20

According to Wikipedia's page on Israel and weapons of mass destructioni:

Israel is widely believed to possess weapons of mass destruction, and to be one of four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The US Congress Office of Technology Assessment has recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared chemical warfare capabilities, and an offensive biological warfare program. Officially Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing nuclear weapons.

It is believed that Israel had possessed an operational nuclear weapons capability by 1967, with the mass production of nuclear warheads occurring immediately after the Six-Day War. Although no official statistics exist, it has been estimated that Israel possesses from 75 to as many as 400 nuclear weapons, which are reported to include thermonuclear weapons in the megaton range. Israel is also reported to possess a wide range of different systems, including neutron bombs, tactical nuclear weapons, and suitcase nukes. Israel is believed to manufacture its nuclear weapons at the Negev Nuclear Research Center.

The Israeli government maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity on whether it has nuclear weapons, saying only that it would "not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East." Former International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei regarded Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons. Much of what is known about Israel's nuclear program comes from revelations in 1986 by Mordechai Vanunu, a technician at the Negev Nuclear Research Center who served an 18-year prison sentence as a result. Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but supports establishment of a Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction.

It puzzles me that there is no concern in the world over whether Israel has nuclear weapons or not.

Community
  • 1
Persian Cat
  • 1,066
  • 1
  • 9
  • 26
  • 11
    What about those citations is insufficient? The wikipedia article seems to have provided you with a good deal of evidence, and I'm not sure what more I could add. – Publius May 08 '13 at 11:52
  • +1 So how is it possible to prove one country has these amounts of nuclear weapons and mass destruction weapons then leave it in silence and even protect it?! It was unbelievable for me and wanted to find may be it is because of doubtful claims not exact statistics. It seems the wiki source in the link was not enough for the UN but doubtful claims against Iraq and Iran weapons are enough! Am I wrong? :) – Persian Cat May 08 '13 at 11:58
  • 5
    We had very little evidence to suggest Iraq had nuclear weapons, but that's a rather different discussion. Having nuclear weapons does not make a country bad or unworthy of protection. The problem arises with the concern that the country may use those nuclear weapons offensively. Israel has rather strict criteria in place before it uses its nuclear weapons, and so we don't have to worry about them. – Publius May 08 '13 at 12:01
  • 1
    It may justify only countries which are protecting of Israel or America in Iraq war which after a period of time it made an scandal for America that there was no mass destruction weapon in Iraq! these kinds of reasoning are not acceptable in a world which the result of it may cause many innocent victims in Iraq and may be at future in Iran. It is dirty politics not justice and humanity. However I agree with you that this is off topic. Question is about something else so I suggest to come back to the question. – Persian Cat May 08 '13 at 12:05
  • 8
    Well the thing is, I think you answered your own question pretty well with the wikipedia article. Also, we have substantially more evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons than Iraq, so let's not think of the two situations as similar. With Iraq we had aluminum tubes. With Iran, we know they've enriched uranium to fissile levels, they've run nuclear simulations, they're attempting to fit their shahab-3 missiles with a nuclear payload, they've created atomic detonators, etc. – Publius May 08 '13 at 12:07
  • @Oddthinking Thanks for your nice edit. At finally I found your edit the best one after many changes by the other editors plus myself! :) – Persian Cat May 08 '13 at 14:09
  • 1
    *"It puzzles me that there is no concern in the world over whether Israel has nuclear weapons or not."* -- Is there really "no concern"? – Keith Thompson Sep 19 '13 at 19:00
  • @KeithThompson is correct. There is "concern is the world". But to find it, you must look at Israel's enemies (generally Arab nations), not its allies (generally Western nations). – Paul Draper Nov 01 '15 at 05:12
  • Just some food for thought: [Ex-US President Jimmy Carter has said Israel has at least 150 atomic weapons in its arsenal.](https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7420573.stm) and [Britain secretly sold Israel a key ingredient for its nuclear programme in 1958, according to official documents obtained by BBC News.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4743987.stm) and last but not least [Israel's nuclear programme – Israel built the Dimona plant with help from France](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3340639.stm) – e-sushi Oct 21 '16 at 15:27

3 Answers3

23

Yes, Israel has been known to have nuclear capability since the late 1960s.

