Tuesday, September 2, 2014

“Money”: a Virtual Digital Particle Created by Keystrokes | Pump and Dump: How to Rig the Entire IPO Market with just $20 Million

this_and_that_300
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/
Wolf here: occasionally I highlight comments that add a different angle or flavor or an illustration or more depth to an article published on Wolf Street. This comment by “RDE” is in response to my article, Pump and Dump: How to Rig the Entire IPO Market with just $20 Million (read over 10,000 times so far and still going strong). I chose the comment because it’s hilarious, but so true in many ways!  All kinds of funny words in this article—

“Investment”: The purchase of a casino chit for a casino that is rumored to exist.

“Market”: The quaint notion of a place where buyers and sellers meet to collectively establish value and pricing.

“Valuation”: See above.

“Money”: a virtual digital particle created by keystrokes at the private Federal Reserve central bank that assumes quantum reality when loaned into existence, thus creating an energy state of debt servitude.  Originally connected to “valuation” — a connection long since dissolved and replaced by the debt servitude energy field. By commenter “RDE”

Wolf here: if you have your own favorite “funny words,” as RDE calls them, and some good definitions, include them below in the comments. If we come up with enough of these words, I might collect them and post them (with attribution) as sort of a mini-dictionary to be expanded and updated as we go.  (comment)  Rule of Law: The rule that states that a law can be purchased by prior investment in political power. (see Jon Corzine)


How much does it cost to manipulate an entire market? Not much. And it’s getting cheaper!

It was leaked on Tuesday by “people with knowledge of that matter,” according to the Wall Street Journal, that VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers had decided in May to plow up to $20 million into message-app maker Snapchat, for a tiny portion of ownership. An undisclosed investor also committed some funds. The deal, which apparently hasn’t closed yet, would give Snapchat a valuation of $10 billion.

That’s a big step up from November last year, when the valuation was $2 billion. At the time, the company had raised $130 million in three rounds of funding. By now that would be closer to $160 million, after it was also leaked that Russian investment firm DST Global had put some money into it earlier this year, boosting its valuation to $7 billion at the time, once again, “according to two people familiar with the matter.”

At a valuation of $10 billion, it joins the top of the heap: app makers Uber ($18.2 billion) and Airbnb ($10 billion), cloud storage outfit Dropbox ($10 billion), and Palantir, the Intelligence Community’s darling ($9.3 billion).

Unlike the others in that group, Snapchat is marked by the absence of a business model and no discernable revenues. But there is hope that it could eventually pick up some revenues by advertising to its 100 million or so users, mostly teenagers and college students, without turning them off.

But in this climate, no revenues, no problem. Into the foreseeable future, the company will produce a thick stream of undisclosed red ink.

But the investment was an ingenious move.

For KPCB, a huge VC firm, the investment would amount to petty cash. Why did it do this deal? If it could exit at an enormous valuation of $20 billion, it would only double its money – a paltry multiple, given the risks. It would only make $20 million, still petty cash. But there was a reason….

By strategically deploying less than $30 million, KPCB, and DST Global before it, have ratcheted up Snapchat’s valuation from $2 billion to $10 billion. With the stroke of a pen, in a deal negotiated behind closed doors, they have created an additional $8 billion in “wealth” that is now percolating through the minds of employees with stock options and through the books of the early investment funds.

Snapchat’s new valuation isn’t an isolated event. It’s a product of all recent valuations, and it is itself now ricocheting around and is used to set the valuations at other startups. That’s the multiplier effect. What seemed like an absurd valuation yesterday becomes the norm tomorrow, on the time-honored principle that once a valuation is already absurd, it no longer faces resistance from any rational limit. And nothing stands in the way for the multiplier effect to ratchet valuations ever higher.

Nothing, except the potentially troublesome exit for these investors. Because, without exit, these paper gains will remain paper gains, and eventually will disintegrate into dust.

To exit gracefully, investors can sell the company via an IPO mostly to mutual funds and ETFs that are stashed in retirement funds and investment portfolios. Or they can sell it to giants like Facebook or Google that can pay cash (borrowed or not) or print their own currency by issuing shares, both of which come out of the pocket of current stockholders. At the far end of both transactions are mostly unwitting retail investors.
Inflating Snapchat’s valuation by $8 billion with a few million dollars rigs the entire IPO market that depends on buzz and hype and folly to rationalize these blue-sky valuations. Unnamed people “knowledgeable in the matter” who leak these valuations to the Wall Street Journal are an integral part of the hype machine: It balloons the valuations of other startups. And it creates that “healthy” IPO market where money doesn’t matter, where revenues and profits are replaced by custom-fabricated metrics.

The hope is that the IPO market remains “healthy” long enough for investors to be able to unload hundreds of these companies at crazy valuations. The hype surrounding these valuations is creating more enthusiasm about IPOs in a self-reinforcing loop. The hope is also that the broader stock market continues to soar so that potential acquirers can print more overvalued shares to acquire more overvalued startups so that the exists can come about. Under the motto: after us the deluge.

The deluge will wash over retail investors.

While it’s possible that one or the other startup might become the next Facebook or Google, there are only a few Facebooks and Googles, but there are many startups whose business model and permanent lack of profits will eventually bring them down to reality, either in the portfolios of retail investors, or as a write-off by the acquirers, whose shares are also stuffed into the nest eggs of retail investors. Along the way, Wall Street extracts fees from all directions. That’s the Wall Street money transfer machine. It smells like a rose when all stocks go up, but when the tide turns…. OK, that won’t ever happen.

http://wolfstreet.com/2014/08/28/how-to-rig-the-entire-ipo-market-with-just-20-million/

With fundamentals and economic realities having become totally irrelevant these days, economists are reassigned to tout stocks. Read…. Economist: Stocks No Longer Risky, Will Go Up ‘Steadily’ 

The Grand Saudi Reversal by Thierry Meyssan

JPEG - 23.7 kb
In this photograph released by the Islamic Emirate, we see one of its fighters armed with a French Famas while Paris denies any contact with this organization. In reality, France has armed the Free Syrian Army with instructions to donate two-thirds of its equipment to the Al-Nosra Front (that is to say, Al Qaeda in Syria), as evidenced by a document provided by Syria to the Security Council of the UN. Subsequently several units of Al-Nosra rallied with their weapons to the Islamic Emirate. Moreover, contrary to official statements, the commander of the Islamic Emirate, the current caliph Ibrahim, combined his duties with those of a member of the staff of the Free Syrian Army.


While for the past 35 years Saudi Arabia has supported all the jihadist movements to the most extremist, Riyadh seems suddenly to have changed policy. Threatened in its very existence by a possible attack from the Islamic Emirate, Saudi Arabia has given the signal for the destruction of the organization. But contrary to appearances, the EIS remains supported by Turkey and Israel who sell their looted oil.

| Damascus (Syria)

 

Preliminary: the EIS is a Western creation

The unanimity of the Security Council against the Islamic Emirate (EIS) and the passage of the 2170 resolution are only a facade attitude. This cannot induce us to forget the state support provided the EIS and which it still has.

To take only the recent events in Iraq, everyone has observed that EIS fighters entered the country in columns of brand new Humvees, straight from US American Motors factories and armed with Ukrainian materials, also new. With this equipment they seized the US weapons of the Iraqi Army. Also, everyone was amazed that the EIS had civil administrators instantly capable of taking over the management of the conquered territories and communications specialists that promote its activities on the Internet and on television; personnel obviously trained at Fort Bragg.

Although US censorship has forbidden any review, we know from the British news agency Reuters that, in January 2014, a secret session of Congress voted financing and arming the Free Syrian Army, the Islamic Front, and Al-Nosra Front of the Islamic Emirate until September 30, 2014 [1]. A few days later, Al-Arabiya boasted that Prince Abdul Rahman was the real leader of the Islamic Emirate. [2] Then, on February 6, the US Secretary of Homeland Security brought together major European Interior Ministers in Poland asking them to maintain European jihadists in the Levant by prohibiting their return to their countries of origin, so the EIS would be numerous enough to attack Iraq. [3] Finally, in mid-February, a two-day seminar at the US National Security Council was attended by heads of allied secret services involved in Syria, definitely to prepare the EIS offensive in Iraq. [4]

(Report of August 2012 on the alleged religious fanaticism of the "democratic opposition")
It is extremely shocking to observe the international media suddenly denounce the crimes of the jihadists even though they proceeded without interruption for three years. There is nothing new in public butcheries and crucifixions: for example, the Islamic Emirate of Baba Amr, in February 2012, had established a "religious court" which condemned to death by slaughtering more than 150 people without raising any Western response nor at the United Nations [5]. In May 2013, the commander of the Al-Farouk Brigade of the Free Syrian Army (the famous "moderate") aired a video in which he cut a Syrian soldier and ate his heart. At the time, the West continued to portray the jihadists as the "moderate opposition", desperately fighting for "democracy". The BBC even gave the floor to the cannibal in order that he justify himself.

There is no doubt that the difference established by Laurent Fabius between "moderate" jihadists (the Free Syrian Army and the Frente Al-Nosra-that is to say Al-Qaïda- until early 2013) and "extremist" jihadists (the Al-Nosra Front from 2013 and the EIS) is a pure artifice of communication. The case of Caliph Ibrahim is illuminating: in May 2013, during the visit of John McCain to the ASL, he was both a member of the "moderate" staff and leader of the "extremist" faction [6]. Identically, a letter from General Salim Idriss, Chief of Staff of the ASL, dated January 17, 2014, certified that France and Turkey were delivering ammunition to the ASL (one third) and to Al Qaeda (two thirds) via the ASL. Presented by the Syrian ambassador to the Security Council, Bashar Jaafari, the authenticity of the document has not been disputed by the French delegation. [7]
JPEG - 26.5 kb
John McCain and the chiefs of the Free Syrian Army. In the left foreground, Ibrahim al-Badri, with which the Senator is talking. Next to him, Brigadier General Salim Idris (with glasses).
That said, it is clear that the attitude of some NATO powers and GCC changed in August 2014 to pass from secret support to massive and ongoing support to outright hostility. Why?

