This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nuclear weapons and Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 6 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Israel and nuclear weapons. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Is this story relevant enough to add a new section to the article? (Report: http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/12/nuc%20report.pdf) ( Article: http://rt.com/usa/232203-us-israel-nuclear-weapon/) Released by the US government Defense Department as the result of a federal lawsuit. The lawsuit began as a FOI request three years ago by Grant Smith of Washing think-tank "Research: Middle Eastern Policy". "the US government agreed to release a 1987 Defense Department report detailing US assistance to Israel in its development of a hydrogen bomb, which skirted international standards... Israelis are "developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs. That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level,” said the report, "It's our basic position that in 1987 the Department of Defense discovered that Israel had a nuclear weapons program, detailed it and then has covered it up for 25 years in violation of the Symington and Glenn amendments"". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.17.108 ( talk) 20:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I propose to add a section on the Arab League position on Israel's nuclear program. It would take a little research, but would include the Middle East decision at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, proposals for a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone or a Middle East Zone Free of WMD, and the latest announcement that Arab states would withdraw from the NPT if Israel acknowledged having nuclear weapons Arab League vows to drop out of NPT if Israel admits it has nuclear weapons.
This could go under policy but probably deserves its own section. What do others think? NPguy ( talk) 03:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"hi" is written at the start of the article, but I can't find it in the source text.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 19:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
As a reminder, as soon as there is a disagreement about statements to put in the article, please bring things up at talk, don't just battle it out in edit summaries. Thanks, El on ka 14:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires that unless some information is so common and well known (e.g. the sky is blue by day) it needs to be sourced, otherwise it is a violation of original research or synthesis. The statement about Israel and South Africa collaborating on nuclear research because both found it difficult to elicit help from other nuclear capable countries is something that either needs a verifiable and reliable source or it cannot remain in the article. Thanks. -- Avi ( talk) 11:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Not that they found help for nuclear research difficult to elicit, but help for nuclear weapons research.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 18:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The article contains the statement that "According to a statement by the Arab League, Arab states will withdraw from the NPT if Israel acknowledges having nuclear weapons and then does not open its facilities to international inspection and destroy its arsenal." There are several references to this statement in news reports on line. However, I think the statement was issued in error, without approval from Arab League states. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find citations for this. Given the circumstances, it might be politically difficult for the Arab League to disavow this statement publicly, even it it had been made in error.
What is the best way to note in the article itself these doubts about the cited reference? NPguy ( talk) 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Kamag.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
As I saw no reason to have two articles with substantially the same text, I moved unique nuclear-related content from Israel and weapons of mass destruction to here and deleted the rest there. Please keep future nuclear-related edits here, not there. YLee ( talk) 03:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I was tempted to revert the addition of the Washington Times article on the U.S. statement at an NPT meeting this week. There was a bit of a public flap, but the Washington Times presented one of the less reliable accounts. The U.S. statement was a restatement of the longstanding U.S. position that all countries should adhere to the NPT. It was not new or shocking. What was somewhat interesting was that the United States named Israel among the four countries that are not NPT Parties. Some in Israel seemed to take offense; others seemed to take it in stride. Perhaps the most interesting commentary was one by Avner Cohen (author of Israel and the Bomb, saying Israel should drop its nuclear opacity in favor of a transparent approach that would allow it to contribute constructively to international and regional efforts to control nuclear weapons.
I'd like to edit to use more reliable accounts, the Cohen commentary, and make clear this is not really new. NPguy ( talk) 22:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Please notice the last editions I made:
It was written that the nuclear traid of Israel is restricted and that it's mainly short to medium ranged. However, according to an official report to the U.S congress (which is cited now in the missile delivery entry) and according to other sources (which are easy to find and probably some of are already cited in this article)the short range delivery systems are out of service. The Jericho I (500 km range) is out of service and Israel is now belived to have Jericho II (1500 km range (medium), Israel arsenal includes about 100 such missiles) and Jericho III (widely referred by authoritative and professional sources as having range of no less than 6500 km and no longer than 11, 500 km with a payload of 1000kg, i.e., definitely considered as long range missile) in operational service. Israel diesel submarines fleet has a range of ~9000 km (or actually 4500 km back and forth, however increasing this range by naval refueling is possible) and they are widely belived to carry Israeli popeye turbo cruise missles with a medium range of 1500-2400 km, again-medium range delivery systems. The Israeli F-16 and F-15 have an operational range of ~4500 km ( ~2200 km back and forth ) without refueling, and much larger with (Israeli already proved that it can extended this range [3])-again, at least medium range ability. The shory range abilities are reserved as in all other nuclear countries to the use in tactical weapons where according to "Samson option" Israel can use short range specieal designed artillery and probably short range missiles and it can't be considered part of its nuclear traid which refer to stratgic abilities only. However, as Israel is small and hence cant disperse nuclear and airbases all over -it's appearently more vulnerable. More, diesel submarines can't stay underwater during all of their entire mission and hence the Israeli nuclear traid is more vulnerable than those of countries with nuclear submaines.-- Gilisa ( talk) 16:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Wrong Wording by Source:
"Israeli Nuclear Dolphin-class submarine"
That implies/means that the Dolphin has a nuclear Drive which is untrue. I would remove the word Nuclear or change it to "presumedly nuclear armed"
Currently aircraft section is about 60% how Israel lacks the 1960s style USAF Chrome Dome arctic long duration patrol bombers like the B-52 or the pre ICBM/SLBM era heavy bombers built and retired by the UK, France, and mostly by the USSR and China who now use them as cruise missile carriers. The case of the B-52 and to a far lesser extent Soviet Bear bomber is one for for attacking a superpower enemy in a massive landmass on an opposing hemisphere after safely in a holding area waiting for attack orders. How does this have relevance to the modern Israeli nuclear deterrent or this article? I feel that summarizing cited sources for aircraft and doctrine believed to represent the Israeli aircraft based force is sufficient and airborne patrol intercontinental bombers previously used by the US and to a far lesser extent the USSR in that role need not be mentioned in counterpoint as even those aircraft are no longer used in this way by any nuclear power at this point in history. Unless there is a reasoned and cited reason for inclusion I propose removing the cold war comparison from this section as currently I think we may have a problem with OR. Solomon(for now) 79.181.2.242 ( talk) 11:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The section now labeled "Other" contains a number of relatively speculative claims about Israeli nuclear weapons capabilities. Most problematic to me are those regarding the EMP effect. Two specific claims do not appear to be supported by the references cited. First, there is the claim about the importance of the high (1 megaton) yield which do not appear to be supported by the source (a U.S. Congressional hearing). In fact, the source says the EMP effect is only loosely correlated to yield. Second, there are specific claims about the relationship between the altitude of the explosion and its range that appear to be reasonable but do not appear to be supported by the references. My suggestion is to delete the bullet on EMP, since it is a generic nuclear weapons capability not linked to any specific claims about Israel. NPguy ( talk) 13:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
As this section mentions Iraq and Iran, shouldn't there be a brief bit about Israel's recent bombing of Syria's nuclear research facility? Fuzbaby ( talk) 04:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
"Although Israel first built a nuclear weapon in 1967-68"? and yet, it said in the begging that isreal is "widly belived to be 6h nation" with nuclear capabilitys, or somthing like tht. thats some what self contradictory, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 ( talk) 20:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I added new paragraph to the article's 1967-present section:
In a 2010 interview Uzi Eilam, former head of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission, told to the Israeli daily Maariv that the nuclear reactor in Dimona had been through extensive improvements and renovations and is now functioning as new, with no safety problems or hazard to the surrounding environment or the region.