As recently declassified documents show, they've reached secret agreement with US administration, which'd turn the blind eye. On the other hand Israel would maintain it's policy of deliberate ambiguity.

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 189

Israel Crosses the Threshold

Senior Nixon Administration Officials Considered Confronting Israel over Nuclear Weapons in 1969 but President Nixon Declined, Deciding that Washington Could Live with an Undeclared Israeli Bomb, According to Newly Declassified Documents and a Study in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Posted Today

Washington, DC, April 28, 2006 - Today the National Security Archive publishes for the first time 30 recently declassified U.S. government documents disclosing the existence of a highly secret policy debate, during the first year of the Nixon administration, over the Israeli nuclear weapons program. Broadly speaking, the debate was over whether it was feasible--either politically or technically--for the Nixon administration to try to prevent Israel from crossing the nuclear threshold, or whether the U.S. should find some "ground rules" which would allow it to live with a nuclear Israel. The documents published by the Archive are the primary sources for an article by Avner Cohen and William Burr, "Israel crosses the threshold," that appears in the May-June 2006 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. [...]

Among the key findings in the article:

  • 1969 was a turning point in the U.S.-Israeli nuclear relationship. Israel already had a nuclear device by 1967, but it was not until 1968-1969 that U.S. officials concluded that an Israeli bomb was about to become a physical and political reality. U.S. government officials believed that Israel was reaching a state "whereby all the components for a weapon are at hand, awaiting only final assembly and testing."

[...]

  • By 1975, in keeping with the understanding with Israel, the State Department refused to tell Congress that it was certain that Israel had the bomb, even though U.S. intelligence was convinced that it did.
vartec
  • 26,581
  • 5
  • 97
  • 155
  • 2
    Just a giant block quote. Add some text of your own with simple and easy to read explanations. – Wertilq May 08 '13 at 14:21
  • 19
    While a great find from historical point of view, one must note that the document is **proof that US Government *believed*** that Israel has nuclear weapons, NOT a proof that Israel has nuclear weapons (a seemingly minor semantic distinction that Saddam Hussein found out to be of paramount importance in 2000s). – user5341 May 08 '13 at 16:18
  • 3
    @DVK: did US ever believe Iraq had **ready to use** nuclear weapons? AFAIK there were only indicators that they might have started working on them. OTOH, official reason for the invasion were WMDs, but that was mainly about chemical weapons (coincidentally, US arms dealers were ones selling rockets and artillery shells for chemical weapons delivery during Iraq-Iran war). – vartec May 08 '13 at 16:23
  • 1
    @vartec - correct. I was pointing out the relationship of "US govt believes" and "Proven Reality", not equivalence between the state of readiness of weapons. – user5341 May 08 '13 at 16:25
  • Does "nuclear capability" in your summary mean the ability to produce nuclear weapons, or actually having nuclear weapons? – Andrew Grimm May 08 '13 at 22:54
  • 1
    @Andrew both actually – vartec May 09 '13 at 07:50
12

It's officially unknown.

Here is what is known to be true for sure (those, and only those, are the facts):

  • Israel has two atomic reactors, one in Soreq, near the city of Yavne, and one in the Negev, near the city of Dimona. (Wiki articles for both: Soreq, Negev (AKA Dimona))
  • The one in Sorek is open to visits, and will be closed by 2018. While the Negev reactor is highly classified and guarded by various means, the airspace above it is a no fly zone, and during the 6-days war, an Israeli fighter plane that accidentally entered that airspace was shot down
  • According to Israel, the nuclear reactors are used for science, education and disposal of radioactive materials. (See links in the first bullet).