The Brzezinki doctrine of jihadism

One must go back 35 years to understand the importance of the transformation that Saudi Arabia-and perhaps the United States-are in the process of undergoing. Since 1979, Washington, at the instigation of the National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, decided to support political Islam against Soviet influence, reviving the policy adopted in Egypt to support the Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser.

Brzezinski decided to launch a major "Islamic revolution" from Afghanistan (then governed by the Communist regime of Muhammad Taraki) and Iran (where he himself organized the return of Imam Ruhollah Khomeini. Subsequently, this Islamic revolution was to spread throughout the Arab world and take with them the nationalist movements associated with the USSR.

The operation in Afghanistan was an unexpected success: the jihadists of the World Anti-Communist League (WACL) [8] recruited Muslims and, led by the anti-Communist billionaire Osama Bin Laden Brothers, launched a terrorist campaign that led the government to appeal to the Soviets. The Red Army entered Afghanistan and was bogged down there for five years, accelerating the fall of the USSR.

The operation in Iran was rather a disaster: Brzezinski was amazed to find that Khomeini was not the man he was told - an old Ayatollah trying to recover his estates confiscated by the Shah -, but a genuine anti-imperialist. Considering a little later that the word "Islamist" held not at all the same meaning for all, he decided to distinguish good Sunnis (collaborators) from the poor Shiites (anti-imperialist) and entrust the management of the former to Saudi Arabia.

Finally, considering the renewal of the alliance between Washington and Saud, President Carter announced, during his speech on the State of the Union on January 23, 1980, that henceforth access to Gulf oil was a goal related to US national security.

Since then, jihadists were tasked with all the low blows against the Soviets (and Russians) and against nationalist or recalcitrant Arab regimes. The period running from the accusation against the jihadists of plotting and carrying out the attacks of Sept. 11 until the announcement of the alleged death of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan (2001-11) complicated matters. The idea was both to deny any relationship with jihadists and to use them as a pretext for interventions. Things have returned to clarity in 2011 with the formal collaboration between the jihadists and NATO in Libya and Syria.

The Saudi August 2014 shift

For 35 years, Saudi Arabia has financed and armed all political Muslims as long as (1) they were Sunnis, (2) they afirmed the business model of the United States as consistent with Islam and (3 ) that in the event their country had signed an agreement with Israel it would not be questioned.

For 35 years, the vast majority of Sunnis turned a blind eye to the collusion between the jihadists and imperialism. It expressed solidarity with all they have done and all that was attributed to them. Finally, it legitimized Wahhabism as an authentic form of Islam despite the destruction of holy sites in Saudi Arabia.
Observing the "Arab Spring" with surprise, not having been privy to its preparation, Saudi Arabia worried about the role given by Washington to Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood. Riyadh was soon competing with Doha in sponsoring jihadists in Libya and especially in Syria.

Also, King Abdullah saved the Egyptian economy when General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, having become President of Egypt, sent him (and also the UAE) a complete copy of the police records of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, in the context of the fight against the Brotherhood, General Al-Sissi discovered and transmitted in February 2014 the Brotherhood’s detailed plan to seize power in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. Within days the plotters were arrested and confessed, while Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates threatened Qatar, the sponsor of the Brothers, with immediate destruction if it did not abandon the Brotherhood.

Riyadh did not take long to discover that the Islamic Emirate was also plagued and was about to attack it after seizing a third of Iraq.

The ideological lock patiently built for 35 years has been pulverized by the UAE and Egypt. On August 11, the grand imam of Al-Azhar University, Ahmad al-Tayyeb, severely condemned the Islamic Emirate and Al-Qaeda. He was followed the next day by the Grand Mufti of Egypt, Shawki Allam [9]

On August 18th and again on the 22nd, with the assistance of Cairo, Abu Dhabi bombed terrorists in Tripoli (Libya). For the first time, two Sunni states allied themselves to attack Sunni extremists in a third Sunni state. Their target was none other than an alliance including Abdelhakim Belhaj, former number three of al Qaeda, appointed military governor of Tripoli by NATO. [10] It seems that this action was undertaken without informing Washington.

On August 19th, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Al al-Sheikh, finally decided to call jihadists of the Islamic Emirate and Al Qaeda "Public Enemy #1 of Islam". [11]

The consequences of the Saudi about face

Saudi Arabia’ about face was to be so rapid that regional actors have not had time to adapt and therefore find themselves with contradictory positions depending on issues. Overall, Washington’s allies condemn the Islamic Emirate in Iraq, but not yet in Syria.

More surprisingly, while the Security Council has condemned the Islamic Emirate in its presidential statement of July 28th and in its resolution 2170 of August 15th, it is clear that the jihadist organization still has state support: in violation of the principles recalled or enacted by these texts: Iraqi oil plundered by the EIS transits through Turkey. It is loaded at the port of Ceyhan on oil tankers calling in Israel, then returning to Europe.

For now, the names of corporate sponsors are not established, but the responsibility of Turkey and Israel is evident.

For its part, Qatar, which continues to host many Muslim Brotherhood personalities, still denies supporting the Islamic Emirate.
JPEG - 31.9 kb
Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and ... Qatar in Jeddah, August 24, 2014, to deal with the Islamic Emirate. Jordan was represented at this summit.
At coordinated press conferences, Russian and Syrian foreign ministers, Sergey Lavrov and Walid Moallem, called for building an international coalition against terrorism. However, the United States, while preparing ground operations on Syrian territory with the British ("Force Black intervention" [12]), refuses to ally itself with the Syrian Arab Republic and continues to demand the resignation of the elected President Bashar al-Assad.

The clash which has put an end to 35 years of Saudi policy is transforming itself into a confrontation between Riyadh and Ankara. From now on, the Turkish and Syrian Kurdish party, the PKK, which is still considered by Washington and Brussels as a terrorist organization, is supported by the Pentagon against the Islamic Emirate. Indeed, contrary to the misleading presentations of the Atlanticist press, Turkish and Syrian PKK fighters, not Iraqi peshmerga of the Local Government of Kurdistan, have repelled the Islamic Emirate in recent days, with the help of US Aviation.

Provisional conclusion

 

It is unclear whether the current situation is staged or reality. Does the United States really have the intention of destroying the Islamic Emirate they created and no longer control or will they simply weaken it and keep it as a regional policy tool? Do Ankara and Tel Aviv support the EIS on behalf of or against Washington? Or again, are they playing on internal dissent in the United States? Will the the Saudis, in order to save their monarchy, resort to allying themselves with Iran and Syria, bringing down Israel’s protective buffer?

Monday, September 1, 2014

Police Brutality is nothing New now it's just Militarized


With the recent events in Ferguson, Americans are taking a closer look at the rise of police brutality now run amok nearly everywhere. The real highlight of this sad tragedy is the awareness it has shed on the absurd militarization of the police force. An event predicted by numerous scholars of the New World Oder including myself. A roided out militarized police force is always a bad sign that your country is heading in the wrong direction.

While the subject of racist pigs abusing and killing blacks and ethnic minorities in America isn't a new one, in fact it's a time honored tradition- the stark realization that the police are rolling through towns with armored tanks and weapons supplied by the military is new.

Here is a short list of the Hoelice committing acts of brutality against minorities in America

In 1977 the Puerto Rican community of Chicago rebelled against Police violence:

Roots of the uprising
 
The uprising began on June 12, the day after the very first downtown Día de San Juan parade ever. A cop named Thomas Munyon was chasing 20-year-old Arcelis Cruz and his friend through an alley near Damen and Division. Munyon drew his weapon and fired, hitting Cruz in the leg. This was witnessed by a group of people at the corner who attempted to come to Cruz’ aid. When the rest of Munyon’s cop squad showed up, they beat the crowd with their nightsticks and even let attack dogs loose on the people. This savage attack by the cops enraged the growing crowd, which began to fight back.

This uprising against police brutality lasted three days and three nights. White-owned businesses in the Puerto Rican community were targeted as symbols of racism and national oppression. Battles were fought between Puerto Rican youth and the cops, with the youth armed only with bricks, rocks and bottles. Roberto Medina, who was 18 at the time and secretary- treasurer of the Puerto Rican Congress organization, said, “Some people thought that it was a bunch of yahoos within the community, criminals that started this whole thing. That wasn’t true. It had to do with ... the frustrations that we as a community were experiencing.” Medina is now a labor activist in Chicago. The rebellion was centered on Division Street, between Hoyne and Damen Avenues. A crowd gathered there on the second night of the uprising to air their grievances against the cops.
 
Rev. James Bevell, who was on Dr. Martin Luther King’s staff, sent a team of observers from the Southern Christian Leadership Council on the first night of the rebellion. On the second night, they were present at Division and Hoyne and were witness to people telling of how the cops were targeting young people for beatings and arrests. People talked about how the cops were actually breaking into their homes and assaulting them. Felix M. Padilla, who wrote a study of the rebellion for the University of Notre Dame in 1987, commented, “For many Puerto Ricans, the police had come to represent more than enforcement of [the] law; they were viewed as members of an ‘occupying army’ and as an oppressive force acting on behalf of those who ruled their environment.” 

The cops actually sent agent provocateurs into the crowd to attempt to incite violence in order to justify their own reactionary violence.

Also in 1977 200 protesters took to the streets of Dallas to protest Police Brutality.

Philadelphia is one of the most equally racist places in the world. In 1978 Philly cops targeted a black heritage cult  known as MOVE. The cult, fed up by the harassment decided to shoot back and killed an officer setting off a hostage crisis, and shoot out  fit for a third world country.