Thia paragraph is based on this [6] daily newspaper article as a source. The source was asked for verfication by NPguy. The relevant paragraphes in the source are:
בלי להיכנס לתחום הביטחוני, כור עלול לגרום לבעיות סביבתיות קשות.
"הכור בצ'רנוביל נבנה לפי קריטריונים רוסיים שלא היו בטיחותיים מספיק. הכור בדימונה אמנם ישן, אבל מי שטוען שכור כזה מסוכן בטיחותית לא יודע מה עשו לכור מבחינת תחזוקה. עשו בו שיפורים כאלה שהיום הוא כמו כור חדש".
It is a question by the journalist, answered then by Uzi Eilam. It's under the section:
לא כל דבר צריך להיות נחלת כל הציבור
at the bottom of the article. If anyother Hebrew speaker can approve that the source say whay I argue it say, it would be
helpful.--
Gilisa (
talk)
09:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
בלי להיכנס לתחום הביטחוני, כור עלול לגרום לבעיות סביבתיות קשות.
Which is easily translated to: Without getting into specifics, nuclear reactor may cause severe enviromental problems.
Uzi Eilam then reply with this:
הכור בצ'רנוביל נבנה לפי קריטריונים רוסיים שלא היו בטיחותיים מספיק. הכור בדימונה אמנם ישן, אבל מי שטוען שכור כזה מסוכן בטיחותית לא יודע מה עשו לכור מבחינת תחזוקה. עשו בו שיפורים כאלה שהיום הוא כמו כור חדש".
Which is again easily translated to:
"The reactor in Chernobil was built according to Russian standards which were not safe enough. The reactor in Dimona is truely old, but anyone who argue that such reactor is an hazard don't know what was done with it in terms of maintaince, it had been through such an improvments that today it's like new one"
-- Gilisa ( talk) 07:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I added a new sub-section under the "Policy" section entitled "Sharing" with the following text: The government of Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the South African government, according to an analysis of documents of the apartheid government. Top secret minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that then Israeli Defense Minister Shimon Peres offered to sell the warheads to South Africa's then defence minister, P.W. Botha. The documents appear to undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that even if the Israeli government has nuclear weapons it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, since the Israeli government was willing to share nuclear warheads with the rogue apartheid regime. The Guardian, 24 May 2010, "Revealed: How Israel Offered to Sell South Africa Nuclear Weapons Exclusive: Secret Apartheid-Era Papers Give First Official Evidence of Israeli Nuclear Weapons," http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons. The office of President of the State of Israel Shimon Peres denied that there was "an exchange of nuclear weapons" between the governments of Israel and South Africa. Haaretz, 25 May 2010, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-denies-offering-nuclear-weapons-to-apartheid-south-africa-1.291800
This section was removed with the note "undue weight" because this story is already covered elsewhere in the article. While the SA documents are elsewhere mentioned in the context of documentary evidence for the existence of IL nukes, the alleged offer to "share" should be mentioned as part of IL nuke policy. Further, the Guardian article explains that this sharing aspect is relevant to IL claims with respect to non-proliferation and safety, which are also important in the sharing context.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 21:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
NYCJosh, I deleted your new section because it duplicated an existing section. We don't need two sections on the same topic. On the substance, I've had difficulty assessing the Guardian sources because of problems connecting to the Guardian's web site. Regardless, the Guardian conclusions are based on speculation about the meaning of seeming "code" words in the newly released memos. Whether one believes those conclusions, I think this article should reflect the fact that the Guardian is making a leap of logic, and that others dispute the logic. NPguy ( talk) 19:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons You raise two points: (1) Duplication. This issue, Israel's alleged offer to sell, is relevant to two different portions of the article. So, a brief couple of sentences is important for both, inlcuding the article's section on policy. Further, the section I contributed ADDS info and is not duplicative: it adds info relevant to the implications of the alleged sharing. (2)Speculation/analysis. The Guardian is a major newspaper and its analysis of the SA govt documents is noteable under WP rules and important for our article. If you wish to add some notable source refuting that analysis, feel free to propose it. I have no problem in principle with our article providing more than one interpretation of the SA docs. But such a second interpretation does not at all remove the notability for WP purposes of the Guardian analysis or its importance.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 22:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This week I added this:
This was removed with the comment this is "ephemeral news" and will be forgotten tomorrow. I think it's notable because it shows the position the US has taken and intends to take in the future regarding blocking IAEA resolutions on Israel's nukes. It comes from a senior US NSC official on Middle East issues.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
References
I'd just like to point out that Norway did more then just sell heavy water...
Declassified information have confirmed that...
This article in norwegian is about what aid the norwegian government offered and to some degree gave them...
And
here is some info proving that the norwegian government was aware of the Israeli wish to make nuclear weapons before the signing of the deals in question.
Just though I should inform you all.
Ps. All this info is in norwegian but it's possible to run them through various translators online like the google translator and get an ok understanding of the info.
Luredreier (
talk)
14:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Such as Hersh What the hell is this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.128.211 ( talk) 19:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
There were reports recently about confirmation for nuclear status of Dair az-Zor 2007 attack target, possibly from IAEA, IIRC. If someone has specifics and sources, I think it should be added to the article. WillNess ( talk) 09:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Where do Israel get it's uranium these day's ?