  • The Israel government, or any official body, have never officially confirmed nor denied Israel's Nuclear capabilities. This policy even has a special name in Hebrew "עמימות גרעינית" or "Nuclear Ambiguity".

  • No other government (which isn't in war with Israel) has ever publicly and oficialy acknowledged that Israel has Nuclear weapons.

  • During an interview to a German TV station in 2006 Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister at the time said:

    they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?

    This, however, is not a full official acknowledgment. At the same interview Olmert said twice that Israel never claimed to have Nuclear Weapons, and on the next day said that there is no change in Israel's ambiguity policy, and that Israel will not be the first to introduce Nuclear weapons to the area.

There is a lot of speculation on the matter, most of it is presented very well in the wiki page that the question cites (this), and in the wiki about Israel's nuclear weapons

Why is Iran under sanctions while Israel gets a free pass?

Obviously, there is a lot more evidence for supposed Israeli nuclear capabilities than there are for Iran. Yet Iran is under international sanctions because of this suspicion and Israel isn't.

The difference is that Israel together with India ,Pakistan and South Sudan are the only nations in the world that have not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (North Korea has signed but later withdrawn from it) which says that only the U.S., USSR (now-days The Russian Federation), France, Britain and China will have nuclear weapons and will not proliferate them. Iran, unlike Israel, Pakistan and India has signed the treaty, which means that it has agreed to use Nuclear Energy only in a peaceful manner.

That is the difference between Iran and Israel, Pakistan and India, countries which are in a constant state of war for more than 60 years and have either admitted to have Nuclear weapons, or are suspecting of having them, but have never made a public obligation to not have them.