Miami was home to the first race riots since the 60's when an all white jury found an all white assortment of cops not guilty in killing a young black kid named Arthur Mcduffie. The pigs even tied to fix his death up as a motorcycle accident but the coroner provided evidence that they instead beat the poor kid to death. However, the jury didn't care and soon were playing golf while the ghetto's burned.





In 1983 Boston pigs broke into a Hotel and murdered a man in his sleep...


Here are 30 more cases of extreme Police brutality. 

N.W.A. said it the best in 1988



http://xavianthaze.blogspot.com/2014/08/police-brutality-is-nothing-new-now-its.html 





Sunday, August 31, 2014

The Fullest Extent Of The Law | TFEOTLaw | Due Process Rule Of Law | DUEPROLaw


There has been a hostile takeover.  The imagination is in our minds.  The mind has been programmed after the brain was washed.  We are in need of a new news anchor.

Tim Geithner said his family doesn't purchase bonds, they're into the news, but of course.

The news is what we are.  We are not doing well.

http://theartof12.blogspot.com/2014/08/isis-dot-com-social-media-barons-are.html

... to be continued ...

ISIS dot com: Social Media Barons Are Pushing the New Barbarity | TWOT | The War On Terror | Trillion $ BIZ As Usual


1-Andrew-McKillopSomething stinks in the upper echelon of the mega media barons.  Andrew McKillop  21st Century Wire

Isn’t it interesting how Facebook bots will censor certain political posts, or how your page can be pulled down for a remark someone behind the communitarian curtain claims is ‘offensive’, while jihadist and ISIS terror gangs are allowed to openly use the same social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook for recruitment, ‘martyr selfies’, marketing, T-Shirt sales, and to post murder photos?

If only the problem ended there. Something much deeper, and much more insidious is going on behind the doors of Silicon Valley, Hollywood and CIA meeting rooms, or maybe not – they tell us this is simply progress. New and dark cultural features are being unleashed into the minds of the public via the War on Terror, and it’s all for profit…



Marketing Push: ‘Terrorism is Cool

Writing for Stratfor, August 28, Robert D. Kaplan said that “Terrorism is Theatre”, but of course only for the mentally sick, including the Internet barons who directly profit from Death Pornography.

Kaplan claims that by choosing decapitation as the method for killing US journalist James Foley, the degenerate psychopaths of ISIS were ‘right on the Internet social network button’, in some sort of macabre tribute to the ISIS marketing department.

What they chose “is the best method for the sake of a visually dramatic video, because you can show the severed head atop the chest at the conclusion”. Kaplan added that, “Using a short knife, as in this case, rather than a sword, also makes the event both more chilling and intimate”.

Just like a halal abattoir, except this time it concerns a human being.

(Note: for keen observers of the Foley video, it should be said that a beheading could not have been carried out with a pen knife, and no beheading actually took place on the video, so despite all the media and presidential outrage, at present the ISIS/Foley video cannot be considered as forensic proof of anything beyond a video that was stitched together – but that’s a discussion for another article.)

This was Internet-friendly barbarity, due to the need, Kaplan said, for the “additional meaning” we so long for when we Tweet or Facebook or YouTube our crimes against humanity. Kaplan also said that:

“Passion, deep belief, political protests and so forth have little meaning nowadays if they cannot be broadcast”.

He added that even torture and gruesome death “must be communicated to large numbers of people if they are to be effective”. Otherwise the poor dears do not understand – but watch how they react when it happens to them, their families or their friends!

The Gloating Nerds

The nerds in Silicon Valley gloat over the billions of dollars they have amassed on the back of narcissistic marketing of filth – off the backs of average Jack and Jill consumers trapped in a degenerate and sadistic mind-warp – and the billionaire nerds are of course not laughing just all the way to the bank, they are laughing all the way to the gallows, more frequently celebrating their “executions”, or in fact murdering of other people. Their own silky necks are not yet placed in the noose to be cracked by a sharp drop while the social network Internauts – voyeurs they are, from the comfort of their own homes.

Nemesis in Greek myth hinges on the punishment of degenerate and obsessional narcissism – which is essentially the business model of the social networks. As the old story goes Narcissus was lured by Nemesis to the poolside where he obsessionally admired the reflection of his own “incredible beauty”. He was so obsessed that he starved to death… admiring himself.

Like with Nemesis, will our media moguls receive a just punishment for willfully corrupting the public with sadistic filth? The nerds’ claim that they have liberated us all with “new forms of self-expression” – including open-air killings, will never add up morally but that won’t stop media moguls from pushing their graven images. In 2014, any framework for morality and decency has already been torn down by the media moguls. This may be business-only for them, but to society, it is a direct in-your-face challenge. That is where we are at now.

Kaplan is right to ask by what primal fault of society the “geeky billionaires of Silicon Valley and the Pacific Northwest” can claim to be innocent?

Instead, why can’t we see the CEO’s and geeks themselves being tortured, burnt, buried alive, decapitated with a rusty knife, with consumer reaping the profits? They would at least have served some purpose! Instead, by polluting the public mind, they rack up “stakeholder benefits” for Wall Street’s army of financial roaches seeking any way to talk up share prices or a junk bond. To profit on an industrial scale from the Death Porn is an institutional crime for sure, but money has no odor and is always innocent – until society wakes up, and acts.

Internet and the social networks have brought us back to the worst sorts of barbarism and the criminals who are responsible can be very easily identified although they are running rich and free – at present. But not necessarily forever.

Zero Moral Worth

The weak-knee’d claim that “communications technology is value neutral” does not work, no more than Mao’s claim that the great purge “purified society”.

Sadly, the Nazis were deprived of the digital media empire to make easy money from barbarity and pollute more minds with their psychopathic depravity. Pol Pot, Idi Amin and other mass murderers were also “deprived of Internet access”. Image the potential for the tyrants.

Unlike ISIS, the Nazis did not have “geeks” on their side in their war to destroy society and its values. The social network providers, ever-greedy for sensation and for visitor hits enabling them to sell advertising space and generate “big data” – why not for rusty knives and funeral services?

Whether or not the Foley video was staged to solicit a certain public reaction to it, for example – launching US air strikes in Syria, it’s obvious that there is some dark arts in action in the way Western media are touting these videos in public. They are actively aiding and abetting the most hideous forms of exhibitionism – for example the decapitation of James Foley, called “execution” and not what it really was in terms of a billion dollar US media marketing campaign – an open air murder by a psychopath and war criminal. In the end, their is zero moral value in re-disseminating this kind of pornography through the multi-billion broadcast media complex, yet they are doing more and more push-marketing of this material each year.

Words do not count for the billionaire geeks, of course, but they count in a law court! Whenever and if ever they wanted, they could simply say, “Sorry, we don’t screen that sort of dirt on our networks”. Instead, the geeks are providing death pornography and the incitement to murder, and this is due to their greed and nothing else. They are materially complicit in acts of barbarity and depravity.

Where is this all heading? It’s regressive for sure, and taking society’s minds to darker place.

According to Kaplan, we are back to a medieval world of morals and of medieval ritual theater, but in which the audience is now global. That is really a triumph for innovation, the same way the Nazi’s mobile execution wagons, pumping tailpipe exhausts into the sealed containers full of human beings, was also “technological innovation”.

Any kind of theater needs trained and rehearsed actors, and the Internet geeks are supplying the training – for psychopaths. Already today, the standard ISIS decapitation showtime features a hooded executioner, with a Guantanamo jumpsuit for the victim, and of course the rusty knife. The script is standardized – and more death shows are promised. The social network providers will be there to make it happen!

We can also make it happen. Pursue the geeks who profit from this with the the full force of the law.

READ MORE ISIS NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire ISIS Files

Enigma TV

    '

http://enigmatv.com/purpleform/freevideos.html

Israel’s Nuclear Blackmail





By Jim Kirwan
8-30-14

Is Backfiring!

When Israel blackmailed her way into the community of nations and the UN, her choice of weapons was terror, fear, intimidation and blackmail. That worked for as far as it went, but that was just the beginning.
Once ensconced; Israel began to extort what she could not beg, borrow or steal, even on the black-market—namely nuclear weapons.

Israel was able to build Dimona, before Kennedy’s murder. Today it’s nothing but a useless burned out shell, when it comes to creating Israeli nuclear weapons. 
 
Dimona became the failure that it is today because Israel was so obsessed with creating nuclear weapons, that they overworked the plant until they burned it out. 
 
This ‘dilemma’ presented Israel with both a major problem and their solution of choice: Which was to buy decaying nuclear weapons, in bulk, from GHW Bush. Poppy was always a traitor, long before he became part of the upper crust in Amerikan politics: Like father, like son!
 
Poppy’ used his positions in the government here to sell Israel a huge number of unstable weapons for their depleted uranium. Israel is still using the balance of these hijacked weapons, which they’ve planted in all the major countries of the world. 
 
This is the real reason that so many nations the world over continue to do things that are obviously against their own real interests. Such as the recent votes for sanctions against Moscow: When every one of the 28 nations had to know that the most recent sanctions would backfire and would ultimately destroy those nations that voted for USI and Israeli demands to sanction Russia. 
 
The unspoken reason behind this utter insanity, beneath the sanctions, was and has always been Israel’s not so secret weapon: Which since Poppy was VP, has always been Israel’s nuclear blackmail of the world.
The time has come to make Israel’s “Nuclear Blackmail” public!

Watching the world go through the contortions and convoluted excuses for why these cowardly nations, including the USA, are doing what they’re doing: Has been a disgusting display of global cowardice which must end.
 
