Proof that Israel has nukes released?

[Ancalagon]

Hello

Israel has been playing a "ambiguity" game when it comes to its nuclear weapons, a strategy that has allowed it to avoid sanctions etc. It appears that some documents about negotiations between it and South Africa for the sale of nukes have been released. This will strengthens Iran's position.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gamEQIkjOS-FXZg9lq5CSWeMhK2wD9FT85880

Israel's Peres denies offering South Africa nukes

By KAROUN DEMIRJIAN (AP) – 2 hours ago

JERUSALEM — Israeli President Shimon Peres on Monday categorically denied a report that he offered nuclear warheads to South Africa in 1975, when he was defense minister.

The report published Sunday in the British newspaper The Guardian is based on an American academic's research and claims to cite secret minutes of a meeting Peres held with senior South African officials.

Peres said Israel never negotiated the transfer of nuclear weapons to South Africa.

"There exists no basis in reality for the claims published this morning by The Guardian that in 1975 Israel negotiated with South Africa the exchange of nuclear weapons," the president said in an English-language statement. "Unfortunately, The Guardian elected to write its piece based on the selective interpretation of South African documents and not on concrete facts."

The article is based on a series of documents the South African government declassified in response to a request from American academic Sasha Polakow-Suransky, who is writing a book called "The Unspoken Alliance" about the close relationship between the Israel and South Africa.

Appearing alongside the article, the partially censored documents show a formal request from the South Africans for nuclear-capable warheads, and minutes of meetings in which then-Defense Minister Peres listed weapons available for sale.

But they do not appear to confirm any transfer of weapons, or any explicit offer from the Israelis to sell nuclear materials or nuclear-capable weapons to the South Africans.

The documents accompanying the story do show Peres' signature on minutes from a meeting where the then-defense minister discussed payloads available in "three sizes," one of several phrases that Peres said The Guardian misconstrued.

The British paper did not call the Israeli government for a response to the article, Peres said, adding that his office "intends to send a harsh letter to the editor of The Guardian and demands the publication of the true facts."

The Guardian claims the documents offer the first documentary evidence of Israel's nuclear program.

In 1986, another British newspaper, the Sunday Times, published pictures and descriptions from a former technician at Israel's main nuclear reactor, leading experts to estimate that Israel had the world's sixth-largest nuclear arsenal.

According to its policy, Israel has never acknowledged or denied possessing nuclear weapons, though it is widely assumed to have them.

[Aloysius]

Israel and the racist regime of South-Africa were close ally, for obvious reasons. And it's a well known fact that they collaborated in the nuclear sector to get nukes. Of course, they will deny it... But the South Africans remember perfectly what happened in the 70' and 80'. Thus the mild hostility between the two states.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Eh, there's no telling who to believe.

[Name Lips]

It's as fair to treat Israel as though they have nuclear weapons as it is to treat Iran as though they're trying to get them.

[Aloysius]

It's as fair to treat Israel as though they have nuclear weapons as it is to treat Iran as though they're trying to get them.

Israel more surely has nukes than Iran want to have them. And that means a lot. :D

[DarwinOfMind]

I thought it was a known thing....

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I thought it was a known thing....

Yeah. Honestly, who gives a shit?

[The Winslow]

Of course Israel has the nuke, we sold it to them.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Of course Israel has the nuke, we sold it to them.

That would be my guess.

[Aloysius]

Of course Israel has the nuke, we sold it to them.
It's even worse than that. Back in the time, both the French, the Brits and the Israeli were somewhat angry against the USA after Suez. But the Brits received the help of the US to develop their nuke. Not the two others. So we worked with them, and received little money for that (but we did sell them a lot of mirages, which were put to great use in 1967). It stopped after 1967 BTW, because De Gaulle was not happy about the 6 days war, thus the shift of alliance of Israel and its collaboration with South Africa. Had they waited a few more years, they would have probably received the help of the USA anyway. I guess the USS liberty sinking was too fresh in the memories...

[Ancalagon]

It's even worse than that. Back in the time, both the French, the Brits and the Israeli were somewhat angry against the USA after Suez. But the Brits received the help of the US to develop their nuke. Not the two others. So we worked with them, and received little money for that (but we did sell them a lot of mirages, which were put to great use in 1967). It stopped after 1967 BTW, because De Gaulle was not happy about the 6 days war, thus the shift of alliance of Israel and its collaboration with South Africa. Had they waited a few more years, they would have probably received the help of the USA anyway. I guess the USS liberty sinking was too fresh in the memories...

