Why the U.S. should start telling the whole truth about Israeli nukes

[Celerity]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/19/israel-nuclear-weapons/

https://archive.is/Jn2We



With the Israel-Hamas war, a nuclear Rubicon of sorts has been crossed: Two elected Israeli officials — a government minister and a member of parliament — not only publicly referenced Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons but suggested that they be detonated over Gaza. This was a disturbing first. Meanwhile, in Washington, a long-standing secret executive order has prohibited American officials from even acknowledging that Israel has nuclear arms. Given the increasing risks of nuclear weapons proliferation — and, worse, use — continuing such self-censorship about Israel’s nuclear arsenal is not just bizarre; it’s harmful.

One of us directs a national security research center, which last month conducted an unclassified Israel-Iran nuclear war game. Israel fired nuclear weapons against Iran twice (using a total of 51 weapons) and Iran replied with a nuclear strike of its own. Surprisingly, the strategic uncertainties following the exchange were greater than those that preceded it. The questions we were gaming were: How much damage might Israeli nuclear strikes inflict against Iran’s nuclear and missile sites, infrastructure and population? Would Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities be incapacitated, or are they buried so deep they would survive? Would the region’s economies be “knocked out” by such a nuclear exchange or just “jolted?” Would Washington, Moscow or Beijing be drawn into the conflict? In what way?

None of the participants in the war game was confident they could answer any of these questions. One of the best ways to clarify these matters is for American and Israeli experts and officials to peek into the future by gaming different nuclear war scenarios. Yet U.S. policy makes this impossible. Why? Because a course of action adopted half a century ago prohibits cleared U.S. employees from openly admitting Israel has nuclear arms. In the late 1960s and 1970s, this might have made sense: The last thing Washington or Tel Aviv wanted was to goad the Soviets into sharing nuclear weapons or technology with Egypt or Syria to “balance” whatever nuclear weapons Israel had.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, though, Washington doubled down on this know-nothing stance in part due to Israeli pressure. Tel Aviv demanded President Bill Clinton and every subsequent American president commit to a secret agreement that the United States will not press the Jewish state to give up its nuclear weapons so long as it continues to face existential threats. When this practice began, the White House also promulgated a regulation — described in an Energy Department classification bulletin — that threatens present and past government employees with disciplinary action, including firing, if they publicly acknowledge Israel has nuclear weapons. So far, the regulation has been withheld from public release.

snip

[qwlauren35]

1. I always assumed they had them.

I’m sure lots of people did.

[Kennah]

2. Ukraine was pressured to give up it's nukes, and here we sit today

[Xolodno]

19. I see that get tossed around here a lot. It's a bit more complicated.

Much of the Soviet nukes they had were on their way to becoming obsolete and decommissioned/recycled. And there were economic factors at play, Ukraine at the time could not afford to decommission them and continued maintenance was going to be a heavy burden on the new young struggling economy.

Nor did they have the infrastructure or enough with the skill set to decommission, much less develop upgraded nukes. Thus creating a very hazardous situation when they started to deteriorate. Belarus faced similar problems, so both of them saw it the most cost efficient way to off load them to Russia and let it absorb the price tag.

I get it, its a nice one liner that gets emotions stirred. However, realistically, there was no way those nukes were going to stay in Ukraine or Belarus, with or without an agreement. If they held on to them, they would no doubt eventually face an environmental disaster and they were still fresh off of Chernobyl. Worse, given the chaos after the break up of the USSR, there was a real danger of a nuke(s) being appropriated nefariously. Illegal arms sellers were already trying to get their hands on them to sell.

[Kennah]

20. Russia and the US promised Ukraine security, and they haven't kept their word. Facts oneliners.

[Xolodno]

23. And I'm simply positing additional facts.

That being, there is more to what was going on.

[Kennah]

24. You're attributing to monsters the ability to apprehend nuance

Putin is a strongman, and if he perceives weakness, then he attacks and invades. He wasn't challenged in 2014, he thinks Biden is weak, so he attacks Ukraine. Yes, he underestimated Biden's ability to rally the world against Putin, but that doesn't change the fact that Ukrainians are dying needlessly when we could have shown the dog, Putin, a big stick.

[Xolodno]

25. Don't know where that's coming from.

I was only addressing the point in regards to Ukraine keeping nukes and the difficulty in doing so.