What makes this mandatory now is the extremely volatile nature of the nuclear material that Israel chose to use, in those weapons that compose their global-threat. It’s likely that those hidden devices just might go off by themselves because of their chemical instability. This danger was built-in from the beginning. Because of this Israel now thinks that it can force the world to do whatever it demands!
The fact that none of the world’s supposed leaders will ever mention this global-blackmail gives the rest of us the proof that’s needed to confront this nightmare head-on. That must happen now. Israel is no longer in-charge of whether or not those dirty bombs will be used or not—because the natural degradation of the materials themselves may determine when some of them might go off, even without activation by Israel or any of their slave-states.
 
We must face the facts; while there is still some small chance that most of us might not have to endure nuclear annihilation, just because Israel demands control over every person on the planet. 
 
The present circumstance is the exact opposite of what took place during the Cold War. That ‘forty-year-war’ was waged to keep the planet safe from nuclear war. It’s now been scraped by this License to Kill which the congress gave to GWH Bush’s evil-son, to expand his threats against the world with Preemptive First Strikes. Of course this “License” also gave us NDAA and the whole range of drone’s that have advanced terror ever deeper into every society on earth.
It’s astounding that the USA gave the US presidency to two members of the same criminal family that financed the Nazi’s via Poppy’s father: Prescott Bush, from the1940’s into reality.
Three Bush’s all working their entire lives to destroy the USA and the world—yet almost none of the literal history of that evil family is known to the millions who need to know the truth about these traitors. This is why all of this must be discussed openly and now, before everything get’s worse!
 
Boycotts could help, but so far they’re not deep enough or wide enough to make the depth of the impression that all of Israel needs to feel: http://www.rense.com/general96/boycottisrael.html

Beyond the Puppets Everywhere…

The world is being run by puppets of all kinds. The process of politics as we were raised to comprehend it has been dead for over forty years. There are no political parties. There are no “leaders” any more. There are no laws anymore, only obsessions that must be satisfied for the Élites’ everywhere. Instead of the system we once thought we knew: There are only sanctioned puppets enslaved to various monetary gods that lie and cheat and steal from all sides—in each case according to the barbaric opportunities that are running wild all over the earth today. 
 
We need to learn to spit upon them all - while we learn to re-embrace the “NO” which we once knew how to use so well: But that was back then, when we had some freedom and when it was still up to us to direct our own lives! 
 
People have this one last chance to throw them all overboard and take back the war-torn world before there’s nothing left to save.
 
In the states there are no “officials” anymore. There are no judges, no courts, no commissions, and no lawyers that are not corrupted: In brief everything that once allowed any system to work here has all been murdered and replaced by outlaws. “Oaths of office” have been nullified, along with ethics, humanity, dignity or self-worth. Corruption is the only measure of how most of us continue to live from minute to minute. 
 
Israel owns the world right now. The mass-media is their voice, not ours. The very least that can be done is to confront these behemoths which are never mentioned in any news conferences, or in any of our so-called public forums.

We have no journalists left that will dare to ask these questions, on the record, openly of every purported politician or spokesperson—in ways that cannot be censored or ignored: That’s the ‘public-secret’ beneath Israel’s Nuclear Blackmail.
 
The image at the top of this article concerns The World & The Universe. If we recapture our world then the blue planet can begin to be healed. If we fail then the earth itself will be turned into death incarnate from our oceans and rivers thru all our lands, our forests, the deserts and mountains: Everything will die along with the death of the food chain. The air we breathe and the water as well as the soil: All of that will be contaminated. Will we remain silent about all of this or will we chose to fight this to the death!
If we’re going to die, and since we’re all going to die anyway, we should at least confront these Stone-Age creatures who are responsible for forcing this situation, which has taken us all back to the caves. We have to force them to face us—because then we can go to that death or to that victory - knowing that we did all that could be done…

http://www.rense.com/general96/isnuclear.html 
 



Zionist Israel's Thermonuclear Blackmail Of America

 
rense.com
From Lili
2-26-3

Jeff - These are paragraphs of 'special interest' I wish to highlight from the long and detailed USAF report that follows...my comments are in all caps:
 
 
 
 
ISRAEL BLACKMAILS US
 
One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their "use" on the United States. America does not want Israel's nuclear profile raised.[144] They have been used in the past to ensure America does not desert Israel under increased Arab, or oil embargo, pressure and have forced the United States to support Israel diplomatically against the Soviet Union. Israel used their existence to guarantee a continuing supply of American conventional weapons, a policy likely to continue.[145]
 
 
ISRAEL DICTATES TO US AND WE CONCEDE TO ISRAEL
 
Israel went on full-scale nuclear alert again on the first day of Desert Storm, 18 January 1991. Seven SCUD missiles were fired against the cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa by Iraq (only two actually hit Tel Aviv and one hit Haifa). This alert lasted for the duration of the war, 43 days. Over the course of the war, Iraq launched around 40 missiles in 17 separate attacks at Israel. There was little loss of life: two killed directly, 11 indirectly, with many structures damaged and life disrupted.[98] Several supposedly landed near Dimona, one of them a close miss.[99] Threats of retaliation by the Shamir government if the Iraqis used chemical warheads were interpreted to mean that Israel intended to launch a nuclear strike if gas attacks occurred.
 
One Israeli commentator recommended that Israel should signal Iraq that "any Iraqi action against Israeli civilian populations, with or without gas, may leave Iraq without Baghdad."[100] Shortly before the end of the war the Israelis tested a "nuclear capable" missile which prompted the United States into intensifying its SCUD hunting in western Iraq to prevent any Israeli response.[101] The Israeli Air Force set up dummy SCUD sites in the Negev for pilots to practice on"they found it no easy task.[102] American government concessions to Israel for not attacking (in addition to Israeli Patriot missile batteries) were:
 
* Allowing Israel to designate 100 targets inside Iraq for the coalition to destroy,
 
* Satellite downlink to increase warning time on the SCUD attacks (present and future),
 
* Technical parity with Saudi jet fighters in perpetuity.[103]
 
JFK demanded Israel allow inspectors to see Dimona, three months later he was assassinated and pro-Israel Johnson is President:
 
The Israelis aggressively pursued an aircraft delivery system from the United States. President Johnson was less emphatic about nonproliferation than President Kennedy-or perhaps had more pressing concerns, such as Vietnam. He had a long history of both Jewish friends and pressing political contributors coupled with some first hand experience of the Holocaust, having toured concentration camps at the end of World War II.[51] Israel pressed him hard for aircraft (A-4E Skyhawks initially and F-4E Phantoms later) and obtained agreement in 1966 under the condition that the aircraft would not be used to deliver nuclear weapons. The State Department attempted to link the aircraft purchases to continued inspection visits. President Johnson overruled the State Department concerning Dimona inspections.[52] Although denied at the time, America delivered the F-4Es, on September 5, 1969, with nuclear capable hardware intact.[53]
 
JONATHAN POLLARD
 
Not only were the Israelis interested in American nuclear weapons development data, they were interested in targeting data from U.S. intelligence. Israel discovered that they were on the Soviet target list. American-born Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard obtained satellite-imaging data of the Soviet Union, allowing Israel to target accurately Soviet cities. This showed Israel's intention to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent political lever, or retaliatory capability against the Soviet Union itself. Israel also used American satellite imagery to plan the 7 June 1981 attack on the Tammuz-1 reactor at Osiraq, Iraq. This daring attack, carried out by eight F-16s accompanied by six F-15s punched a hole in the concrete reactor dome before the reactor began operation (and just days before an Israeli election). It delivered 15 delay-fused 2000 pound bombs deep into the reactor structure (the 16th bomb hit a nearby hall). The blasts shredded the reactor and blew out the dome foundations, causing it to collapse on the rubble. This was the world's first attack on a nuclear reactor.[91]
 
(PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT RUSSIA WAS ABLE TO PURGE THE JEWISH BOLSHEVIK COMMUNISTS FROM THE KREMLIN STARTING IN THE LATE '30's UNDER STALIN, SUBSEQUENTLY THE JEWISH POWER WAS GIVEN TOP POSITIONS IN THE U.S.)
 
VERY SCARY
 
Another speculative area concerns Israeli nuclear security and possible misuse. What is the chain of decision and control of Israel's weapons? How susceptible are they to misuse or theft? With no open, frank, public debate on nuclear issues, there has accordingly been no debate or information on existing safeguards. This has led to accusations of "monolithic views and sinister intentions."[1360] Would a right wing military government decide to employ nuclear weapons recklessly? Ariel Sharon, an outspoken proponent of "Greater Israel" was quoted as saying, "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."[137] Could the Gush Emunim, a right wing religious organization, or others, hijack a nuclear device to "liberate" the Temple Mount for the building of the third temple? Chances are small but could increase as radicals decry the peace process.[138] A 1997 article reviewing the Israeli Defense Force repeatedly stressed the possibilities of, and the need to guard against, a religious, right wing military coup, especially as the proportion of religious in the military increases.[139 ]
 
 
 
THE THIRD TEMPLE'S HOLY OF HOLIES -
ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS

By Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army
The Counterproliferation Papers
Future Warfare Series No. 2

USAF Counterproliferation Center
Air War College - Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
September 1999
 
The Counterproliferation Papers Series was established by the USAF Counterproliferation Center to provide information and analysis to U.S. national security policy-makers and USAF officers to assist them in countering the threat posed by adversaries equipped with weapons of mass destruction. Copies of papers in this series are available from the USAF Counterproliferation Center, 325 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427. The fax number is (334) 953-7538; phone (334) 953-7538.
 
The internet address for the USAF Counterproliferation Center is:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm
 
Contents:
 
Page
Disclaimer i
The Author ii
Acknowledgments iii
Abstract iv
 
I. Introduction 1
II. 1948-1962: With French Cooperation 3
III. 1963-1973: Seeing the Project Through to Completion 9
IV. 1974-1999: Bringing the Bomb Up the Basement Stairs 15
 
Appendix: Estimates of the Israeli Nuclear Arsenal 23
Notes 25
Disclaimer
 
The views expressed in this publication are those solely of the author and are not a statement of official policy or position of the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, or the USAF Counterproliferation Center.
 