Back in those days, military cooperation was at time surprisingly tight. In the 50s, if my sources aren't deceiving me, the USA basically told us "if you want nukes, we can give some to you".

[Freedom Canadian]

Back in those days, military cooperation was at time surprisingly tight. In the 50s, if my sources aren't deceiving me, the USA basically told us "if you want nukes, we can give some to you".

Actually, they did. It was part of the deal to scrap the Avro Arrow plans. Instead of building awesome interceptor planes, we would receive Bomarc SAMs (some of which used nuclear payloads) to intercept russian bombers.

According to Wikipedia, we had nuclear Bomarcs from 1963 to 1971 (when Trudeau phased them out). They were deployed in Quebec and Ontario (apparently, western Canada could suck it).

[Ancalagon]

Actually, they did. It was part of the deal to scrap the Avro Arrow plans. Instead of building awesome interceptor planes, we would receive Bomarc SAMs (some of which used nuclear payloads) to intercept russian bombers.

According to Wikipedia, we had nuclear Bomarcs from 1963 to 1971 (when Trudeau phased them out). They were deployed in Quebec and Ontario (apparently, western Canada could suck it).

*blink*

I have been told by one that one knowledgeable source that officially, Canada never had the nuke (and unofficially, we never had it on Canadian soil - we did have nukes in German bases for a while). That we had nuclear weapons under our control deployed on Canadian soil is total news to me. What's the reference for this!?!

[Freedom Canadian]

*blink*

I have been told by one that one knowledgeable source that officially, Canada never had the nuke (and unofficially, we never had it on Canadian soil - we did have nukes in German bases for a while). That we had nuclear weapons under our control deployed on Canadian soil is total news to me. What's the reference for this!?!

"According to Wikipedia" ;)

Also, look at the product description for this book: http://www.amazon.ca/Canadian-Nuclear-Weapons-Canadas-Arsenal/dp/1550022997/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274879018&sr=8-1

Product Description

"We are thus not only the first country in the world with the capability to produce nuclear weapons that chose not to do so, we are also the first nuclear armed country to have chosen to divest itself of nuclear weapons."

Pierre Trudeau United Nations, 26 May 1978

From 1963 to 1984, US nuclear warheads armed Canadian weapons systems in both Canada and West Germany. It is likely that during the early part of this period, the Canadian military was putting more effort, money, and manpower into the nuclear commitment than any other single activity. This important book is an operational-technical history and exposÈ of this period.

Its purpose is to bring together until-recently secret information about the nature of the nuclear arsenal in Canada, and combine it with known information about the systems in the US nuclear arsenal. The work begins with an account of the efforts of the Pearson government to sign the agreement with the US necessary to bring nuclear weapons to Canada. Subsequent chapters provide a detailed discussion of the four nuclear weapons systems deployed by Canada: the BOMARC surface-to-air guided interceptor missile; the Honest John short range battlefield rocket; the Starfighter tactical thermonuclear bomber; the VooDoo-Genie air defence system.

Maybe your source was talking about strategic weapons or offensive weapons.

Edit: Oh and this government website (http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/hst/bomarc-eng.asp)

I learned about the existence of Bomarcs when we visited the aviation museum in Ottawa last month. That place was filled with cool stuff. :win:

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Canada doesn't need nukes for the same reason European nations don't... they know the US will be there if they need us. Which is also how you guys can enjoy those small defense budgets and social welfare.

[The Winslow]

Canada doesn't need nukes for the same reason European nations don't...
France and Great Britain both have nukes.

[Limper]

LONDON – Britain offered its first public accounting of its nuclear arsenal Wednesday, disclosing that it has a stockpile of 225 warheads in a move that offers transparency to non-nuclear states in hope of winning stricter global controls on the spread of atomic weapons.

The announcement, made without fanfare in the House of Commons, follows the Obama administration's disclosure that the United States has stockpiled 5,113 nuclear warheads and "several thousand" more retired warheads awaiting the junk pile — the first public description of the secretive arsenal born in the Cold War and now shrinking rapidly.