PS read this article it maybe interesting it's about a nuclear accident in the US in the 1960's that is related to Israel.
http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2011/10/19/americans-pay-dearly-to-maintain-israels-nuclear-secrets/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.93 ( talk) 19:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Israel is a rare (only?) case of a country possessing functional nuclear weapons but not openly announcing them. Most nuclear states want everyone to know as soon as the weapon works, because it is meant to be a deterrent. So why is Israel different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.76.119 ( talk) 05:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
(For full disclosure I have no political views on Israeli issues at all and have no history of editing Israel-orientated articles)
I recently edited the first line to say, "Israel possesses nuclear weapons, and is widely believed to have been the sixth state to do so". This was reverted on the grounds that Israel has not confirmed the fact. I must admit to being rather baffled by this. The public position of the government of the state of Israel is not the only source. On Wikipedia, we normally make a positive statement about something if there are sufficient authoritative sources to suggest that the statement is true. We do not say "X is widely believed", we simply say "X" and cite sources.
In this case, there are plenty of such authoritative sources cited throughout the body of the article. If there is controversy (ie other authoritative sources disagree) about the truth of statement "x" then such controversy can be described. Here there is no controversy. The sources say that Israel has nuclear weapons. The government of the state of Israel does not deny (or confirm) this. In fact no authoritative sources at all deny the fact. Whether or not Israel has an official policy of strategic ambiguity should be of no relevance to Wikipedia's collective encylopedic judgement. Does anybody have any real reason to doubt the statement, "Israel posses nuclear weapons"? Thom2002 ( talk) 07:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
"Israel is considered a nuclear threshold state. It is widely believed to have been the sixth country to develop nuclear weapons. This has never been openly confirmed or denied however, due to Israel's policy of deliberate ambiguity. [1]" IPWAI ( talk) 05:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this helps. First, there's no definition of a "threshold state," and second, it will not satisfy those who want a clear statement that Israel has nuclear weapons. In my view, it is better to say that Israel is "generally believed to possess" nuclear weapons but "does not acknowledge" having them than an unqualified claim that Israel "possesses" nuclear weapons. NPguy ( talk) 02:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Should this article's lead state clearly that Israel possesses nuclear weapons?
At the moment this is stated more ambigously as, "Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons". The official policy of the state of Israel is to neither confirm or deny that the statement is true. However, it is perfectly clear from the cited sources that Isreal does in fact possess these weapons. There does not appear to be any credible sources which deny this statement. To retain the qualifier, "widely believed" appears to be giving undue weight to the official position of the state of Isreal, which is only one source. Furthermore, the state of Israel does not deny the fact, it simply does not confirm it. Many other reliable sources referenced in the article do confirm the statement positively. There is a vast array of evidence to back the statement up in its less ambiguous form. Thom2002 ( talk) 21:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
It has been confirmed from multiple sources that Israel is in the possesion of nuclear weapons. Can we please edit certain parts of the article now and stop pretending Israel is only "Suspected' of being in possesion? I want the truth to be on Wikipedia, if people want to know if a certain country is in posession of certain weapons they should have the right to see facts and not some hush hush to protect the goverment from critic.
(Sorry for my bad English.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.44.108 ( talk) 10:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
While I saw several threads that reached a consensus with regards to the opening claim that Israel is "widely believed" to posses nuclear weapons as opposed to affirmatively making such a statement, the following clause affrimatively claims that it has built its first nuclear weapon in 1966.
To clarify, I believe that the wording of this dependent clause (first nuclear weapon) has been ambiguosly written outside of the scope of "widely believed."
Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons and to be the sixth country in the world to have developed them, having allegedly built its first nuclear weapon in December 1966.
Cheers, eyal3400
~There were better times. ( talk) 19:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it was Mearsheimer who said with respect to isr. nukes: "I mean, who do they think they can fool?" The cat is out of the bag for decades. Wikipedia is a very stupid wiki, not acknowledging reality. Kissinger 05:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zio jew ( talk • contribs)
Are there any real evidence that Israel has any nuclear weapons? As I see it, it is just rumours spread by israel themselfs to stear off an invasion from their neighbors without having to develope real nuclear weapons, that won't be used anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.155.36 ( talk) 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
A Spiegal article released today confirms that Israel has nuclear weapons: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/israel-deploys-nuclear-weapons-on-german-submarines-a-836671.html — unsigned added by 188.222.10.100 ( talk) 13:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
What it states is "The German government has known about Israel's nuclear weapons program for decades, despite its official denials." In other words Israel still does NOT claim to have such weapons. IPWAI ( talk) — undated added 04:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The references are a bit difficult to follow. Seymour Hersh is quite a prolific author, so when a lot of references simply point to "Hersh, 19" or some other terse source, the question becomes "What is this referring to"? In the reference listing, there is a "Hersh, Seymour (February 11, 2008). "A Strike in the Dark". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 23, 2008." and that is all. But it is listed after most of the short references. Farther down, there is this:
Hersh, Seymour M. The Samson Option. New York: Random House, 1991. ISBN 0-394-57006-5
Quite confusing. If all of the terse references refer to the book mentioned, it seems illogical to list it last without a preceding mention of it. And it is ambiguous to use the terse reference in light of the second source from the New Yorker article. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 19:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This seems a loaded, biased term. Some would describe the intent as "aggression". But, of course, the "narrative" of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" (USraeli corporate media) do not describe it like that. Fourtildas ( talk) 03:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
That article states : "During the night of October 8–9, an alarmed Dayan told Meir that "this is the end of the third temple."[273] He was warning of Israel's impending total defeat, but "Temple" was also the code word for nuclear weapons.[274] Dayan again raised the nuclear topic in a cabinet meeting, warning that the country was approaching a point of "last resort".[276] That night Meir authorized the assembly of thirteen 20-kiloton-of-TNT (84 TJ) tactical atomic weapons for Jericho missiles at Sdot Micha Airbase, and F-4 aircraft at Tel Nof Airbase, for use against Syrian and Egyptian targets.". This article does not mention this incident, but should cover it, as it implies that Israel could have started a nuclear war. How reliable are the reports on this ? Speculation ? Sounds to me like a warning to the US that arms shipments should start immediately, as there is no way the US would have tolerated a nuclear war risk. Rcbutcher ( talk) 07:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Reliably sourced enough to mention here? Hcobb ( talk) 14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
-- 86.161.110.166 ( talk) 20:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Everyone but wikipedia knows that they have nuclear submarines "Dolphin" as a free gift from Germany of all places. Kissinger 05:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — by Zio jew ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Nuclear weapons and Israel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nuclear weapons and Israel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
....I've just been reading this article, and have stumbled across the phrase "...desalinate a billion cubic gallons of seawater...". I hate to be too petty, but a "gallon" is a measure of volume anyway. A "cubic gallon" really doesn't make any sense... 81.99.236.225 ( talk) 23:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
While you may hate your pettiness, i for one thoroughly enjoy it. Tacticomed ( talk) 10:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Nuclear weapons and Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=283793When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Article currently reads in part Uranium enrichment could also be used to re-enrich reprocessed uranium into reactor fuel to more efficiently use Israel's uranium supply. That's a peculiar speculation, and frankly the sort of thing one often reads in anti-nuclear material. It's a pretty good guess that such material is the original source of this ridiculous unsourced statement.
