810068.html.
-
- 72. Hersh, op. cit., 321-235.
-
- 73. Creveld, 1998, op. cit., 220-221.
-
- 74. Evron, Yair, Israel's Nuclear Dilemma (Ithaca, New
York: Cornell Publishing, 1994), 62-74.
-
- 75. Cohen, Avner, "Peres: Peacemaker, Nuclear Pioneer."
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 52, no. 3 (May/June 1996), 16-17
and Aronson, S, op. cit., 11-12.
-
- 76. Karsh, op. cit., 86.
-
- 77. Quoted in Hersh, op. cit., 180 and Stevens, op. cit.,
1-14.
-
- 78. Hersh, op. cit., 216, 276 and Kaku, Michio. "Contingency
Plans: Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War." In Altered States: A Reader
in the New World Order, Bennis, Phyllis and Moushabeck, Michel, Eds. (New
York, New York: 1993), 66.
-
- 79. Weissman and Krosney, op. cit., 109.
-
- 80. Gillette, Robert, "Uranium Enrichment: Rumors
of Israeli Progress with Lasers." Science 183, no. 4130 (22 March
1974), 1172-1174.
-
- 81. Barnaby, Frank, The Invisible Bomb: The Nuclear Arms
Race in the Middle East (London: I. B. Tauris, 1988), 25.
-
- 82. "Israel: The Covert Connection." Frontline,
PBS Network, May 16, 1989, quoted in Spector, Leonard S., and McDonough,
Mark G., with Medeiros, Evan S., Tracking Nuclear Proliferation. A Guide
in Maps and Charts, 1995 (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, 1995).
-
- 83. Nashif, Taysir N., Nuclear Weapons in the Middle
East: Dimensions and Responsibilities (Princeton, New Jersey: Kingston
Press, 1984), 22-23.
-
- 84. Hersh, op. cit., 216.
-
- 85. Barnaby, Frank, "Capping Israel's Nuclear Volcano,"
Between War and Peace. Dilemmas of Israeli Security, edited by Efraim Karsh
(London, England: Frank Cass, 1996), 98.
-
- 86. Hersh, op. cit., 271-275.
-
- 87. Nashif, op. cit., 32.
-
- 88. Gaffney, Mark, Dimona: The Third Temple? The Story
Behind the Vanunu Revelation (Brattleboro, Vermont: Amana Books, 1989),
100-101.
-
- 89. Pedatzur, Re'uven, "South African Statement
On Nuclear Test Said to Serve Israel," Ha'aretz, 29 July 1997. On
line: Internet, 22 November 1998 and Kelley, Robert. "The Iraqi and
South African Nuclear W"ôNuclear Abstracts," 1 March 1996,
or on-line, Internet, 22 November 1998, both available from http://cns.miis.edu.
-
- 90. "Was there a Nuclear Test near Eilat?"
IsraelWire, 16 June 1998, or on line Internet, 22 November, 1998, available
from http://www.israelwire.com and "Deputy Defense Minister Denies
Israeli Nuclear Testing." Israeli Wire, June 18, 1998, or on-line.
Internet, 13 October 1998, available from http://www.israelwire.com/New/980618/9806184.html.
-
- 91. McKinnon, Dan. Bullseye One Reactor. The Story of
Israel's Bold Surprise Air Attack That Destroyed Iraqi's Nuclear Bomb Facility
(Shrewsbury, England: Airlife Publishing Ltd., 1987).
-
- 92. "Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Report
on the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Moscow, 1993."
Journal of Palestine Studies XXII, no. 4 (Summer 1993): 135-140; Creveld,
Martin van, Nuclear Proliferation and the Future Of Conflict (New York:
The Free Press, 1993), 105; and Clark, Philip. "ôThird successful
Israeli satellite launch." Jane's Intelligence Review 7, no. 6 (June
1995), 25-26.
-
- 93. Sunday Times, London, op. cit., 1,4-5.
-
- 94. Toscano, Louis, Triple Cross: Israel, the Atomic
Bomb and the Man Who Spilled the Secrets (New York: Carol Publishing Group,
1990).
-
- 95. Green, Living by the Sword, op. cit., 134.
-
- 96. Spector, The Undeclared Bomb, op. cit., 165-166.
-
- 97. Hersh, op. cit., 291.
-
- 98. Levran, Aharon, Israeli Strategy after Desert Storm:
Lessons from the Second Gulf War (London: Frank Cass, 1997), 1-10.
-
- 99. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 278.
-
- 100. Cohen, Avner and Miller, Marvin, Nuclear Shadows
in the Middle East: Prospects for Arms Control in the Wake of the Gulf
Crisis (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
1990), 10.
-
- 101. Aronson and Brosh, op. cit., 276.
-
- 102. Raviv and Melman, op. cit., 399.
-
- 103. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 297n and Creveld,
1998, op. cit., 321-322.
-
- 104. Levran, op. cit., 8-10.