The Author
 
Colonel Warner D. "Rocky" Farr, Medical Corps, Master Flight Surgeon, U.S. Army, graduated from the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama before becoming the Command Surgeon, U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He also serves as the Surgeon for the U.S. Army Special Forces Command, U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, and the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. With thirty-three years of military service, he holds an Associate of Arts from the State University of New York, Bachelor of Science from Northeast Louisiana University, Doctor of Medicine from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Masters of Public Health from the University of Texas, and has completed medical residencies in aerospace medicine, and anatomic and clinical pathology. He is the only army officer to be board certified in these three specialties. Solo qualified in the TH-55A Army helicopter, he received flight training in the T-37 and T-38 aircraft as part of his USAF School of Aerospace Medicine residency.
 
Colonel Farr was a Master Sergeant Special Forces medic prior to receiving a direct commission to second lieutenant. He is now the senior Special Forces medical officer in the U.S. Army with prior assignments in the 5th, 7th, and 10th Special Forces Groups (Airborne), 1st Special Forces, in Vietnam, the United States, and Germany. He has advised the 12th and 20th Special Forces Groups (Airborne) in the reserves and national guard, served as Division Surgeon, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), and as the Deputy Commander of the U.S. Army Aeromedical Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama.
 
Acknowledgments
 
I would like to acknowledge the assistance, guidance and encouragement from my Air War College (AWC) faculty research advisor, Dr. Andrew Terrill, instructor of the Air War College Arab-Israeli Wars course. Thanks are also due to the great aid of the Air University librarians. The author is also indebted to Captain J. R. Saunders, USN and Colonel Robert Sutton, USAF. Who also offered helpful suggestions.
 
Abstract
 
This paper is a history of the Israeli nuclear weapons program drawn from a review of unclassified sources. Israel began its search for nuclear weapons at the inception of the state in 1948. As payment for Israeli participation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, France provided nuclear expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona capable of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing. The United States discovered the facility by 1958 and it was a subject of continual discussions between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers. Israel used delay and deception to at first keep the United States at bay, and later used the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for a consistent American conventional arms supply. After French disengagement in the early 1960s, Israel progressed on its own, including through several covert operations, to project completion. Before the 1967 Six-Day War, they felt their nuclear facility threatened and reportedly assembled several nuclear devices. By the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel had a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them, and considered using them. The Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons. Israel has most probably conducted several nuclear bomb tests. They have continued to modernize and vertically proliferate and are now one of the world's larger nuclear powers. Using "bomb in the basement" nuclear opacity, Israel has been able to use its arsenal as a deterrent to the Arab world while not technically violating American nonproliferation requirements.
 
The Third Temple's Holy of Holies:
Israel's Nuclear Weapons
 
Warner D. Farr
 
I. Introduction
 
This is the end of the Third Temple.
- Attributed to Moshe Dayan
during the Yom Kippur War1
 
As Zionists in Palestine watched World War II from their distant sideshow, what lessons were learned? The soldiers of the Empire of Japan vowed on their emperor's sacred throne to fight to the death and not face the inevitability of an American victory. Many Jews wondered if the Arabs would try to push them into the Mediterranean Sea. After the devastating American nuclear attack on Japan, the soldier leaders of the empire reevaluated their fight to the death position. Did the bomb give the Japanese permission to surrender and live? It obviously played a military role, a political role, and a peacemaking role. How close was the mindset of the Samurai culture to the Islamic culture? Did David Ben-Gurion take note and wonder if the same would work for Israel?2 Could Israel find the ultimate deterrent that would convince her opponents that they could never, ever succeed? Was Israel's ability to cause a modern holocaust the best way to guarantee never having another one?
 
The use of unconventional weapons in the Middle East is not new. The British had used chemical artillery shells against the Turks at the second battle of Gaza in 1917. They continued chemical shelling against the Shiites in Iraq in 1920 and used aerial chemicals in the 1920s and 1930s in Iraq.3
 
Israel's involvement with nuclear technology starts at the founding of the state in 1948. Many talented Jewish scientists immigrated to Palestine during the thirties and forties, in particular, Ernst David Bergmann. He would become the director of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission and the founder of Israel's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bergmann, a close friend and advisor of Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, counseled that nuclear energy could compensate for Israel's poor natural resources and small pool of military manpower. He pointed out that there was just one nuclear energy, not two, suggesting nuclear weapons were part of the plan.4 As early as 1948, Israeli scientists actively explored the Negev Desert for uranium deposits on orders from the Israeli Ministry of Defense. By 1950, they found low-grade deposits near Beersheba and Sidon and worked on a low power method of heavy water production.5
 
The newly created Weizmann Institute of Science actively supported nuclear research by 1949, with Dr. Bergmann heading the chemistry division. Promising students went overseas to study nuclear engineering and physics at Israeli government expense. Israel secretly founded its own Atomic Energy Commission in 1952 and placed it under the control of the Defense Ministry.6 The foundations of a nuclear program were beginning to develop.
 
II. 1948-1962: With French Cooperation
 
It has always been our intention to develop a nuclear potential.
- Ephraim Katzir7
 
In 1949, Francis Perrin, a member of the French Atomic Energy Commission, nuclear physicist, and friend of Dr. Bergmann visited the Weizmann Institute. He invited Israeli scientists to the new French nuclear research facility at Saclay. A joint research effort was subsequently set up between the two nations. Perrin publicly stated in 1986 that French scientists working in America on the Manhattan Project and in Canada during World War II were told they could use their knowledge in France provided they kept it a secret.8 Perrin reportedly provided nuclear data to Israel on the same basis.9 One Israeli scientist worked at the U.S. Los Alamos National Laboratory and may have directly brought expertise home.10
 
After the Second World War, France's nuclear research capability was quite limited. France had been a leading research center in nuclear physics before World War II, but had fallen far behind the U.S., the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom, and even Canada. Israel and France were at a similar level of expertise after the war, and Israeli scientists could make significant contributions to the French effort. Progress in nuclear science and technology in France and Israel remained closely linked throughout the early fifties. Israeli scientists probably helped construct the G-1 plutonium production reactor and UP-1 reprocessing plant at Marcoule.11 France profited from two Israeli patents on heavy water production and low-grade uranium enrichment.12 In the 1950s and into the early 1960s, France and Israel had close relations in many areas. France was Israel's principal arms supplier, and as instability spread through French colonies in North Africa, Israel provided valuable intelligence obtained from contacts with sephardic Jews in those countries.
 
The two nations collaborated, with the United Kingdom, in planning and staging the Suez Canal-Sinai operation against Egypt in October 1956. The Suez Crisis became the real genesis of Israel's nuclear weapons production program. With the Czech-Egyptian arms agreement in 1955, Israel became worried. When absorbed, the Soviet-bloc equipment would triple Egyptian military strength. After Egypt's President Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran in 1953, Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion ordered the development of chemical munitions and other unconventional munitions, including nuclear.13 Six weeks before the Suez Canal operation, Israel felt the time was right to approach France for assistance in building a nuclear reactor. Canada had set a precedent a year earlier when it had agreed to build a 40-megawatt CIRUS reactor in India. Shimon Peres, the Director-General of the Defense Ministry and aide to Prime Minister (and Defense Minister) David Ben-Gurion, and Bergmann met with members of the CEA (France's Atomic Energy Commission). During September 1956, they reached an initial understanding to provide a research reactor. The two countries concluded final agreements at a secret meeting outside Paris where they also finalized details of the Suez Canal operation.14
 
For the United Kingdom and France, the Suez operation, launched on October 29, 1956, was a total disaster. Israel's part was a military success, allowing it to occupy the entire Sinai Peninsula by 4 November, but the French and British canal invasion on 6 November was a political failure. Their attempt to advance south along the Suez Canal stopped due to a cease-fire under fierce Soviet and U.S. pressure. Both nations pulled out, leaving Israel to face the pressure from the two superpowers alone. Soviet Premier Bulganin and President Khrushchev issued an implicit threat of nuclear attack if Israel did not withdraw from the Sinai.
 
On 7 November 1956, a secret meeting was held between Israeli foreign minister Golda Meir, Shimon Peres, and French foreign and defense ministers Christian Pineau and Maurice Bourges-Manoury. The French, embarrassed by their failure to support their ally in the operation, found the Israelis deeply concerned about a Soviet threat. In this meeting, they substantially modified the initial understanding beyond a research reactor. Peres secured an agreement from France to assist Israel in developing a nuclear deterrent. After further months of negotiation, agreement was reached for an 18-megawatt (thermal) research reactor of the EL-3 type, along with plutonium separation technology. France and Israel signed the agreement in October 1957.15 Later the reactor was officially upgraded to 24 megawatts, but the actual specifications issued to engineers provided for core cooling ducts sufficient for up to three times this power level, along with a plutonium plant of similar capacity. Data from insider reports revealed in 1986 would estimate the power level at 125-150 megawatts.16 The reactor, not connected to turbines for power production, needed this increase in size only to increase its plutonium production. How this upgrade came about remains unknown, but Bourges-Maunoury, replacing Mollet as French prime minister, may have contributed to it.17 Shimon Peres, the guiding hand in the Israeli nuclear program, had a close relationship with Bourges-Maunoury and probably helped him politically.18
 
Why was France so eager to help Israel? DeMollet and then de Gaulle had a place for Israel within their strategic vision. A nuclear Israel could be a counterforce against Egypt in France's fight in Algeria. Egypt was openly aiding the rebel forces there. France also wanted to obtain the bomb itself. The United States had embargoed certain nuclear enabling computer technology from France. Israel could get the technology from America and pass it through to France. The U.S. furnished Israel heavy water, under the Atoms for Peace program, for the small research reactor at Soreq. France could use this heavy water. Since France was some years away from nuclear testing and success, Israeli science was an insurance policy in case of technical problems in France's own program.19 The Israeli intelligence community's knowledge of past French (especially Vichy) anti-Semitic transgressions and the continued presence of former Nazi collaborators in French intelligence provided the Israelis with some blackmail opportunities.20 The cooperation was so close that Israel worked with France on the preproduction design of early Mirage jet aircraft, designed to be capable of delivering nuclear bombs.21
 
French experts secretly built the Israeli reactor underground at Dimona, in the Negev desert of southern Israel near Beersheba. Hundreds of French engineers and technicians filled Beersheba, the biggest town in the Negev. Many of the same contractors who built Marcoule were involved. SON (a French firm) built the plutonium separation plants in both France and Israel. The ground was broken for the EL-102 reactor (as it was known to France) in early 1958.
 