Uranium enrichment produces enriched uranium and depleted uranium (DU), that is, uranium enriched and depleted in the fissile U-235. Yes, enriched uranium could be blended into reprocessed uranium, which is also deficient in U-235, in order to make it again usable as nuclear fuel. It's known as back-blending.
But what's the point? That's essentially reversing the enrichment process! Why not instead blend it with the depleted uranium from the enrichment process, avoiding the need to use uranium from reprocessed fuel (a hazardous and expensive process owing to fission products)? They're both depleted, and you have a surplus of them, so throw out the bad stuff (the spent fuel residue after perhaps removing the plutonium) and use the good stuff (the DU from the enrichment plant), surely?
But that's a ridiculous idea too. So better still, why not just stop the enrichment process at a lower level of U-235, the level you want to end up with, and not need to back-blend at all? That's by far the cheapest option, makes far better use of enrichment capacity (probably the most critical resource), and achieves exactly the same end product. Operate high-level enrichment stages only when you want to end up with HEU. Tap off your LEU as LEU earlier in the process.
Which is what the rest of the world does. And I'm guessing so do the Israelis. I admit it's a guess, but it's a better guess than the one in the article, don't you think? And neither guess should be in the article.
Back-blending has been done to use HEU from decommissioned warheads as reactor fuel. In that context it makes sense. But not in this one. Sorry. Andrewa ( talk) 07:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Nuclear weapons and Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Not meaning to push any barrows here, just get it a bit more readable. - Snori ( talk) 02:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
At a minimum, the range of stockpile estimates must be included. It is not redundant. NPguy ( talk) 02:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ NPguy: @ Wikaviani: Please stop edit warring, and explain what exactly about this edit is "controversial"? Moponoly ( talk) 14:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The fact that a comment says not to change without citing a reliable source and that the edit deletes the existing reliable source is an indication of editing against prior consensus. That is, the existing text is the result of settling past debates on the size of Israel's stockpile. This article has been the subject of some controversy. The high end estimate is something of an outlier and not a good basis for comparisons with other countries. If you want to propose changes, best to discuss them one at a time rather than making extensive edits all at once. NPguy ( talk) 21:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Bsherr: Thanks for your inclusion of the uncontroversial parts. Just a couple of details: you seem to have duplicated the text about development history in the lead, please remove the former one, and you also forgot to add the sources from the infobox to the stockpile estimation in the lead. Moponoly ( talk) 12:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Article states it was solo Israel, with no source.
Considering, then planning, an attack on a sovereign nation nuclear facilities, and executing it unilaterally does not make sense when one considers the blowback (of which there was almost none).
Most learned sources cite US and Israel at the least, with some (lesser cited and less reliable) including all 5 eyes involved.
Could Israel have done it itself? Perhaps, but the blowback from it's allies would have been sever.
Can't fix it since it's locked Tacticomed ( talk) 10:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
no mention of Security council resolution [S/RES/487(1981)] [1] [2] The reactor had been in operation since 1967 and Iran was in full compliance with IAEA inspections. Mr. Sigvard Eklund, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), presented his view of the events. Israel claimed the vault below the reactor was a secret plutonium factory which he countered by stating that the IAEA was fully aware of the vault and it housed the machinery that moves the control rods. [3]
This section is complete fabrication. UN documents, the IAEA and international community pointed out that Israel's version of events was not a reasonable account. 49.198.7.235 ( talk) 13:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
References
A unanimous Security Council vote approved a resolution that "strongly condemned" Israel for its destruction of an Iraqi nuclear reactor and urged Israel to open its nuclear plants to international inspection.
It has been stated by the Israelis that a laboratory located 40 meters below the reactor-the figure was later corrected to four meters which allegedly had not been discovered by IAEA inspectors had been destroyed. The existence of a vault under the reactor that has apparently been hit by the bombing is well known to the inspectors. That vault contains the control rod drives and has to be accessible to the staff for maintenance purposes. In order to protect the staff from radiation, the ceiling of the vault consists of a thick concrete slab which in turn is lined with a heavy steel plate and therefore, that space could not be used to produce plutonium.
An editor KasimMejia has added a long and quite interesting section on this topic. Two comments: First, it seems appropriate for its own article, but more detailed than appropriate for a section in this article. Second, it relies heavily on a single article in Ha'aretz, but ignores the extensive scholarship on this topic by Avner Cohen, including two books (Israel and the Bomb and The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's Bargain with the Bomb). NPguy ( talk) 20:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Netanyahu accidentally called Israel a "nuclear power" on 5 January 2020. [1] Worth including? b uidh e 12:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need a source for this statement: "According to US journalist Seymour Hersh, everything was ready for production at this time save an official order to do so."