[DBoon]

26. Nukes require constant maintenance and regular testing

Ukraine would either have to spend heavily for this or have an existing nuclear power do it for them

[Kennah]

31. This could be said of several countries with nukes and probably less technical competence than Ukraine

[former9thward]

3. Israel will never give up its nuclear weapons, nor should they.

[Voltaire2]

4. North Korea will never give up their nukes.

Nor should they?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

5. Wow. comparing N. Korea with Israel?

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

[Voltaire2]

6. I'm sorry but which city is NK besieging?

Whose territory are they occupying?

Is a huge portion of North Korea’s population legally discriminated against?

Sure NK is a Stalinist nightmare, but they have legitimate security concerns, just like Israel does. So if it is ok for Israel to have nukes, why isn’t it also ok for North Korea?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

7. I never said that the Norks couldn't have nukes.

[Voltaire2]

11. Ok then we are in agreement.

I’m ok with Israel having nukes too.

Here’s a fun one: Iran.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

15. I'm not ok with anyone having nukes,

but here we are.

[Voltaire2]

28. Its one or the other.

Either no nation is allowed to have nukes, or all nations are allowed to have nukes. I'd prefer no nations. We were actually moving in that direction, back before we went batshit crazy after 9-11. Within that historical era I supported the treaty limits on nuclear expansion. But that treaty really was also based on the assumption that a gradual disarmament would continue and we would get to a total ban. We left that behind, so has Russia, China is expanding their nukes, NK has joined the club, Israel joined a long time ago, etc. etc.

[The Magistrate]

10. I Would Say The Difference Is This, Sir

I don't care a fig for the 'security concerns' of a Stalinist nightmare not under any actual military threat for three-quarters of a century.

I do have some sympathy for the security concerns of a democratic state established as a haven for Jews which has, over that same period, been put to several wars aimed at ending its existence, and which is presently under sustained attack by genocidal religious fanatics, who began these most recent hostilities with a spree of sadistic rape, torture, murder, and kidnapping.

[Voltaire2]

14. So the basis for determining who should be

allowed to have nukes is ‘I like them’?

Seems like a massively arbitrary policy.

[The Magistrate]

17. Is There Really Another One, Do You Think?

In a conflict one takes a side. I side against North Korea, and with Israel, for the reasons I have given.

It's hardly a question of 'anyone with nuclear weapons is wrong to have them' or 'if somebody gets nuclear weapons everybody gets to have them'.

[Voltaire2]

30. Yes of course there are.

We had a reasonable non-arbitrary approach with the NNPT controlling the spread of nuclear nations while concurrently the US and Russia were moving toward full disarmament.

The end goal was no nation would have nukes. We were actually getting there.

All that is over. The US and Russia are modernizing and upgrading and arbitrarily abandoning treaty obligations. China is increasing its nuclear forces. TSF blew up the Iran deal for no good reason, ending any hope of keeping them out of the club.

[The Magistrate]

34. If You Actually Think The US And Russia Were Seriously Intending To Foreswear Nuclear Weapons, Sir

I can't imagine a sensible conversation with you on the matter.

I will content myself with pointing out that the treaty had, as its sole practical effect, that some countries were barred from developing nuclear weapons, while others were continued in possession of them.

Nuclear weapons are a sort of 'don't tread on me' banner, marking that there are limits to how far the state possessing them can be pushed or threatened. If I were head of any government hostile to the United States, in the wake of our overthrow of Saddam in Iraq, I would be bending every effort to acquire a nuclear capability. That doesn't mean I support their getting such weapons, or want such in their possession. I prefer such regimes as that of Iran and North Korea be unable to hoist such a banner, and I am not such a fool as to feel any duty be fair to a foe anywhere but in a sporting contest. Which the clash of interests and states most certainly is not.

No state has any right to anything, save the customary right to do whatever it can without being halted by external powers or internal stresses.

[Voltaire2]

35. They actually were both engaged

In a progression of treaties, from Reagan and Gorbachev through the pre Putin years of the federal republic, that was reducing and restricting and monitoring the nuclear weapons of both nations. That you are not aware of this indeed makes any further discussion pointless.

Good Day, ‘sir’.

[The Magistrate]

37. I Just Don't Take The Press Releases Seriously, Sir

I don't even disapprove of the treaties and recommendations. I like it when people aspire to better behavior. I just don't expect them to follow through. No power on Earth has ever given up voluntarily possession for potential use of a formidable weapon. None ever will.