The U.S. made the announcement at the May 3 opening of a five-year review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, considered the cornerstone of global disarmament efforts, where Washington and its allies are seeking stronger measures to prevent the spread of nuclear arms. Britain made its announcement as the monthlong conference at the United Nations nears an end on Friday, with intense debate under way on a final document.

"We believe that the time is now right to be more open about the weapons we hold," Foreign Secretary William Hague told the House of Commons. "We judge that this will assist in building a climate of trust between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states and contribute, therefore, to future efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons worldwide."

Britain had earlier disclosed that it possessed 160 operational warheads, but Hague's comments that the country's "overall stockpile of nuclear warheads will not exceed 225 warheads" was the first time the maximum size of the total stockpile was revealed. The Foreign Office later said the 225 figure was the number of warheads the country now holds.

Countries that don't possess nuclear weapons have long demanded more openness from the nuclear-weapon states — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China — about the size and nature of their arsenals as an essential step toward nuclear disarmament, which is a key plank in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Four other nations have or are suspected of having atomic arms — Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

British Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt told a briefing for U.N. reporters that Hague sent him to New York as the treaty review conference nears an end to emphasize the importance of the announcement in the House of Commons.

"We are very conscious that everything relating to nonproliferation depends on confidence, the confidence between those who are parties to the treaty, those who are nuclear weapon states and those who are not," Burt said.

The new British government also is conscious that, over the last decade, the treaty had come under pressure with no outcome from the 2005 review conference, Burt said.

"We wanted to make an immediate and positive contribution to that process," he said.

For that reason, Burt said that Hague announced "two particularly strong confidence-building measures" — the maximum number of warheads in Britain's stockpile and a review of the government's policy on the use of weapons.

On the nuclear arsenal, Burt said, "until this moment that number has always been kept secret."

"The foreign secretary has today revealed that number openly as part of our determination to be as open and transparent as a nuclear weapon-holding state in this process," he said.

Burt stressed that Britain holds only 1 percent of the world's stock of nuclear weapons and "the explosive power of Britain's stockpile has been reduced by something like 75 percent since the end of the Cold War."

On the policy review, he said, Britain's position has always been that "the use of nuclear weapons would only be in the most extreme circumstances of self defense following attack in certain particular circumstances."

Hague has now offered "a review and a discussion" of that policy, Burt said.

Asked whether Britain's decision to disclose its arsenal was made in consultation with the United States, he said the five nuclear powers continually talk to each other.

Burt, part of the new coalition government that took power earlier this month, said Britain was encouraged by the U.S.-Russian agreement in April to further reduce their nuclear arsenals.

This and other nuclear-related events indicated "that 2010 provided a much better background than 2005 and 2000 to take things on," he said.

"It's very much done with a sense of this is what other nations are doing in terms of confidence-building measures and transparency, and we very much wanted to play our part at the very earliest stage that we possibly could," he said.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

France and Great Britain both have nukes.

... for the same reason most European nations don't. And GB isn't Europe anyway, wanker.:tongue:

[Aloysius]

And GB isn't Europe anyway

Yup.

[Trainz]

Canada doesn't need nukes for the same reason European nations don't... they know the US will be there if they need us. Which is also how you guys can enjoy those small defense budgets and social welfare.

Close, but no cigar.

Which target will the enemy attack first, the one with the nukes or the one without them?

Bingo.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Close, but no cigar.

Which target will the enemy attack first, the one with the nukes or the one without them?

Bingo.

Uh, no. Case in point, Iraq (rather than Iran or NK).

[The Winslow]

I think that was Trainz' point, actually.

[Northcott]

I still say the scrapping of the Avro Arrow was a colossal mistake. I would have rathered that our politicians at the time display some measure of backbone.

[The Winslow]

Sorry for the OT, but:
I would have rathered that our politicians at the time display some measure of backbone.

This is the first time I see "rather" used as a verb. Is it a dialectal thing? Or just a brainfart and I am reading too much in my endless quest for neat linguistic trivia? ;)

[Schizm]

Sorry for the OT, but:


This is the first time I see "rather" used as a verb. Is it a dialectal thing? Or just a brainfart and I am reading too much in my endless quest for neat linguistic trivia? ;)

it's more a verbal colloquialism. you'll often hear "rather have" or "rather had" when people type it out.

[Black Angel]

Yeah, probably he should have used 'preferred' to be grammatically correct in that context. :)

[Name Lips]

He verbed an adverb!

That's a new one... usually people verb nouns.