SIMEL
  • 29,037
  • 14
  • 123
  • 139
  • Great answer. I like how you explained the situation in more detail, and adding explanation about the treaty too. – Wertilq May 08 '13 at 14:24
  • 2
    Some part of your answer are off topic and only your own ideas. – Persian Cat May 08 '13 at 14:26
  • I'm missing the link between the Negrev reactor and nuclear weapons. – Oddthinking May 08 '13 at 15:34
  • @Oddthinking - In order to plausibly have nuclear weapons, one must have a nuclear reactor as part of manufacturing process. it's what's known in legalese as "circumstantial evidence". – user5341 May 08 '13 at 16:16
  • 1
    If South Sudan would suddenly try to build nuclear weapons the world community would probably condem it and threaten it with sanctions. The reason why Israel is treated differently are completely political. – Christian May 08 '13 at 18:22
  • 6
    @Christian - the reason is that there are plausible concerns that any weapons of mass destruction posessed by Sudan would become accessible - either by deliberate transfer or by accidentall loss - to terrorist groups willing to use them. There is no such concern about Israel since it's not known for either being a potential failed state nor a state likely to transfer WMDs to terrorist groups. If Denmark decides to build nuclear weapons, it would be treated similarly to Israel. – user5341 May 08 '13 at 18:31
  • @Christian, Pakistan has WMDs, it's an unstable Islamic dictatorship with strong Jihadist forces inside, in a proclaimed state of war with a democracy (India), and even has skirmishes with it. Nobody sanctions them. South Sudan is the youngest UN nation, and will probably sign that treaty eventually. If you have proof that the reason that Israel, Pakistan and India not sanctioned because of political reasons, please provide your evidence. – SIMEL May 08 '13 at 19:11
  • @Oddthinking, the Negev Reactor is where the nuclear weapons are supposedly manufactured. – SIMEL May 08 '13 at 19:13
  • 1
    @PersianCat, what parts? – SIMEL May 08 '13 at 19:13
  • What are the countries at war with Israel that state that Israel has nuclear weapons? – Andrew Grimm May 08 '13 at 23:05
  • 1
    @IlyaMelamed People are actually scared of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and the US government has plans in place to capture them in case of a governmental collapse. – Publius May 08 '13 at 23:43
  • 1
    @DVK, Ilya: I'll confess ignorance in this area, but I thought they "only" needed centrifuges to refine Uranium ore, not nuclear reactors. (Maybe it is different for Plutonium?) – Oddthinking May 09 '13 at 00:51
  • @Avi: Bold claim re: US government. Do you have references? – Oddthinking May 09 '13 at 00:53
  • @Oddthinking - Don't have one handy but I saw articles on the topic of worry (unsure about specific plans for capture, but as someone once noted, US government probably has plans to capture Elvis in case he ends up alive. They have contingency plans for everything. – user5341 May 09 '13 at 01:04
  • @Oddthinking, I also don't have the knowledge as to the process of creating nuclear weapons, but, if you enter the wiki links and read them, you'll see that all the claims talk about the weapons being produced in the Negev reactor. – SIMEL May 09 '13 at 06:53
  • @Oddthinking I don't have one, but I didn't realize I was making that bold a claim. sorry. – Publius May 09 '13 at 08:44
  • @IlyaMelamed : Making a policial unstable country more unstable through the usage of sanction seems like a very bad idea if your goal is to keep them out of the hand of extermists. Besides Pakistan is an US ally. The US needs Pakistan's cooperation enough that they can't pressure them with sanctions. DVK is right, Denmark wouldn't get sanctioned if it tried to build nuclear weapons. – Christian May 09 '13 at 10:08
  • @DVK : Thanks, for conceding the point I tried to make. – Christian May 09 '13 at 16:49
  • @Christian - if you think "Pakistan" is "US ally" you're either extremely naive or extremely uninformed about actual detailed situation in the region. There are certain political forces in Pakistan that see benefit to pursue policies that are somewhat beneficial to US. There are many other forces there that are either actively hostile to US interests, or politically oppose (as in want to kick from power) the first kind of forces. – user5341 May 09 '13 at 21:14
  • 2
    @DVK : From the perspective of the US I think it makes sense to call countries that get a over a billion of US dollar in a year in military aid as US allies. It certainly doesn't make sense to create embargoes while you try to buy someone's good will with military aid. – Christian May 10 '13 at 10:46
  • 1
    @Christian - when you pay off your local gangster to not attack your shop, he's NOT your ally. When you pay your grocer for your food, or your landlord for your rent, or an exterminator fee for killing roaches, they are not your allies. Pakistan situation is closer to #3+#4, but the point is that paying money proof of true alliance does not make. – user5341 May 10 '13 at 14:26
  • @Avi, The US had a plan to [invade Canada](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2070/did-the-u-s-plan-an-invasion-of-canada-in-the-1920s), and the US gov. and military probably have plans for a wide range of scenarios including Alien invasion, [Zombie outbreak](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/zombie-apocalypse-training-halo-corp_n_1889724.html) and invading each and every country on earth. This doesn't change the fact that Pakistan is an unstable despotic Islamic state with nuclear weapons and isn't under sanctions because of it. – SIMEL Jun 17 '13 at 10:39
  • 1
    @IlyaMelamed It's not a claim designed to contest the fact, it's a claim designed to explain its irrelevance. If you want additional reasons to be more worried about Iran's nuclear program, Iran is currently funding and training terrorist groups attacking civilians and western interests, and its leaders have expressed support of Israel's annihilation. – Publius Jun 17 '13 at 21:46
  • Thank you for the link to the Israeli plane being shot down over Dimona, that is a fascinating read. Note that the plane in question had sustained damage in Jordan and was not able to communicate. Thus, it was a plane coming in from hostile territory, in the middle of a war, refusing to identify itself. Most bodies involved seem to have considered it a good call at the time, though controversial. – dotancohen Aug 12 '15 at 14:04
  • 1
    @Avi When Israel assassinates Iranian scientists, isn't that terrorism? – money-printer Jan 02 '17 at 14:55
  • As I can understand the [automatically translated text](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=iw&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fiaf.org.il%2F3567-12812-HE%2FIAF.aspx&edit-text=), not an Israeli plane was shot down in the Dimona Area, but a Jordanian one, with a surface to air missile. The text doesn't detail, that its appearance in the Dimona area was a mistake or an intentional war maneuver. – Gray Sheep Mar 04 '17 at 17:22
  • @MorningStar, that is why you shouldn't rely on automatic translations, the auto translate translated "In Jordan" to "Jordan," note the "," after "Jordan" which indicates it's a location. It was an Israeli plane whose radio didn't work, the pilot was captain Yoram Harpaz, [here is](http://www.haaretz.com/misc/haaretzcomsmartphoneapp/.premium-1.651823) an article in English telling about it, among other things. – SIMEL Mar 04 '17 at 17:46
  • @SIMEL Thanks - I suggested your link as an edit. – Gray Sheep Mar 04 '17 at 17:56
-4