-
- 105. Ahmar, Moonis, "Pakistan and Israel: Distant
Adversaries or Neighbors?" Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern
Studies, 1996, 20, no.1, 43-44.
-
- 106. "Nuclear proliferation didn't start in 1998
. . .and not in Pakistan nor with Islam," Middle East Realities, or
on-line, Internet, 21 September 1998, available from http://www.middleeast.org/1998_06_28.htm.
-
- 107. Garrity, Patrick J. "The Next Nuclear Questions."
Parameters, XXV, no. 4 (Winter 1995-96), 92-111.
-
- 108. Cohen, Eliezer. Israel's best defense: the First
Full Story of the Israeli Air Force, (New York, New York: Random House,
1993), 495.
-
- 109. Cohen and Miller, op. cit., 18.
-
- 110. "Before Meeting with King, Peres Claims Israel's
Nuclear Arsenal was built for Peace," Jordan Times, July 14, 1998.
Quoted in Sorenson, op. cit., 542.
-
- 111. Beres, Louis Rene, "Israel's Bomb in the Basement:
A revisiting of `Deliberate Ambiguity' vs. `Disclosure', Between War and
Peace: Dilemmas of Israeli Security, edited by Efraim Harsh (London, England:
Frank Cass, 1996), 113-133.
-
- 112. Hersh, op. cit., 319.
-
- 113. Amos, Deborah, Lines in the Sand: Desert Storm and
the Remaking of the Arab World (New York, New York: Simon and Schuster,
1992), 105.
-
- 114. Dowler, Thomas W. and Howard II, Joseph H., "Countering
the threat of the well-armed tyrant: A modest proposal for small nuclear
weapons," Strategic Review, XIX, no. 4 (Fall 1991), 34-40.
-
- 115. Beres, Louis Rene, "Israel's bomb in the basement:
A revisiting of `Deliberate Ambiguity' vs. `Disclosure.' " In Karsh,
Efraim, op. cit., Editor, Between War and Peace: Dilemmas of Israeli Security
(London, England: Frank Cass, 1996), 116.
-
- 116. Cordesman, op. cit., 1996, 265.
-
- 117. Hough, Harold, "Israel reviews its nuclear
deterrent," Jane's Intelligence Review 10, no.11 (November 1998),
11-13.
-
- 118. Creveld, op. cit., 1993, 105.
-
- 119. Burrows, and Windrem, op. cit.,
311-312 and "Israel
begins test of nuclear missile submarines," The Irish Times, July
2, 1998, or on-line, Internet, 24 December 1998, available from
http://www.irish-times.com/irish-times/paper/1998/0702/wor13.html.
-
- 120. Melman, Yossi, "Swimming with the Dolphins,"
Ha'aretz, Tuesday, June 9, 1998, and "Report: Israel to get Subs with
Nuclear Strike Capability," Jerusalem Post, I July 3, 1998, 3 and
Sorenson, op. cit., 543.
-
- 121. Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, op. cit., 1990, 344-345,
422-423.
-
- 122. Shahak, Israel, Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and
Foreign Policies (London: Pluto Press, 1997), 72-73.
-
- 123. Davis, Douglas, "Defense Officials Said Urging
Nuclear Second-Strike Capability," Jerusalem Post, 6 August 1998,
3; or on-line, Internet, 22 November 1998, available from http://cns.miis.edu.
-
- 124. Inbar, Efraim, "Israel's security in a new
international environment," in Karsh, Efraim, Editor, Between War
and Peace: Dilemmas of Israeli Security (London, England: Frank Cass, 1996),
41.
-
- 125. Hough, Harold, "Could Israel's Nuclear Assets
Survive a First Strike?" Jane's Intelligence Review, September 1997,
407-410.
-
- 126. Terrill, W. Andrew, "The Chemical Warfare Legacy
of the Yemen War." Comparative Strategy, 10 (1991), 109-119.
-
- 127. Boyne, Sean, "Across the Great Divide. Will
Assad go for the Golan?" Jane's Intelligence Review, 10, no. 4 (April
1998), 21-24 and Cordesman, 1996, op. cit., 254.
-
- 128. Cordesman, op. cit., 1996, 243.
-
- 129, Harel, Amos and Barzilai, Amnon, "Mordechai
says Arrow alone cannot protect against missiles," Ha'aretz, 13 January
1999, or on-line, Internet, 13 January 1999, available from http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/htmls/3_9.htm
-
- 130. Shahak, op. cit., 78-79.
-
- 131. Chubin, Shahram, "Does Iran Want Nuclear Weapons?"
Survival 37, no. 1 (Spring 1995), 91-93.
-
- 132. O'Sullivan, Arich, "New F-15I Warplanes Expand
Israel's Reach," The Jerusalem Post, 19 January 1997, or on-line,
Internet 22 November 1998, available from http://www.jpost.co.il.
-
- 133. Karsh, op. cit., 9.
-
- 134. Shahak, op. cit., 4-5.
-
- 135. Garrity, op. cit., 92-111.
-
- 136. Dowty, op. cit., 8.