Also, the first reference is incomplete. 96.236.195.47 ( talk) 18:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Amid all the "it is widely believed that", should we state clearly who has significantly stated that Israel has nuclear weapons? viz people (such as Jimmy Carter, here, 2008; Jared Kushner, here, 2023), governments, experts (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Notebook), Israeli officials, and international organisations. Onanoff ( talk) 19:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the corect version of the said quote is as follows (and i hold a digitsl copy of the original document from March 10 1965, and i am historian, i know what am i talking about: "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapon into the Arab-Israel region". NOTE!!! NOT "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapon into the middle east", BUT "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapon into the Arab-Israel region". Why is it important? because in 1965 there were at least two countries that already introduced nuclear weapon into the middle east: USSR and USA (and most probably France and the UK), that had nuclear submarines running all over the middle east. Thanks. (And I could mail you the document titled "Memorandum of Understanding".) 46.117.34.183 ( talk) 12:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:France and weapons of mass destruction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 00:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nuclear weapons and Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 6 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Israel and nuclear weapons. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Is this story relevant enough to add a new section to the article? (Report: http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/12/nuc%20report.pdf) ( Article: http://rt.com/usa/232203-us-israel-nuclear-weapon/) Released by the US government Defense Department as the result of a federal lawsuit. The lawsuit began as a FOI request three years ago by Grant Smith of Washing think-tank "Research: Middle Eastern Policy". "the US government agreed to release a 1987 Defense Department report detailing US assistance to Israel in its development of a hydrogen bomb, which skirted international standards... Israelis are "developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs. That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level,” said the report, "It's our basic position that in 1987 the Department of Defense discovered that Israel had a nuclear weapons program, detailed it and then has covered it up for 25 years in violation of the Symington and Glenn amendments"". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.17.108 ( talk) 20:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I propose to add a section on the Arab League position on Israel's nuclear program. It would take a little research, but would include the Middle East decision at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, proposals for a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone or a Middle East Zone Free of WMD, and the latest announcement that Arab states would withdraw from the NPT if Israel acknowledged having nuclear weapons Arab League vows to drop out of NPT if Israel admits it has nuclear weapons.
This could go under policy but probably deserves its own section. What do others think? NPguy ( talk) 03:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"hi" is written at the start of the article, but I can't find it in the source text.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 19:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
As a reminder, as soon as there is a disagreement about statements to put in the article, please bring things up at talk, don't just battle it out in edit summaries. Thanks, El on ka 14:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires that unless some information is so common and well known (e.g. the sky is blue by day) it needs to be sourced, otherwise it is a violation of original research or synthesis. The statement about Israel and South Africa collaborating on nuclear research because both found it difficult to elicit help from other nuclear capable countries is something that either needs a verifiable and reliable source or it cannot remain in the article. Thanks. -- Avi ( talk) 11:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Not that they found help for nuclear research difficult to elicit, but help for nuclear weapons research.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 18:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The article contains the statement that "According to a statement by the Arab League, Arab states will withdraw from the NPT if Israel acknowledges having nuclear weapons and then does not open its facilities to international inspection and destroy its arsenal." There are several references to this statement in news reports on line. However, I think the statement was issued in error, without approval from Arab League states. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find citations for this. Given the circumstances, it might be politically difficult for the Arab League to disavow this statement publicly, even it it had been made in error.
What is the best way to note in the article itself these doubts about the cited reference? NPguy ( talk) 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Kamag.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
As I saw no reason to have two articles with substantially the same text, I moved unique nuclear-related content from Israel and weapons of mass destruction to here and deleted the rest there. Please keep future nuclear-related edits here, not there. YLee ( talk) 03:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I was tempted to revert the addition of the Washington Times article on the U.S. statement at an NPT meeting this week. There was a bit of a public flap, but the Washington Times presented one of the less reliable accounts. The U.S. statement was a restatement of the longstanding U.S. position that all countries should adhere to the NPT. It was not new or shocking. What was somewhat interesting was that the United States named Israel among the four countries that are not NPT Parties. Some in Israel seemed to take offense; others seemed to take it in stride. Perhaps the most interesting commentary was one by Avner Cohen (author of Israel and the Bomb, saying Israel should drop its nuclear opacity in favor of a transparent approach that would allow it to contribute constructively to international and regional efforts to control nuclear weapons.
I'd like to edit to use more reliable accounts, the Cohen commentary, and make clear this is not really new. NPguy ( talk) 22:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Please notice the last editions I made:
It was written that the nuclear traid of Israel is restricted and that it's mainly short to medium ranged. However, according to an official report to the U.S congress (which is cited now in the missile delivery entry) and according to other sources (which are easy to find and probably some of are already cited in this article)the short range delivery systems are out of service. The Jericho I (500 km range) is out of service and Israel is now belived to have Jericho II (1500 km range (medium), Israel arsenal includes about 100 such missiles) and Jericho III (widely referred by authoritative and professional sources as having range of no less than 6500 km and no longer than 11, 500 km with a payload of 1000kg, i.e., definitely considered as long range missile) in operational service. Israel diesel submarines fleet has a range of ~9000 km (or actually 4500 km back and forth, however increasing this range by naval refueling is possible) and they are widely belived to carry Israeli popeye turbo cruise missles with a medium range of 1500-2400 km, again-medium range delivery systems. The Israeli F-16 and F-15 have an operational range of ~4500 km ( ~2200 km back and forth ) without refueling, and much larger with (Israeli already proved that it can extended this range [3])-again, at least medium range ability. The shory range abilities are reserved as in all other nuclear countries to the use in tactical weapons where according to "Samson option" Israel can use short range specieal designed artillery and probably short range missiles and it can't be considered part of its nuclear traid which refer to stratgic abilities only. However, as Israel is small and hence cant disperse nuclear and airbases all over -it's appearently more vulnerable. More, diesel submarines can't stay underwater during all of their entire mission and hence the Israeli nuclear traid is more vulnerable than those of countries with nuclear submaines.-- Gilisa ( talk) 16:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Wrong Wording by Source:
"Israeli Nuclear Dolphin-class submarine"
That implies/means that the Dolphin has a nuclear Drive which is untrue. I would remove the word Nuclear or change it to "presumedly nuclear armed"
Currently aircraft section is about 60% how Israel lacks the 1960s style USAF Chrome Dome arctic long duration patrol bombers like the B-52 or the pre ICBM/SLBM era heavy bombers built and retired by the UK, France, and mostly by the USSR and China who now use them as cruise missile carriers. The case of the B-52 and to a far lesser extent Soviet Bear bomber is one for for attacking a superpower enemy in a massive landmass on an opposing hemisphere after safely in a holding area waiting for attack orders. How does this have relevance to the modern Israeli nuclear deterrent or this article? I feel that summarizing cited sources for aircraft and doctrine believed to represent the Israeli aircraft based force is sufficient and airborne patrol intercontinental bombers previously used by the US and to a far lesser extent the USSR in that role need not be mentioned in counterpoint as even those aircraft are no longer used in this way by any nuclear power at this point in history. Unless there is a reasoned and cited reason for inclusion I propose removing the cold war comparison from this section as currently I think we may have a problem with OR. Solomon(for now) 79.181.2.242 ( talk) 11:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The section now labeled "Other" contains a number of relatively speculative claims about Israeli nuclear weapons capabilities. Most problematic to me are those regarding the EMP effect. Two specific claims do not appear to be supported by the references cited. First, there is the claim about the importance of the high (1 megaton) yield which do not appear to be supported by the source (a U.S. Congressional hearing). In fact, the source says the EMP effect is only loosely correlated to yield. Second, there are specific claims about the relationship between the altitude of the explosion and its range that appear to be reasonable but do not appear to be supported by the references. My suggestion is to delete the bullet on EMP, since it is a generic nuclear weapons capability not linked to any specific claims about Israel. NPguy ( talk) 13:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
As this section mentions Iraq and Iran, shouldn't there be a brief bit about Israel's recent bombing of Syria's nuclear research facility? Fuzbaby ( talk) 04:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
"Although Israel first built a nuclear weapon in 1967-68"? and yet, it said in the begging that isreal is "widly belived to be 6h nation" with nuclear capabilitys, or somthing like tht. thats some what self contradictory, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 ( talk) 20:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I added new paragraph to the article's 1967-present section:
In a 2010 interview Uzi Eilam, former head of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission, told to the Israeli daily Maariv that the nuclear reactor in Dimona had been through extensive improvements and renovations and is now functioning as new, with no safety problems or hazard to the surrounding environment or the region.