Article in The Times of Israel

well, if a senior IDFAF officer states it, I'd seriously consider it to be true :) (never mind the standard anti Semitic rants in the comments section to the article)

Now, Israel has always had an official policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of nuclear weapons in their arsenal, so unless they actually use one there's no way to ever be certain. But they are known to have the capability to produce them (the technology, reactors, etc.) and certainly a clear incentive, being surrounded by hostile nations (including at a distance Iran) who would like nothing better than to wipe out the Jewish state and its population, several of which countries are known or strongly suspected of having extensive stockpiles of chemical weapons and/or to be working on their own nuclear weapons (like Iran).

History Of Nuclear Weapons - Israel has a timeline and some estimates.

Of course with so much about Israel on the web being seriously questionable because of the anti-Israeli and anti Semitic propaganda which is so rampant, it's very hard to get objective data (a Google search found mostly sources that were little more than rants about "evil Jews wanting to destroy the world" and such, one source even claimed even Israel has used nuclear in combat against civilians, clearly bogus but makes for great propaganda if your audience are illiterate peasants in Syria or Iran).

The Britannica lists the existence as fact, and can usually be relied on.

As to it being no concern, remember that Israel is a peaceful nation that doesn't threaten its neighbors, employs its armed forces only in self defense, and even then uses great restraint to prevent civilian casualties where possible. They have also publicly stated they will not be the first to use weapons of mass destruction in the region, though you might take that as being meaningless as within the larger region chemical weapons have already been used in prolific amounts albeit not against Israel.

The main concern therefore becomes ensuring that Israel never comes into a situation where they have to choose between using nuclear weapons or being destroyed themselves, exactly the reason why Israel has a nuclear arsenal in the first place.

Andrew Grimm
  • 38,859
  • 36
  • 141
  • 342
jwenting
  • 3,904
  • 28
  • 29
  • This answer contains a lot of irrelevance. I'd trim it down to mostly just the citations. – Publius May 08 '13 at 12:12
  • it doesn't, without the background the information in the citations is meaningless in the context of the question. – jwenting May 08 '13 at 12:47
  • 2
    a. It's not "IDFAF", it's "IAF". b. Dan Halutz was the Chief of Staff of the IDF, not just a senior IAF officer. c. He doesn't say that Israel has Nuclear capabilities in that article, he is stating his opinion that the Iranian Reactor will could not be hurt by conventional bombs, he's implying it at the most. d. Everything written after the first sentence is irrelevant. – SIMEL May 08 '13 at 12:54
  • 1
    This post require LOTS of more work. To talky, not using quotes, too much wall of text. – Wertilq May 08 '13 at 14:10
  • 2
    I'd love to see a reference that Israel is peaceful, doesn't threaten its neighbours, etc. It reads as exactly the type of propaganda it warns against, – Oddthinking May 08 '13 at 15:37