US Declassifies Document Revealing Israel's Nuclear Program

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

It is not a matter as to whether I believe this or that. What matters is what the Regional Countries believe; or even care about.

So, you believe that the Israelis do not have nuclear weapons. Interesting.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, it is a weapon of last resort. As long as no Arab Army enters Israeli Territory, they have nothing to worry about. The political consequences for a "first strike" initiated by Israel would be politically catastrophic. And the use of such a weapon in any built-up area in the Arab World would be of a serious nature.

All the regional Kingdoms want is for Israel to hold the containment (status quo). That doesn't require a weapon.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

It is not a matter as to whether I believe this or that. What matters is what the Regional Countries believe; or even care about.

So, you believe that the Israelis do not have nuclear weapons. Interesting.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, it is a weapon of last resort. As long as no Arab Army enters Israeli Territory, they have nothing to worry about. The political consequences for a "first strike" initiated by Israel would be politically catastrophic. And the use of such a weapon in any built-up area in the Arab World would be of a serious nature.

All the regional Kingdoms want is for Israel to hold the containment (status quo). That doesn't require a weapon.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has used the conventional first strike option before. Why would they hesitate to do it again with nukes if they just felt threatened. For example, if they hit Teheran and Iranian nuclear facilities with a nuke because they believe that the agreement with Iran does not castrate Iran sufficiently? You and I know they are perfectly capable of doing so and with the protection of the U.S. there would not be serious consequences for Israel.

 

[member]

montelatici, et al,

It is not a matter as to whether I believe this or that. What matters is what the Regional Countries believe; or even care about.

So, you believe that the Israelis do not have nuclear weapons. Interesting.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, it is a weapon of last resort. As long as no Arab Army enters Israeli Territory, they have nothing to worry about. The political consequences for a "first strike" initiated by Israel would be politically catastrophic. And the use of such a weapon in any built-up area in the Arab World would be of a serious nature.

All the regional Kingdoms want is for Israel to hold the containment (status quo). That doesn't require a weapon.

Most Respectfully,
R

That's funny, to ME, in the case(s) of: Iran, yemen, afghanistan, iraq, "palestine," lebanon, syria, libya, pakistan, algeria, sudan, russia, uzbekastan, the congo, nigeria, no. korea, +++ +++ +++ --- IT WOULD BE "a weapon of FIRST resort."

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

It is not a matter as to whether I believe this or that. What matters is what the Regional Countries believe; or even care about.

So, you believe that the Israelis do not have nuclear weapons. Interesting.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, it is a weapon of last resort. As long as no Arab Army enters Israeli Territory, they have nothing to worry about. The political consequences for a "first strike" initiated by Israel would be politically catastrophic. And the use of such a weapon in any built-up area in the Arab World would be of a serious nature.

All the regional Kingdoms want is for Israel to hold the containment (status quo). That doesn't require a weapon.

Most Respectfully,
R

That's funny, to ME, in the case(s) of: Iran, yemen, afghanistan, iraq, "palestine," lebanon, syria, libya, pakistan, algeria, sudan, russia, uzbekastan, the congo, nigeria, no. korea, +++ +++ +++ --- IT WOULD BE "a weapon of FIRST resort."

None of those countries, the ones that have nukes, have used nukes against anyone. Why would you make such a silly statement?

 

[member]

montelatici, et al,

It is not a matter as to whether I believe this or that. What matters is what the Regional Countries believe; or even care about.

So, you believe that the Israelis do not have nuclear weapons. Interesting.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, it is a weapon of last resort. As long as no Arab Army enters Israeli Territory, they have nothing to worry about. The political consequences for a "first strike" initiated by Israel would be politically catastrophic. And the use of such a weapon in any built-up area in the Arab World would be of a serious nature.

All the regional Kingdoms want is for Israel to hold the containment (status quo). That doesn't require a weapon.

Most Respectfully,
R

That's funny, to ME, in the case(s) of: Iran, yemen, afghanistan, iraq, "palestine," lebanon, syria, libya, pakistan, algeria, sudan, russia, uzbekastan, the congo, nigeria, no. korea, +++ +++ +++ --- IT WOULD BE "a weapon of FIRST resort."

"None of those countries, the ones that have nukes, have'NT used nukes against anyone. Why would you make such a silly statement?"

Are you kidding me ? i wouldn't put it past them to nuke anything that isn't nailed down. please. they're capable of it. they can't wait. you must live on ...Mars or some other rocky planet in the universe ? certainly not on this ...... planet...

​

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes some of this is true.

montelatici, et al,

It is not a matter as to whether I believe this or that. What matters is what the Regional Countries believe; or even care about.