Thia paragraph is based on this [6] daily newspaper article as a source. The source was asked for verfication by NPguy. The relevant paragraphes in the source are:
בלי להיכנס לתחום הביטחוני, כור עלול לגרום לבעיות סביבתיות קשות.
"הכור בצ'רנוביל נבנה לפי קריטריונים רוסיים שלא היו בטיחותיים מספיק. הכור בדימונה אמנם ישן, אבל מי שטוען שכור כזה מסוכן בטיחותית לא יודע מה עשו לכור מבחינת תחזוקה. עשו בו שיפורים כאלה שהיום הוא כמו כור חדש".
It is a question by the journalist, answered then by Uzi Eilam. It's under the section:
לא כל דבר צריך להיות נחלת כל הציבור
at the bottom of the article. If anyother Hebrew speaker can approve that the source say whay I argue it say, it would be
helpful.--
Gilisa (
talk)
09:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
בלי להיכנס לתחום הביטחוני, כור עלול לגרום לבעיות סביבתיות קשות.
Which is easily translated to: Without getting into specifics, nuclear reactor may cause severe enviromental problems.
Uzi Eilam then reply with this:
הכור בצ'רנוביל נבנה לפי קריטריונים רוסיים שלא היו בטיחותיים מספיק. הכור בדימונה אמנם ישן, אבל מי שטוען שכור כזה מסוכן בטיחותית לא יודע מה עשו לכור מבחינת תחזוקה. עשו בו שיפורים כאלה שהיום הוא כמו כור חדש".
Which is again easily translated to:
"The reactor in Chernobil was built according to Russian standards which were not safe enough. The reactor in Dimona is truely old, but anyone who argue that such reactor is an hazard don't know what was done with it in terms of maintaince, it had been through such an improvments that today it's like new one"
-- Gilisa ( talk) 07:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I added a new sub-section under the "Policy" section entitled "Sharing" with the following text: The government of Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the South African government, according to an analysis of documents of the apartheid government. Top secret minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that then Israeli Defense Minister Shimon Peres offered to sell the warheads to South Africa's then defence minister, P.W. Botha. The documents appear to undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that even if the Israeli government has nuclear weapons it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, since the Israeli government was willing to share nuclear warheads with the rogue apartheid regime. The Guardian, 24 May 2010, "Revealed: How Israel Offered to Sell South Africa Nuclear Weapons Exclusive: Secret Apartheid-Era Papers Give First Official Evidence of Israeli Nuclear Weapons," http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons. The office of President of the State of Israel Shimon Peres denied that there was "an exchange of nuclear weapons" between the governments of Israel and South Africa. Haaretz, 25 May 2010, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-denies-offering-nuclear-weapons-to-apartheid-south-africa-1.291800
This section was removed with the note "undue weight" because this story is already covered elsewhere in the article. While the SA documents are elsewhere mentioned in the context of documentary evidence for the existence of IL nukes, the alleged offer to "share" should be mentioned as part of IL nuke policy. Further, the Guardian article explains that this sharing aspect is relevant to IL claims with respect to non-proliferation and safety, which are also important in the sharing context.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 21:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
NYCJosh, I deleted your new section because it duplicated an existing section. We don't need two sections on the same topic. On the substance, I've had difficulty assessing the Guardian sources because of problems connecting to the Guardian's web site. Regardless, the Guardian conclusions are based on speculation about the meaning of seeming "code" words in the newly released memos. Whether one believes those conclusions, I think this article should reflect the fact that the Guardian is making a leap of logic, and that others dispute the logic. NPguy ( talk) 19:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons You raise two points: (1) Duplication. This issue, Israel's alleged offer to sell, is relevant to two different portions of the article. So, a brief couple of sentences is important for both, inlcuding the article's section on policy. Further, the section I contributed ADDS info and is not duplicative: it adds info relevant to the implications of the alleged sharing. (2)Speculation/analysis. The Guardian is a major newspaper and its analysis of the SA govt documents is noteable under WP rules and important for our article. If you wish to add some notable source refuting that analysis, feel free to propose it. I have no problem in principle with our article providing more than one interpretation of the SA docs. But such a second interpretation does not at all remove the notability for WP purposes of the Guardian analysis or its importance.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 22:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This week I added this:
This was removed with the comment this is "ephemeral news" and will be forgotten tomorrow. I think it's notable because it shows the position the US has taken and intends to take in the future regarding blocking IAEA resolutions on Israel's nukes. It comes from a senior US NSC official on Middle East issues.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
References
I'd just like to point out that Norway did more then just sell heavy water...
Declassified information have confirmed that...
This article in norwegian is about what aid the norwegian government offered and to some degree gave them...
And
here is some info proving that the norwegian government was aware of the Israeli wish to make nuclear weapons before the signing of the deals in question.
Just though I should inform you all.
Ps. All this info is in norwegian but it's possible to run them through various translators online like the google translator and get an ok understanding of the info.
Luredreier (
talk)
14:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Such as Hersh What the hell is this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.128.211 ( talk) 19:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
There were reports recently about confirmation for nuclear status of Dair az-Zor 2007 attack target, possibly from IAEA, IIRC. If someone has specifics and sources, I think it should be added to the article. WillNess ( talk) 09:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Where do Israel get it's uranium these day's ?