[Voltaire2]

38. Part of the process was mutual verification, but this discussion is pointless.

If you think the arms reduction process was just a bunch press releases, then we cannot have a reasonable discussion.

[The Magistrate]

39. I Agree, Sir

Countries in possession of nuclear weapons will continue to possess them. Countries which do not now will meet obstruction in efforts to obtain them, but any state with the capability to produce nuclear weapons on its own hook will get them if its desire or need for them is serious enough. Quite likely, just as there are people wandering about with a pistol on their hip who aren't fit to be entrusted with anything more lethal than a popsicle stick, some country or other will come into possession of nuclear weapons which ought not to have them. I don't know of any standard but my own by which I might judge which those are.

[TheKentuckian]

22. Besieging? To the degree they can South Korea and to a degree Japan.

The 38th parallel is still quite in effect.

Also, irrelevant.

Russia is currently trying to amex Ukraine as we type.

We invaded Iran.

Nobody is taking away or even talking nonsense in such a direction from either.

[BannonsLiver]

8. Hamas has been labeled "freedom fighters like Mandela" by one member

It can always get lower when folks have the confidence to lower the masks.

[Voltaire2]

13. I'm sorry but how is asking about NK's nukes

equivalent to ‘praising Hamas’?

Did i somehow praise North Korea?

[ripcord]

36. The difference is that Israel has proven their responsibility with nukes

In 1967 and 1973 when Israel was attacked by overwhelming Arab forces they had nuclear weapons and even though they were almost overrun at the start of the Yom Kippur war the never went nuclear. Isreal has proven their responsibility with nuclear weapons in a way no other country has had to.

Now two extremist lawmakers have gone off the reservation and people with an agenda are acting like it is Isaeli policy. That is like considering the lunacy of Boebart and MTG to be reflective of U.S.policy.

[Celerity]

9. Israel minister renews call for striking Gaza with 'nuclear bomb'

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240124-israel-minister-renews-call-for-striking-gaza-with-nuclear-bomb/

Far-right Israeli Jerusalem Affairs and Heritage Minister, Amichai Eliyahu

An Israeli lawmaker says Israel should use nuclear weapons against Hamas.

Revital "Tally" Gotliv wrote on X that she thinks it is time to fire "powerful missiles without limit."

https://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-lawmaker-urged-government-to-use-nuclear-weapons-against-hamas-2023-10

Link to tweet

Someday, one of these type of death cult religio-fash loons may well get their finger on the nuke button and PUSH IT.

[The Magistrate]

12. Unfortunately True, Ma'am

One of these is several months old, the other several weeks old, it is worth noting. Still, we'd all be better off without fanatics.


"We've all got our little lists of those who'd never be missed."

[brush]

27. Insanity. Like nuke fallout would stay only within the borders of Gaza.

Who are these morons making these statements?

[revmclaren]

16. The links below explain in detail why Israel

has nuclear weapons, and why they will never give them up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

This knowledge has been available for decades and is what has kept the other Middle Eastern countries at bay. This is also why Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia etc use terrorist proxies to attack them instead of direct military action.

M.A.D. is a powerful deterrent. All nuclear armed countries have their own versions.

But it should be very clear to everyone...when Israel says never again, they absolutely mean it.

And before anyone says it, no...I don't support Netanyahu. He needs to be gone. But any other leader taking his place will still keep the nukes locked and loaded. The hatred for Israel
and Jewish people in general has been proven a thousand times over. It has even seeped into this domain. Luckily MIRT and DUs jury system keeps most at bay.

Most....

[sarisataka]

18. What truth? That Israel has/can produce nuclear weapons?

Worst kept secret since the location of where bears defecate.

[malaise]

21. Madness

That is all

[David__77]

29. The future is a world of mutually assured destruction. Many states will have the capacity to cause "doomsday".

Of course the US should recognize that states that have nuclear weapons indeed possess them.

[ripcord]

32. Israel had legitimate security concerns when they bought yellow cake uranium from the Argentines in '63

The Arabs had launched attacks repeatedly against Israel with the announced goal of genocide. The fact is that for the last two of those wars Israel had nuclear weapons and didn't use them in spite of almost getting overrun at the start of the Yom Kippur war in 1973. I wonder how many other countries would have shown that kind of restraint?

[leftstreet]

33. DURec