Israel used many subterfuges to conceal activity at Dimona. It called the plant a manganese plant, and rarely, a textile plant. The United States by the end of 1958 had taken pictures of the project from U-2 spy planes, and identified the site as a probable reactor complex. The concentration of Frenchmen was also impossible to hide from ground observers. In 1960, before the reactor was operating, France, now under the leadership of de Gaulle, reconsidered and decided to suspend the project. After several months of negotiation, they reached an agreement in November that allowed the reactor to proceed if Israel promised not to make nuclear weapons and to announce the project to the world. Work on the plutonium reprocessing plant halted. On 2 December 1960, before Israel could make announcements, the U.S. State Department issued a statement that Israel had a secret nuclear installation. By 16 December, this became public knowledge with its appearance in the New York Times. On 21 December, Ben-Gurion announced that Israel was building a 24-megawatt reactor "for peaceful purposes."22
 
Over the next year, relations between the U.S. and Israel became strained over the Dimona reactor. The U.S. accepted Israel's assertions at face value publicly, but exerted pressure privately. Although Israel allowed a cursory inspection by well known American physicists Eugene Wigner and I. I. Rabi, Prime Minister Ben-Gurion consistently refused to allow regular international inspections. The final resolution between the U.S. and Israel was a commitment from Israel to use the facility for peaceful purposes, and to admit an U.S. inspection team twice a year. These inspections began in 1962 and continued until 1969. Inspectors saw only the above ground part of the buildings, not the many levels underground and the visit frequency was never more than once a year. The above ground areas had simulated control rooms, and access to the underground areas was kept hidden while the inspectors were present. Elevators leading to the secret underground plutonium reprocessing plant were actually bricked over.23 Much of the information on these inspections and the political maneuvering around it has just been declassified.24
 
One interpretation of Ben-Gurion's "peaceful purposes" pledge given to America is that he interpreted it to mean that nuclear weapon development was not excluded if used strictly for defensive, and not offensive purposes. Israel's security position in the late fifties and early sixties was far more precarious than now. After three wars, with a robust domestic arms industry and a reliable defense supply line from the U.S., Israel felt much more secure. During the fifties and early sixties a number of attempts by Israel to obtain security guarantees from the U.S. to place Israel under the U.S. nuclear umbrella like NATO or Japan, were unsuccessful. If the U.S. had conducted a forward-looking policy to restrain Israel's proliferation, along with a sure defense agreement, we could have prevented the development of Israel's nuclear arsenal.
 
One common discussion in the literature concerns testing of Israeli nuclear devices. In the early phases, the amount of collaboration between the French and Israeli nuclear weapons design programs made testing unnecessary. In addition, although their main efforts were with plutonium, the Israelis may have amassed enough uranium for gun-assembled type bombs which, like the Hiroshima bomb, require no testing. One expert postulated, based on unnamed sources, that the French nuclear test in 1960 made two nuclear powers not one"such was the depth of collaboration.25 There were several Israeli observers at the French nuclear tests and the Israelis had "unrestricted access to French nuclear test explosion data."26 Israel also supplied essential technology and hardware.27 The French reportedly shipped reprocessed plutonium back to Israel as part of their repayment for Israeli scientific help.
 
However, this constant, decade long, French cooperation and support was soon to end and Israel would have to go it alone.
 
 
III. 1963-1973: Seeing the Project to Completion
 
Israel would soon need its own, independent, capabilities to complete its nuclear program. Only five countries had facilities for uranium enrichment: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and China. The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, or NUMEC, in Apollo, Pennsylvania was a small fuel rod fabrication plant. In 1965, the U.S. government accused Dr. Zalman Shapiro, the corporation president, of "losing" 200 pounds of highly enriched uranium. Although investigated by the Atomic Energy Commission, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other government agencies and inquiring reporters, no answers were available in what was termed the Apollo Affair.29 Many remain convinced that the Israelis received 200 pounds of enriched uranium sometime before 1965.30 One source links Rafi Eitan, an Israeli Mossad agent and later the handler of spy Jonathan Pollard, with NUMEC.31 In the 1990s when the NUMEC plant was disassembled, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found over 100 kilograms of plutonium in the structural components of the contaminated plant, casting doubt on 200 pounds going to Israel.32
 
The joint venture with France gave Israel several ingredients for nuclear weapons construction: a production reactor, a factory to extract plutonium from the spent fuel, and the design. In 1962, the Dimona reactor went critical; the French resumed work on the underground plutonium reprocessing plant, and completed it in 1964 or 1965. The acquisition of this reactor and related technologies was clearly intended for military purposes from the outset (not "dual-use"), as the reactor has no other function. The security at Dimona (officially the Negev Nuclear Research Center) was particularly stringent. For straying into Dimona's airspace, the Israelis shot down one of their own Mirage fighters during the Six-Day War. The Israelis also shot down a Libyan airliner with 104 passengers, in 1973, which had strayed over the Sinai.33 There is little doubt that some time in the late sixties Israel became the sixth nation to manufacture nuclear weapons. Other things they needed were extra uranium and extra heavy water to run the reactor at a higher rate. Norway, France, and the United States provided the heavy water and "Operation Plumbat" provided the uranium.
 
After the 1967 war, France stopped supplies of uranium to Israel. These supplies were from former French colonies of Gabon, Niger, and the Central Africa Republic.34 Israel had small amounts of uranium from Negev phosphate mines and had bought some from Argentina and South Africa, but not in the large quantities supplied by the French. Through a complicated undercover operation, the Israelis obtained uranium oxide, known as yellow cake, held in a stockpile in Antwerp. Using a West German front company and a high seas transfer from one ship to another in the Mediterranean, they obtained 200 tons of yellow cake. The smugglers labeled the 560 sealed oil drums "Plumbat," which means lead, hence "Operation Plumbat."35 The West German government may have been involved directly but remained undercover to avoid antagonizing the Soviets or Arabs.36 Israeli intelligence information on the Nazi past of some West German officials may have provided the motivation.37
 
Norway sold 20 tons of heavy water to Israel in 1959 for use in an experimental power reactor. Norway insisted on the right to inspect the heavy water for 32 years, but did so only once, in April 1961, while it was still in storage barrels at Dimona. Israel simply promised that the heavy water was for peaceful purposes. In addition, quantities much more than what would be required for the peaceful purpose reactors were imported. Norway either colluded or at the least was very slow to ask to inspect as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rules required.38 Norway and Israel concluded an agreement in 1990 for Israel to sell back 10.5 tons of the heavy water to Norway. Recent calculations reveal that Israel has used two tons and will retain eight tons more.39
 
Author Seymour Hersh, writing in the Samson Option says Prime Minister Levi Eshkol delayed starting weapons production even after Dimona was finished.40 The reactor operated and the plutonium collected, but remained unseparated. The first extraction of plutonium probably occurred in late 1965. By 1966, enough plutonium was on hand to develop a weapon in time for the Six-Day War in 1967. Some type of non-nuclear test, perhaps a zero yield or implosion test, occurred on November 2, 1966. After this time, considerable collaboration between Israel and South Africa developed and continued through the 1970s and 1980s. South Africa became Israel's primary supplier of uranium for Dimona. A Center for Nonproliferation Studies report lists four separate Israel-South Africa "clandestine nuclear deals." Three concerned yellowcake and one was tritium.41 Other sources of yellowcake may have included Portugal.42
 
Egypt attempted unsuccessfully to obtain nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union both before and after the Six-Day War. President Nasser received from the Soviet Union a questionable nuclear guarantee instead and declared that Egypt would develop its own nuclear program.43 His rhetoric of 1965 and 1966 about preventive war and Israeli nuclear weapons coupled with overflights of the Dimona rector contributed to the tensions that led to war. The Egyptian Air Force claims to have first overflown Dimona and recognized the existence of a nuclear reactor in 1965.44 Of the 50 American HAWK antiaircraft missiles in Israeli hands, half ringed Dimona by 1965.45 Israel considered the Egyptian overflights of May 16, 1967 as possible pre-strike reconnaissance. One source lists such Egyptian overflights, along with United Nations peacekeeper withdrawal and Egyptian troop movements into the Sinai, as one of the three "tripwires" which would drive Israel to war.46 There was an Egyptian military plan to attack Dimona at the start of any war but Nasser vetoed it.47 He believed Israel would have the bomb in 1968.48 Israel assembled two nuclear bombs and ten days later went to war.49 Nasser's plan, if he had one, may have been to gain and consolidate territorial gains before Israel had a nuclear option.50 He was two weeks too late.
 