So, you believe that the Israelis do not have nuclear weapons. Interesting.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, it is a weapon of last resort. As long as no Arab Army enters Israeli Territory, they have nothing to worry about. The political consequences for a "first strike" initiated by Israel would be politically catastrophic. And the use of such a weapon in any built-up area in the Arab World would be of a serious nature.

All the regional Kingdoms want is for Israel to hold the containment (status quo). That doesn't require a weapon.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has used the conventional first strike option before. Why would they hesitate to do it again with nukes if they just felt threatened. For example, if they hit Teheran and Iranian nuclear facilities with a nuke because they believe that the agreement with Iran does not castrate Iran sufficiently? You and I know they are perfectly capable of doing so and with the protection of the U.S. there would not be serious consequences for Israel.

(COMMENT)

Yes, they have used the pre-emptive strike option (1967) before on provocation. But that was facing 3 Arab Contingents from three different directions. And they handled it quite well in a conventional warfare fashion. And in 1973, when there were moments of touch and go, the conventional warfare strategy work for them again.

If Israel had a tactical nuclear device, it would only be employed if the conventional strategies and options have failed them. If Israel was to be overrun, then they might consider using the weapon on targets considered politically acceptable.

But in your example, the Israelis would never consider a nuclear strike on Iran. And Teheran is not even a viable target. The Isfahan and Qom might be on the target list, or some strategic economic center (gas and oil fields) might be considered. But again, if Iran launch a nuclear weapon, the superpowers would burn Iran to the ground.

Yes, they are perfectly capable of doing it, as you say, but politically, they still have to live in the same world. And they would not want to jeopardize that. As long as Israel maintains equilibrium and hold the status quo, it is relatively safe.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[member]

montelatici, et al,

Yes some of this is true.

montelatici, et al,

It is not a matter as to whether I believe this or that. What matters is what the Regional Countries believe; or even care about.

So, you believe that the Israelis do not have nuclear weapons. Interesting.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, it is a weapon of last resort. As long as no Arab Army enters Israeli Territory, they have nothing to worry about. The political consequences for a "first strike" initiated by Israel would be politically catastrophic. And the use of such a weapon in any built-up area in the Arab World would be of a serious nature.

All the regional Kingdoms want is for Israel to hold the containment (status quo). That doesn't require a weapon.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has used the conventional first strike option before. Why would they hesitate to do it again with nukes if they just felt threatened. For example, if they hit Teheran and Iranian nuclear facilities with a nuke because they believe that the agreement with Iran does not castrate Iran sufficiently? You and I know they are perfectly capable of doing so and with the protection of the U.S. there would not be serious consequences for Israel.

(COMMENT)

Yes, they have used the pre-emptive strike option (1967) before on provocation. But that was facing 3 Arab Contingents from three different directions. And they handled it quite well in a conventional warfare fashion. And in 1973, when there were moments of touch and go, the conventional warfare strategy work for them again.

If Israel had a tactical nuclear device, it would only be employed if the conventional strategies and options have failed them. If Israel was to be overrun, then they might consider using the weapon on targets considered politically acceptable.

But in your example, the Israelis would never consider a nuclear strike on Iran. And Teheran is not even a viable target. The Isfahan and Qom might be on the target list, or some strategic economic center (gas and oil fields) might be considered. But again, if Iran launch a nuclear weapon, the superpowers would burn Iran to the ground.

Yes, they are perfectly capable of doing it, as you say, but politically, they still have to live in the same world. And they would not want to jeopardize that. As long as Israel maintains equilibrium and hold the status quo, it is relatively safe.

Most Respectfully,
R

"As long as Israel maintains equilibrium and hold the status quo, it is relatively safe."

"Iran, yemen, afghanistan, iraq, "palestine," lebanon, syria, libya, pakistan, algeria, sudan, russia, uzbekastan, the congo, nigeria, no. korea, +++ +++ +++..."

it's their equilibrium that's a threat to humanity.

"they still have to live in the same world.."

in the case(s) of yemen, etc.... they do live in their own frightening world.............but i'll pretend they live in the same world as me (to be politically correct, and not to offend anyone).

 

[RoccoR]

member, et al,

I would not worry about these countries. They are not nation builders or the architects of great societies.

"Iran, yemen, afghanistan, iraq, "palestine," lebanon, syria, libya, pakistan, algeria, sudan, russia, uzbekastan, the congo, nigeria, no. korea, +++ +++ +++..."
it's their equilibrium that's a threat to humanity.