-
- 137. Gaffney, op. cit., 165.
-
- 138. Ibid., 37-38 and Friedman, Robert I. Zealots for
Zion: Inside Israel's West Bank Settlement Movement (New York, New York:
Random House, 1992), 132-52.
-
- 139. Blanche, Ed, "Is the Myth Fading for the Israeli
Army? " Part 1." Jane's Intelligence Review, 8, no. 12 (December
1996), 547-550 and Blanche, Ed. "Is the myth fading for the Israeli
Army? " Part 2," Jane's Intelligence Review 9, no. 1 (January
1997), 25-28.
-
- 140. Cohen, Stuart A., The Scroll or the Sword? Dilemmas
of Religion and Military Service in Israel (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Harwood
Academic Publishers, 1997), 11-24.
-
- 141. Creveld, op. cit., 1998, 298.
-
- 142. Broyde, Michael J., "Fighting the War and the
Peace: Battlefield Ethics, Peace Talks, Treaties, and Pacifism in the Jewish
Tradition," or on-line, Internet, 20 November 1998, available from
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/war3.html.
-
- 143. Hough, Harold, op. cit., 1998, 11-12 and Berger,
Julian, "Court Fury At Israeli Reactor." Guardian, 13 October
1997, in Center for Nonproliferation, "Nuclear Abstracts," 13
October 1997, or on-line, Internet, 22 November 1998, available from http://cns.miis.edu.
-
- 144. Creveld, op. cit., 1998, 252.
-
- 145. Valry, Nicholas, "Israel's Silent Gamble with
the Bomb," New Scientist (12 December 1974), 807-09.
-
- 146. Harden, Major James D., Israeli Nuclear Weapons
and War in the Middle East, Master's Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, CA, December 1997.
-
- 147. Dowdy, op. cit., 20.
-
- 148. Aronson, Geoffrey, "Hidden Agenda: US-Israeli
Relations and the Nuclear Question," Middle East Journal, 46, no.
4 (Autumn 1992), 619-630.
-
- 149. Data from Time, 12 April 1976, quoted in Weissman
and Krosney, op. cit., 107.
-
- 150. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 280 and Cohen, Israel
and the Bomb, op. cit., 273-274.
-
- 151. Tahtinen, Dale R., The Arab-Israel Military Balance
Today (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
Research, 1973), 34.
-
- 152. "How Israel Got the Bomb." Time, 12 April
1976, 39.
-
- 153. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 302.
-
- 154. Kaku, op. cit., 66 and Hersh, op. cit., 216.
-
- 155. Valéry, op. cit., 807-09.
-
- 156. Data from CIA, quoted in Weissman and Krosney, op.
cit., 109.
-
- 157. Ottenberg, Michael, "Estimating Israel's Nuclear
Capabilities," Command, 30 (October 1994), 6-8.
-
- 158. Pry, op. cit., 75.
-
- 159. Ibid., 111.
-
- 160. Data from NBC Nightly News, quoted in Milhollin,
op. cit., 104 and Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 308.
-
- 161. Data from Vanunu quoted in Milhollin, op. cit.,
104.
-
- 162. Harkavy, Robert E. "After the Gulf War: The
Future of the Israeli Nuclear Strategy," The Washington Quarterly
(Summer 1991), 164.
-
- 163. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 308.
-
- 164. Albright, David, Berkhout, Frans and Walker, William,
Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1996. World Inventories, Capabilities,
and Policies (New York: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
And Oxford University Press, 1997), 262-263.
-
- 165. Hough, Harold, "Israel's Nuclear Infrastructure,"
Jane's Intelligence Review 6, no. 11 (November 1994), 508.
-
- 166. Ibid., 262-263.
-
- 167. Spector, and McDonough, with Medeiros, op. cit.,
135.
-
- 168. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 283-284.
-
- 169. Cordesman, op. cit., 1996, 234.
-
- 170. Ibid., 234.
-
- 171. Ibid., 230, 243.
-
- 172. 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.
-
- 173. Albright, Berkhout, and Walker, op. cit., 262-263.
-
- USAF Counterproliferation Center
-
- The USAF Counterproliferation Center was established
in 1998 to provide education and research to the present and future leaders
of the USAF, and thereby help them better prepare to counter the threat
from weapons of mass destruction.
-
- Barry R. Schneider, Director
- USAF Counterproliferation Center
- 325 Chennault Circle
- Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427k
-
- (334) 953-7538 (DSN (493-7538)
-
- Email: Barry.Schneider@maxwell,af.mil
-
- USAF site location for this report:
- http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm
-
- This report is also posted at:
- http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm
|
Something stinks in the upper echelon of the mega media barons. Andrew McKillop 21st Century Wire
srael
was able to build Dimona, before Kennedy’s murder. Today it’s
nothing but a useless burned out shell, when it comes to creating
Israeli nuclear weapons. 
e
must face the facts; while there is still some small chance that most
of us might not have to endure nuclear annihilation, just because
Israel demands control over every person on the planet. 
'