PS read this article it maybe interesting it's about a nuclear accident in the US in the 1960's that is related to Israel.
http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2011/10/19/americans-pay-dearly-to-maintain-israels-nuclear-secrets/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.93 ( talk) 19:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Israel is a rare (only?) case of a country possessing functional nuclear weapons but not openly announcing them. Most nuclear states want everyone to know as soon as the weapon works, because it is meant to be a deterrent. So why is Israel different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.76.119 ( talk) 05:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
(For full disclosure I have no political views on Israeli issues at all and have no history of editing Israel-orientated articles)
I recently edited the first line to say, "Israel possesses nuclear weapons, and is widely believed to have been the sixth state to do so". This was reverted on the grounds that Israel has not confirmed the fact. I must admit to being rather baffled by this. The public position of the government of the state of Israel is not the only source. On Wikipedia, we normally make a positive statement about something if there are sufficient authoritative sources to suggest that the statement is true. We do not say "X is widely believed", we simply say "X" and cite sources.
In this case, there are plenty of such authoritative sources cited throughout the body of the article. If there is controversy (ie other authoritative sources disagree) about the truth of statement "x" then such controversy can be described. Here there is no controversy. The sources say that Israel has nuclear weapons. The government of the state of Israel does not deny (or confirm) this. In fact no authoritative sources at all deny the fact. Whether or not Israel has an official policy of strategic ambiguity should be of no relevance to Wikipedia's collective encylopedic judgement. Does anybody have any real reason to doubt the statement, "Israel posses nuclear weapons"? Thom2002 ( talk) 07:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
"Israel is considered a nuclear threshold state. It is widely believed to have been the sixth country to develop nuclear weapons. This has never been openly confirmed or denied however, due to Israel's policy of deliberate ambiguity. [1]" IPWAI ( talk) 05:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this helps. First, there's no definition of a "threshold state," and second, it will not satisfy those who want a clear statement that Israel has nuclear weapons. In my view, it is better to say that Israel is "generally believed to possess" nuclear weapons but "does not acknowledge" having them than an unqualified claim that Israel "possesses" nuclear weapons. NPguy ( talk) 02:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Should this article's lead state clearly that Israel possesses nuclear weapons?
At the moment this is stated more ambigously as, "Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons". The official policy of the state of Israel is to neither confirm or deny that the statement is true. However, it is perfectly clear from the cited sources that Isreal does in fact possess these weapons. There does not appear to be any credible sources which deny this statement. To retain the qualifier, "widely believed" appears to be giving undue weight to the official position of the state of Isreal, which is only one source. Furthermore, the state of Israel does not deny the fact, it simply does not confirm it. Many other reliable sources referenced in the article do confirm the statement positively. There is a vast array of evidence to back the statement up in its less ambiguous form. Thom2002 ( talk) 21:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
It has been confirmed from multiple sources that Israel is in the possesion of nuclear weapons. Can we please edit certain parts of the article now and stop pretending Israel is only "Suspected' of being in possesion? I want the truth to be on Wikipedia, if people want to know if a certain country is in posession of certain weapons they should have the right to see facts and not some hush hush to protect the goverment from critic.
(Sorry for my bad English.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.44.108 ( talk) 10:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
While I saw several threads that reached a consensus with regards to the opening claim that Israel is "widely believed" to posses nuclear weapons as opposed to affirmatively making such a statement, the following clause affrimatively claims that it has built its first nuclear weapon in 1966.
To clarify, I believe that the wording of this dependent clause (first nuclear weapon) has been ambiguosly written outside of the scope of "widely believed."
Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons and to be the sixth country in the world to have developed them, having allegedly built its first nuclear weapon in December 1966.
Cheers, eyal3400
~There were better times. ( talk) 19:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it was Mearsheimer who said with respect to isr. nukes: "I mean, who do they think they can fool?" The cat is out of the bag for decades. Wikipedia is a very stupid wiki, not acknowledging reality. Kissinger 05:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zio jew ( talk • contribs)
Are there any real evidence that Israel has any nuclear weapons? As I see it, it is just rumours spread by israel themselfs to stear off an invasion from their neighbors without having to develope real nuclear weapons, that won't be used anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.155.36 ( talk) 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
A Spiegal article released today confirms that Israel has nuclear weapons: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/israel-deploys-nuclear-weapons-on-german-submarines-a-836671.html — unsigned added by 188.222.10.100 ( talk) 13:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
What it states is "The German government has known about Israel's nuclear weapons program for decades, despite its official denials." In other words Israel still does NOT claim to have such weapons. IPWAI ( talk) — undated added 04:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The references are a bit difficult to follow. Seymour Hersh is quite a prolific author, so when a lot of references simply point to "Hersh, 19" or some other terse source, the question becomes "What is this referring to"? In the reference listing, there is a "Hersh, Seymour (February 11, 2008). "A Strike in the Dark". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 23, 2008." and that is all. But it is listed after most of the short references. Farther down, there is this:
Hersh, Seymour M. The Samson Option. New York: Random House, 1991. ISBN 0-394-57006-5
Quite confusing. If all of the terse references refer to the book mentioned, it seems illogical to list it last without a preceding mention of it. And it is ambiguous to use the terse reference in light of the second source from the New Yorker article. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 19:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This seems a loaded, biased term. Some would describe the intent as "aggression". But, of course, the "narrative" of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" (USraeli corporate media) do not describe it like that. Fourtildas ( talk) 03:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
That article states : "During the night of October 8–9, an alarmed Dayan told Meir that "this is the end of the third temple."[273] He was warning of Israel's impending total defeat, but "Temple" was also the code word for nuclear weapons.[274] Dayan again raised the nuclear topic in a cabinet meeting, warning that the country was approaching a point of "last resort".[276] That night Meir authorized the assembly of thirteen 20-kiloton-of-TNT (84 TJ) tactical atomic weapons for Jericho missiles at Sdot Micha Airbase, and F-4 aircraft at Tel Nof Airbase, for use against Syrian and Egyptian targets.". This article does not mention this incident, but should cover it, as it implies that Israel could have started a nuclear war. How reliable are the reports on this ? Speculation ? Sounds to me like a warning to the US that arms shipments should start immediately, as there is no way the US would have tolerated a nuclear war risk. Rcbutcher ( talk) 07:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Reliably sourced enough to mention here? Hcobb ( talk) 14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
-- 86.161.110.166 ( talk) 20:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Everyone but wikipedia knows that they have nuclear submarines "Dolphin" as a free gift from Germany of all places. Kissinger 05:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — by Zio jew ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Nuclear weapons and Israel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nuclear weapons and Israel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
....I've just been reading this article, and have stumbled across the phrase "...desalinate a billion cubic gallons of seawater...". I hate to be too petty, but a "gallon" is a measure of volume anyway. A "cubic gallon" really doesn't make any sense... 81.99.236.225 ( talk) 23:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
While you may hate your pettiness, i for one thoroughly enjoy it. Tacticomed ( talk) 10:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Nuclear weapons and Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=283793When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Article currently reads in part Uranium enrichment could also be used to re-enrich reprocessed uranium into reactor fuel to more efficiently use Israel's uranium supply. That's a peculiar speculation, and frankly the sort of thing one often reads in anti-nuclear material. It's a pretty good guess that such material is the original source of this ridiculous unsourced statement.