(COMMENT)

While each is a detractor relative to the international community, gradually, the remainder of the international community will inch by them and leave then behind. There will always be breeding grounds for terrorist, Jihadist and insurgents, these countries are self destructive without any external assistance.

The discussion that the international community has yet to have, is about cutting losses. When a culture like the Palestinians goes more than a hundred years without a significant development, do we write them off. Or do we endlessly throw money at the culture that is perpetually hostile and sees itself as a victim --- because they did not get want they wanted; or what they thought they deserved. When we have places like Afghanistan and Yemen, stuck in time, traveling backwards, when do we write them off and move on to a more deserving culture.

We don't have all the answers yet, simply because we are too politically correct and don't want to hurt anyones feelings. But sooner or later, we are going to make the determination about how to handle stagnant, violent, and unproductive cultures and how to eradicate these growing dangers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[member]

member, et al,

I would not worry about these countries. They are not nation builders or the architects of great societies.

"Iran, yemen, afghanistan, iraq, "palestine," lebanon, syria, libya, pakistan, algeria, sudan, russia, uzbekastan, the congo, nigeria, no. korea, +++ +++ +++..."
it's their equilibrium that's a threat to humanity.

(COMMENT)

While each is a detractor relative to the international community, gradually, the remainder of the international community will inch by them and leave then behind. There will always be breeding grounds for terrorist, Jihadist and insurgents, these countries are self destructive without any external assistance.

The discussion that the international community has yet to have, is about cutting losses. When a culture like the Palestinians goes more than a hundred years without a significant development, do we write them off. Or do we endlessly throw money at the culture that is perpetually hostile and sees itself as a victim --- because they did not get want they wanted; or what they thought they deserved. When we have places like Afghanistan and Yemen, stuck in time, traveling backwards, when do we write them off and move on to a more deserving culture.

We don't have all the answers yet, simply because we are too politically correct and don't want to hurt anyones feelings. But sooner or later, we are going to make the determination about how to handle stagnant, violent, and unproductive cultures and how to eradicate these growing dangers.

Most Respectfully,
R

"...stuck in time"

 

[montelatici]

I would not count on a tiny minority living in an area controlling a portion of a massive majority surviving for the long-term. But who knows. But I would not bet on it.

 

[toastman]

montelatici, et al,

It is not a matter as to whether I believe this or that. What matters is what the Regional Countries believe; or even care about.

So, you believe that the Israelis do not have nuclear weapons. Interesting.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, it is a weapon of last resort. As long as no Arab Army enters Israeli Territory, they have nothing to worry about. The political consequences for a "first strike" initiated by Israel would be politically catastrophic. And the use of such a weapon in any built-up area in the Arab World would be of a serious nature.

All the regional Kingdoms want is for Israel to hold the containment (status quo). That doesn't require a weapon.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has used the conventional first strike option before. Why would they hesitate to do it again with nukes if they just felt threatened. For example, if they hit Teheran and Iranian nuclear facilities with a nuke because they believe that the agreement with Iran does not castrate Iran sufficiently? You and I know they are perfectly capable of doing so and with the protection of the U.S. there would not be serious consequences for Israel.

So because they pre emptively struck Egypt before, that means they are prone to using nukes? No way. Nukes are a completely different story, and Israel would never use them unless their existence is in SERIOUS jeopardy or someone nukes them first.

 

[Phoenall]

So, you claim that Israel does not have nuclear weapons. Interesting.

Now where did I write that abdul

 

[Phoenall]

So, you believe that the Israelis do not have nuclear weapons. Interesting.

Do you believe that iran is not enriching uranium to make a nuclear weapon ?

 

[Phoenall]

I would not count on a tiny minority living in an area controlling a portion of a massive majority surviving for the long-term. But who knows. But I would not bet on it.

What are you smoking ?

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

It is not a matter as to whether I believe this or that. What matters is what the Regional Countries believe; or even care about.

So, you believe that the Israelis do not have nuclear weapons. Interesting.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, it is a weapon of last resort. As long as no Arab Army enters Israeli Territory, they have nothing to worry about. The political consequences for a "first strike" initiated by Israel would be politically catastrophic. And the use of such a weapon in any built-up area in the Arab World would be of a serious nature.

All the regional Kingdoms want is for Israel to hold the containment (status quo). That doesn't require a weapon.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has used the conventional first strike option before. Why would they hesitate to do it again with nukes if they just felt threatened. For example, if they hit Teheran and Iranian nuclear facilities with a nuke because they believe that the agreement with Iran does not castrate Iran sufficiently? You and I know they are perfectly capable of doing so and with the protection of the U.S. there would not be serious consequences for Israel.