The Israelis aggressively pursued an aircraft delivery system from the United States. President Johnson was less emphatic about nonproliferation than President Kennedy-or perhaps had more pressing concerns, such as Vietnam. He had a long history of both Jewish friends and pressing political contributors coupled with some first hand experience of the Holocaust, having toured concentration camps at the end of World War II.51 Israel pressed him hard for aircraft (A-4E Skyhawks initially and F-4E Phantoms later) and obtained agreement in 1966 under the condition that the aircraft would not be used to deliver nuclear weapons. The State Department attempted to link the aircraft purchases to continued inspection visits. President Johnson overruled the State Department concerning Dimona inspections.52 Although denied at the time, America delivered the F-4Es, on September 5, 1969, with nuclear capable hardware intact.53
 
The Samson Option states that Moshe Dayan gave the go-ahead for starting weapon production in early 1968, putting the plutonium separation plant into full operation. Israel began producing three to five bombs a year. The book Critical Mass asserts that Israel had two bombs in 1967, and that Prime Minister Eshkol ordered them armed in Israel's first nuclear alert during the Six-Day War.54 Avner Cohen in his recent book, Israel and the Bomb, agrees that Israel had a deliverable nuclear capability in the 1967 war. He quotes Munya Mardor, leader of Rafael, the Armament Development Authority, and other unnamed sources, that Israel "cobbled together" two deliverable devices.55
 
Having the bomb meant articulating, even if secretly, a use doctrine. In addition to the "Samson Option" of last resort, other triggers for nuclear use may have included successful Arab penetration of populated areas, destruction of the Israeli Air Force, massive air strikes or chemical/biological strikes on Israeli cities, and Arab use of nuclear weapons.56
 
In 1971, Israel began purchasing krytrons, ultra high-speed electronic switching tubes that are "dual-use," having both industrial and nuclear weapons applications as detonators. In the 1980s, the United States charged an American, Richard Smith (or Smyth), with smuggling 810 krytrons to Israel.57 He vanished before trial and reportedly lives outside Tel Aviv. The Israelis apologized for the action saying that the krytrons were for medical research.58 Israel returned 469 of the krytrons but the rest, they declared, had been destroyed in testing conventional weapons. Some believe they went to South Africa.59 Smyth has also been reported to have been involved in a 1972 smuggling operation to obtain solid rocket fuel binder compounds for the Jericho II missile and guidance component hardware.60 Observers point to the Jericho missile itself as proof of a nuclear capability as it is not suited to the delivery of conventional munitions.61
 
On the afternoon of 6 October 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in a coordinated surprise attack, beginning the Yom Kippur War. Caught with only regular forces on duty, augmented by reservists with a low readiness level, Israeli front lines crumbled. By early afternoon on 7 October, no effective forces were in the southern Golan Heights and Syrian forces had reached the edge of the plateau, overlooking the Jordan River. This crisis brought Israel to its second nuclear alert.
 
Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, obviously not at his best at a press briefing, was, according to Time magazine, rattled enough to later tell the prime minister that "this is the end of the third temple," referring to an impending collapse of the state of Israel. "Temple" was also the code word for nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Golda Meir and her "kitchen cabinet" made the decision on the night of 8 October. The Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton atomic bombs. The number and in fact the entire story was later leaked by the Israelis as a great psychological warfare tool. Although most probably plutonium devices, one source reports they were enriched uranium bombs. The Jericho missiles at Hirbat Zachariah and the nuclear strike F-4s at Tel Nof were armed and prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets. They also targeted Damascus with nuclear capable long-range artillery although it is not certain they had nuclear artillery shells.62
 
U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was notified of the alert several hours later on the morning of 9 October. The U.S. decided to open an aerial resupply pipeline to Israel, and Israeli aircraft began picking up supplies that day. Although stockpile depletion remained a concern, the military situation stabilized on October 8th and 9th as Israeli reserves poured into the battle and averted disaster. Well before significant American resupply had reached Israeli forces, the Israelis counterattacked and turned the tide on both fronts.
 
On 11 October, a counterattack on the Golan broke the back of Syria's offensive, and on 15 and 16 October, Israel launched a surprise crossing of the Suez Canal into Africa. Soon the Israelis encircled the Egyptian Third Army and it was faced with annihilation on the east bank of the Suez Canal, with no protective forces remaining between the Israeli Army and Cairo. The first U.S. flights arrived on 14 October.63 Israeli commandos flew to Fort Benning, Georgia to train with the new American TOW anti-tank missiles and return with a C-130 Hercules aircraft full of them in time for the decisive Golan battle. American commanders in Germany depleted their stocks of missiles, at that time only shared with the British and West Germans, and sent them forward to Israel.64
 
Thus started the subtle, opaque use of the Israeli bomb to ensure that the United States kept its pledge to maintain Israel's conventional weapons edge over its foes.65 There is significant anecdotal evidence that Henry Kissinger told President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, that the reason for the U.S. airlift was that the Israelis were close to "going nuclear."66
 
A similar Soviet pipeline to the Arabs, equally robust, may or may not have included a ship with nuclear weapons on it, detected from nuclear trace emissions and shadowed by the Americans from the Dardanelles. The Israelis believe that the Soviets discovered Israeli nuclear preparations from COSMOS satellite photographs and decided to equalize the odds.67 The Soviet ship arrived in Alexandria on either 18 or 23 October (sources disagree), and remained, without unloading, until November 1973. The ship may have represented a Soviet guarantee to the Arab combatants to neutralize the Israeli nuclear option.68 While some others dismiss the story completely, the best-written review article concludes that the answer is "obscure." Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev threatened, on 24 October, to airlift Soviet airborne troops to reinforce the Egyptians cut off on the eastern side of the Suez Canal and put seven Soviet airborne divisions on alert.69 Recent evidence indicates that the Soviets sent nuclear missile submarines also.70 Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine claimed that the two Soviet SCUD brigades deployed in Egypt each had a nuclear warhead. American satellite photos seemed to confirm this. The U.S. passed to Israel images of trucks, of the type used to transport nuclear warheads, parked near the launchers.71 President Nixon's response was to bring the U.S. to worldwide nuclear alert the next day, whereupon Israel went to nuclear alert a third time.72 This sudden crisis quickly faded as Prime Minister Meir agreed to a cease-fire, relieving the pressure on the Egyptian Third Army.
 
Shimon Peres had argued for a pre-war nuclear demonstration to deter the Arabs. Arab strategies and war aims in 1967 may have been restricted because of a fear of the Israeli "bomb in the basement," the undeclared nuclear option. The Egyptians planned to capture an eastern strip next to the Suez Canal and then hold. The Syrians did not aggressively commit more forces to battle or attempt to drive through the 1948 Jordan River border to the Israeli center. Both countries seemed not to violate Israel proper and avoided triggering one of the unstated Israeli reasons to employ nuclear weapons.73 Others discount any Arab planning based on nuclear capabilities.74 Peres also credits Dimona with bringing Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem to make peace.75 This position was seemingly confirmed by Sadat in a private conversation with Israeli Defense Minister Ezer Weizman.76
 
At the end of the Yom Kippur War (a nation shaking experience), Israel has her nuclear arsenal fully functional and tested by a deployment. The arsenal, still opaque and unspoken, was no longer a secret, especially to the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union.
 
 
IV. 1974-1999: Bringing the Bomb up the Basement Stairs
 
Never Again!
- Reportedly welded on the first Israeli nuclear bomb77
 
Shortly after the 1973 war, Israel allegedly fielded considerable nuclear artillery consisting of American 175 mm and 203 mm self-propelled artillery pieces, capable of firing nuclear shells. If true, this shows that Dimona had rapidly solved the problems of designing smaller weapons since the crude 1967 devices. If true, these low yield, tactical nuclear artillery rounds could reach at least 25 miles. The Israeli Defense Force did have three battalions of the 175mm artillery (36 tubes), reportedly with 108 nuclear shells and more for the 203mm tubes. Some sources describe a program to extend the range to 45 miles. They may have offered the South Africans these low yield, miniaturized, shells described as, "the best stuff we got."78 By 1976, according to one unclassified source, the Central Intelligence Agency believed that the Israelis were using plutonium from Dimona and had 10 to 20 nuclear weapons available.79
 
In 1972, two Israeli scientists, Isaiah Nebenzahl and Menacehm Levin, developed a cheaper, faster uranium enrichment process. It used a laser beam for isotope separation. It could reportedly enrich seven grams of Uranium 235 sixty percent in one day.80 Sources later reported that Israel was using both centrifuges and lasers to enrich uranium.81
 
Questions remained regarding full-scale nuclear weapons tests. Primitive gun assembled type devices need no testing. Researchers can test non-nuclear components of other types separately and use extensive computer simulations. Israel received data from the 1960 French tests, and one source concludes that Israel accessed information from U.S. tests conducted in the 1950s and early 1960s. This may have included both boosted and thermonuclear weapons data.82 Underground testing in a hollowed out cavern is difficult to detect. A West Germany Army Magazine, Wehrtechnik, in June 1976, claimed that Western reports documented a 1963 underground test in the Negev. Other reports show a test at Al-Naqab, Negev in October 1966.83
 
A bright flash in the south Indian Ocean, observed by an American satellite on 22 September 1979, is widely believed to be a South Africa-Israel joint nuclear test. It was, according to some, the third test of a neutron bomb. The first two were hidden in clouds to fool the satellite and the third was an accident"the weather cleared.84 Experts differ on these possible tests. Several writers report that the scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory believed it to have been a nuclear explosion while a presidential panel decided otherwise.85 President Carter was just entering the Iran hostage nightmare and may have easily decided not to alter 30 years of looking the other way.86 The explosion was almost certainly an Israeli bomb, tested at the invitation of the South Africans. It was more advanced than the "gun type" bombs developed by the South Africans.87 One report claims it was a test of a nuclear artillery shell.88 A 1997 Israeli newspaper quoted South African deputy foreign minister, Aziz Pahad, as confirming it was an Israeli test with South African logistical support.89
 
Controversy over possible nuclear testing continues to this day. In June 1998, a Member of the Knesset accused the government of an underground test near Eilat on May 28, 1998. Egyptian "nuclear experts" had made similar charges. The Israeli government hotly denied the claims.90
 