Uranium enrichment produces enriched uranium and depleted uranium (DU), that is, uranium enriched and depleted in the fissile U-235. Yes, enriched uranium could be blended into reprocessed uranium, which is also deficient in U-235, in order to make it again usable as nuclear fuel. It's known as back-blending.
But what's the point? That's essentially reversing the enrichment process! Why not instead blend it with the depleted uranium from the enrichment process, avoiding the need to use uranium from reprocessed fuel (a hazardous and expensive process owing to fission products)? They're both depleted, and you have a surplus of them, so throw out the bad stuff (the spent fuel residue after perhaps removing the plutonium) and use the good stuff (the DU from the enrichment plant), surely?
But that's a ridiculous idea too. So better still, why not just stop the enrichment process at a lower level of U-235, the level you want to end up with, and not need to back-blend at all? That's by far the cheapest option, makes far better use of enrichment capacity (probably the most critical resource), and achieves exactly the same end product. Operate high-level enrichment stages only when you want to end up with HEU. Tap off your LEU as LEU earlier in the process.
Which is what the rest of the world does. And I'm guessing so do the Israelis. I admit it's a guess, but it's a better guess than the one in the article, don't you think? And neither guess should be in the article.
Back-blending has been done to use HEU from decommissioned warheads as reactor fuel. In that context it makes sense. But not in this one. Sorry. Andrewa ( talk) 07:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Nuclear weapons and Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Not meaning to push any barrows here, just get it a bit more readable. - Snori ( talk) 02:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
At a minimum, the range of stockpile estimates must be included. It is not redundant. NPguy ( talk) 02:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ NPguy: @ Wikaviani: Please stop edit warring, and explain what exactly about this edit is "controversial"? Moponoly ( talk) 14:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The fact that a comment says not to change without citing a reliable source and that the edit deletes the existing reliable source is an indication of editing against prior consensus. That is, the existing text is the result of settling past debates on the size of Israel's stockpile. This article has been the subject of some controversy. The high end estimate is something of an outlier and not a good basis for comparisons with other countries. If you want to propose changes, best to discuss them one at a time rather than making extensive edits all at once. NPguy ( talk) 21:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Bsherr: Thanks for your inclusion of the uncontroversial parts. Just a couple of details: you seem to have duplicated the text about development history in the lead, please remove the former one, and you also forgot to add the sources from the infobox to the stockpile estimation in the lead. Moponoly ( talk) 12:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Article states it was solo Israel, with no source.
Considering, then planning, an attack on a sovereign nation nuclear facilities, and executing it unilaterally does not make sense when one considers the blowback (of which there was almost none).
Most learned sources cite US and Israel at the least, with some (lesser cited and less reliable) including all 5 eyes involved.
Could Israel have done it itself? Perhaps, but the blowback from it's allies would have been sever.
Can't fix it since it's locked Tacticomed ( talk) 10:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
no mention of Security council resolution [S/RES/487(1981)] [1] [2] The reactor had been in operation since 1967 and Iran was in full compliance with IAEA inspections. Mr. Sigvard Eklund, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), presented his view of the events. Israel claimed the vault below the reactor was a secret plutonium factory which he countered by stating that the IAEA was fully aware of the vault and it housed the machinery that moves the control rods. [3]
This section is complete fabrication. UN documents, the IAEA and international community pointed out that Israel's version of events was not a reasonable account. 49.198.7.235 ( talk) 13:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
References
A unanimous Security Council vote approved a resolution that "strongly condemned" Israel for its destruction of an Iraqi nuclear reactor and urged Israel to open its nuclear plants to international inspection.
It has been stated by the Israelis that a laboratory located 40 meters below the reactor-the figure was later corrected to four meters which allegedly had not been discovered by IAEA inspectors had been destroyed. The existence of a vault under the reactor that has apparently been hit by the bombing is well known to the inspectors. That vault contains the control rod drives and has to be accessible to the staff for maintenance purposes. In order to protect the staff from radiation, the ceiling of the vault consists of a thick concrete slab which in turn is lined with a heavy steel plate and therefore, that space could not be used to produce plutonium.
An editor KasimMejia has added a long and quite interesting section on this topic. Two comments: First, it seems appropriate for its own article, but more detailed than appropriate for a section in this article. Second, it relies heavily on a single article in Ha'aretz, but ignores the extensive scholarship on this topic by Avner Cohen, including two books (Israel and the Bomb and The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's Bargain with the Bomb). NPguy ( talk) 20:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Netanyahu accidentally called Israel a "nuclear power" on 5 January 2020. [1] Worth including? b uidh e 12:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need a source for this statement: "According to US journalist Seymour Hersh, everything was ready for production at this time save an official order to do so."
Also, the first reference is incomplete. 96.236.195.47 ( talk) 18:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Amid all the "it is widely believed that", should we state clearly who has significantly stated that Israel has nuclear weapons? viz people (such as Jimmy Carter, here, 2008; Jared Kushner, here, 2023), governments, experts (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Notebook), Israeli officials, and international organisations. Onanoff ( talk) 19:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the corect version of the said quote is as follows (and i hold a digitsl copy of the original document from March 10 1965, and i am historian, i know what am i talking about: "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapon into the Arab-Israel region". NOTE!!! NOT "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapon into the middle east", BUT "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapon into the Arab-Israel region". Why is it important? because in 1965 there were at least two countries that already introduced nuclear weapon into the middle east: USSR and USA (and most probably France and the UK), that had nuclear submarines running all over the middle east. Thanks. (And I could mail you the document titled "Memorandum of Understanding".) 46.117.34.183 ( talk) 12:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:France and weapons of mass destruction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 00:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)