Because they are not muslims is why they wont do it. The muslims hold life so cheap that they will sacrifice 2000 so they can kill one enemy. As the Iranian leader said when they get nuclear weapons they will unleash them on Israel and they don't care if 10 million muslims die as a result as long as Jews die as well. So to keep the whole of the Islamic world on its toes Israel has neither admitted nor denied that it has a nuclear weapons capability. They have made no threats of possible retaliation or first strike using nuclear weapons and have managed to deal with attacks using conventional means. So destroying your DEMONISATION AND RACIST ATTACKS on the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

It is not a matter as to whether I believe this or that. What matters is what the Regional Countries believe; or even care about.

So, you believe that the Israelis do not have nuclear weapons. Interesting.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, it is a weapon of last resort. As long as no Arab Army enters Israeli Territory, they have nothing to worry about. The political consequences for a "first strike" initiated by Israel would be politically catastrophic. And the use of such a weapon in any built-up area in the Arab World would be of a serious nature.

All the regional Kingdoms want is for Israel to hold the containment (status quo). That doesn't require a weapon.

Most Respectfully,
R

That's funny, to ME, in the case(s) of: Iran, yemen, afghanistan, iraq, "palestine," lebanon, syria, libya, pakistan, algeria, sudan, russia, uzbekastan, the congo, nigeria, no. korea, +++ +++ +++ --- IT WOULD BE "a weapon of FIRST resort."

None of those countries, the ones that have nukes, have used nukes against anyone. Why would you make such a silly statement?

Has Israel used a nuke against another nation, or even threatened to use them. If not then you are warmongering and trying to DEMONISE and RACIALLY ATTACK Israel

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Yes some of this is true.

montelatici, et al,

It is not a matter as to whether I believe this or that. What matters is what the Regional Countries believe; or even care about.

So, you believe that the Israelis do not have nuclear weapons. Interesting.

(COMMENT)

In the case of Israel, it is a weapon of last resort. As long as no Arab Army enters Israeli Territory, they have nothing to worry about. The political consequences for a "first strike" initiated by Israel would be politically catastrophic. And the use of such a weapon in any built-up area in the Arab World would be of a serious nature.

All the regional Kingdoms want is for Israel to hold the containment (status quo). That doesn't require a weapon.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel has used the conventional first strike option before. Why would they hesitate to do it again with nukes if they just felt threatened. For example, if they hit Teheran and Iranian nuclear facilities with a nuke because they believe that the agreement with Iran does not castrate Iran sufficiently? You and I know they are perfectly capable of doing so and with the protection of the U.S. there would not be serious consequences for Israel.

(COMMENT)

Yes, they have used the pre-emptive strike option (1967) before on provocation. But that was facing 3 Arab Contingents from three different directions. And they handled it quite well in a conventional warfare fashion. And in 1973, when there were moments of touch and go, the conventional warfare strategy work for them again.

If Israel had a tactical nuclear device, it would only be employed if the conventional strategies and options have failed them. If Israel was to be overrun, then they might consider using the weapon on targets considered politically acceptable.

But in your example, the Israelis would never consider a nuclear strike on Iran. And Teheran is not even a viable target. The Isfahan and Qom might be on the target list, or some strategic economic center (gas and oil fields) might be considered. But again, if Iran launch a nuclear weapon, the superpowers would burn Iran to the ground.

Yes, they are perfectly capable of doing it, as you say, but politically, they still have to live in the same world. And they would not want to jeopardize that. As long as Israel maintains equilibrium and hold the status quo, it is relatively safe.

Most Respectfully,
R

During the Gulf War Israel had the perfect opportunity to use nuclear weapons against Iraq when they fired Scud missiles at them. Israel was not taking part in the Gulf War yet Iraq decided to attack Israel hoping to escalate the war and bring in other Islamic nations to help them. All Israel did was quietly mourn the dead and buried them with dignity, they did not make a propaganda film out of it and make false claims about the Iraqi's. Unlike the muslims do with Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

I would not count on a tiny minority living in an area controlling a portion of a massive majority surviving for the long-term. But who knows. But I would not bet on it.

Why not a tiny minority living in Islamic nations control the majority of the populating and have done for 1400 years. Or don't you see the reality when it is right in front of you and Islamic.

 

[montelatici]

Where is a tiny minority ruling a large majority in an Islamic nations outside of Syria (where the Alawites are about to be overthrown and Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion where the Sunni were overthrown.

 

[Phoenall]

Where is a tiny minority ruling a large majority in an Islamic nations outside of Syria (where the Alawites are about to be overthrown and Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion where the Sunni were overthrown.

Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, Iran, Pakistan do you want me to go on and name every Islamic nation dumbo