Not only were the Israelis interested in American nuclear weapons development data, they were interested in targeting data from U.S. intelligence. Israel discovered that they were on the Soviet target list. American-born Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard obtained satellite-imaging data of the Soviet Union, allowing Israel to target accurately Soviet cities. This showed Israel's intention to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent political lever, or retaliatory capability against the Soviet Union itself. Israel also used American satellite imagery to plan the 7 June 1981 attack on the Tammuz-1 reactor at Osiraq, Iraq. This daring attack, carried out by eight F-16s accompanied by six F-15s punched a hole in the concrete reactor dome before the reactor began operation (and just days before an Israeli election). It delivered 15 delay-fused 2000 pound bombs deep into the reactor structure (the 16th bomb hit a nearby hall). The blasts shredded the reactor and blew out the dome foundations, causing it to collapse on the rubble. This was the world's first attack on a nuclear reactor.91
 
Since 19 September 1988, Israel has worked on its own satellite recon- naissance system to decrease reliance on U.S. sources. On that day, they launched the Offeq-1 satellite on the Shavit booster, a system closely related to the Jericho-II missile. They launched the satellite to the west away from the Arabs and against the earth's rotation, requiring even more thrust. The Jericho-II missile is capable of sending a one ton nuclear payload 5,000 kilometers. Offeq-2 went up on 3 April 1990. The launch of the Offeq-3 failed on its first attempt on 15 September 1994, but was successful 5 April 1995.92
 
Mordechai Vanunu provided the best look at the Israeli nuclear arsenal in 1985 complete with photographs.93 A technician from Dimona who lost his job, Vanunu secretly took photographs, immigrated to Australia and published some of his material in the London Sunday Times. He was subsequently kidnapped by Israeli agents, tried and imprisoned. His data shows a sophisticated nuclear program, over 200 bombs, with boosted devices, neutron bombs, F-16 deliverable warheads, and Jericho warheads.94 The boosted weapons shown in the Vanunu photographs show a sophistication that inferred the requirement for testing.95 He revealed for the first time the underground plutonium separation facility where Israel was producing 40 kilograms annually, several times more than previous estimates. Photographs showed sophisticated designs which scientific experts say enabled the Israelis to build bombs with as little as 4 kilograms of plutonium. These facts have increased the estimates of total Israeli nuclear stockpiles (see Appendix A).96 In the words of one American, "[the Israelis] can do anything we or the Soviets can do."97 Vanunu not only made the technical details of the Israeli program and stockpile public but in his wake, Israeli began veiled official acknowledgement of the potent Israeli nuclear deterrent. They began bringing the bomb up the basement stairs if not out of the basement.
 
Israel went on full-scale nuclear alert again on the first day of Desert Storm, 18 January 1991. Seven SCUD missiles were fired against the cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa by Iraq (only two actually hit Tel Aviv and one hit Haifa). This alert lasted for the duration of the war, 43 days. Over the course of the war, Iraq launched around 40 missiles in 17 separate attacks at Israel. There was little loss of life: two killed directly, 11 indirectly, with many structures damaged and life disrupted.98 Several supposedly landed near Dimona, one of them a close miss.99 Threats of retaliation by the Shamir government if the Iraqis used chemical warheads were interpreted to mean that Israel intended to launch a nuclear strike if gas attacks occurred. One Israeli commentator recommended that Israel should signal Iraq that "any Iraqi action against Israeli civilian populations, with or without gas, may leave Iraq without Baghdad."100 Shortly before the end of the war the Israelis tested a "nuclear capable" missile which prompted the United States into intensifying its SCUD hunting in western Iraq to prevent any Israeli response.101 The Israeli Air Force set up dummy SCUD sites in the Negev for pilots to practice on"they found it no easy task.102 American government concessions to Israel for not attacking (in addition to Israeli Patriot missile batteries) were:
 
Allowing Israel to designate 100 targets inside Iraq for the coalition to destroy,
Satellite downlink to increase warning time on the SCUD attacks (present and future),
"Technical parity with Saudi jet fighters in perpetuity."103
All of this validated the nuclear arsenal in the minds of the Israelis. In particular the confirmed capability of Arab states without a border with Israel, the so-called "second tier" states, to reach out and touch Israel with ballistic missiles confirmed Israel's need for a robust first strike capability.104 Current military contacts between Israel and India, another nuclear power, bring up questions of nuclear cooperation.105 Pakistani sources have already voiced concerns over a possible joint Israeli-Indian attack on Pakistan's nuclear facilities.106 A recent Parameters article speculated on Israel's willingness to furnish nuclear capabilities or assistance to certain states, such as Turkey.107 A retired Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Amnon Shahak, has declared, "all methods are acceptable in withholding nuclear capabilities from an Arab state."108
 
As the Israeli bomb comes out of the basement, open discussion, even in Israel, is occurring on why the Israelis feel they need an arsenal not used in at least two if not three wars. Avner Cohen states: "It [Israel] must be in a position to threaten another Hiroshima to prevent another holocaust."109 In July 1998 Shimon Peres was quoted in the Jordan Times as saying, "We have built a nuclear option, not in order to have a Hiroshima, but to have an Oslo,"110 referring to the peace process.
 
One list of current reasons for an Israeli nuclear capability is:
 
To deter a large conventional attack,
To deter all levels of unconventional (chemical, biological, nuclear) attacks,
To preempt enemy nuclear attacks,
To support conventional preemption against enemy nuclear assets,
To support conventional preemption against enemy non-nuclear (conventional, chemical, biological) assets,
For nuclear warfighting,
The "Samson Option" (last resort destruction).111
 
The most alarming of these is the nuclear warfighting. The Israelis have developed, by several accounts, low yield neutron bombs able to destroy troops with minimal damage to property.112 In 1990, during the Second Gulf War, an Israeli reserve major general recommended to America that it "use non-contaminating tactical nuclear weapons" against Iraq.113 Some have speculated that the Israelis will update their nuclear arsenal to "micronukes" and "tinynukes" which would be very useful to attack point targets and other tactical or barrier (mining) uses.114 These would be very useful for hardened deeply buried command and control facilities and for airfield destruction without exposing Israeli pilots to combat.115 Authors have made the point that Israeli professional military schools do not teach nuclear tactics and would not use them in the close quarters of Israel. Many Israeli officers have attended American military schools where they learned tactical use in crowded Europe.116
 
However, Jane's Intelligence Review has recently reported an Israeli review of nuclear strategy with a shift from tactical nuclear warheads to long range missiles.117 Israel always has favored the long reach, whether to Argentina for Adolph Eichmann, to Iraq to strike a reactor, Entebbe for hostages, Tunisia to hit the PLO, or by targeting the Soviet Union's cities. An esteemed Israeli military author has speculated that Israel is pursuing an R&D program to provide MIRVs (multiple independent reentry vehicles) on their missiles.118
 
The government of Israel recently ordered three German Dolphin Class 800 submarine, to be delivered in late 1999. Israel will then have a second strike capability with nuclear cruise missiles, and this capability could well change the nuclear arms race in the Middle East.119 Israeli rhetoric on the new submarines labels them "national deterrent" assets. Projected capabilities include a submarine-launched nuclear missile with a 350-kilometer range.120 Israel has been working on sea launch capability for missiles since the 1960s.121 The first basing options for the new second-strike force of nuclear missile capable submarines include Oman, an Arab nation with unofficial Israeli relations, located strategically near Iran.122 A report indicates that the Israel Defense Ministry has formally gone to the government with a request to authorize a retaliatory nuclear strike if Israel was hit with first strike nuclear weapons. This report comes in the wake of a recent Iran Shihab-3 missile test and indications to Israel that Iran is two to three years from a nuclear warhead.123 Israeli statements stress that Iran's nuclear potential would be problem to all and would require "American leadership, with serious participation of the G-7 . . . ."124
 
A recent study highlighted Israel's extreme vulnerability to a first strike and an accompanying vulnerability even to a false alarm.125 Syria's entire defense against Israel seems to rest on chemical weapons and warheads.126 One scenario involves Syria making a quick incursion into the Golan and then threatening chemical strikes, perhaps with a new, more lethal (protective-mask-penetrable) Russian nerve gas if Israel resists.127 Their use would drive Israel to nuclear use. Israeli development of an anti- missile defense, the Arrow, a fully fielded (30-50128) Jericho II ballistic missile, and the soon-to-arrive strategic submarine force, seems to have produced a coming change in defense force structure. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, quotes the Israeli Chief of Staff discussing the establishment of a "strategic command to . . . prepare an adequate response to the long term threats. . . "129
 
The 1994 accord with Jordan, allowing limited Israeli military presence in Jordanian skies, could make the flying distance to several potential adversaries considerably shorter.130 Israel is concerned about Iran's desire to obtain nuclear weapons and become a regional leader, coupled with large numbers of Shiite Moslems in southern Lebanon. The Israeli Air Force commanding general issued a statement saying Israel would "consider an attack" if any country gets "close to achieving a nuclear capability."131 The Israelis are obviously considering actions capable of stopping such programs and are buying aircraft such as the F-15I with sufficient operational range. At the first delivery of these 4,000 kilometer range fighters, the Israeli comment was, "the aircraft would help counter a growing nuclear threat."132 They consider such regional nation nuclear programs to be a sufficient cause for war. Their record of accomplishment is clear: having hit the early Iraqi nuclear effort, they feel vindicated by Desert Storm. They also feel that only the American and Israeli nuclear weapons kept Iraq's Saddam Hussein from using chemical or biological weapons against Israel.133
 
Israel, like Iran, has desires of regional power. The 1956 alliance with France and Britain might have been a first attempt at regional hegemony. Current debate in the Israeli press considers offering Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and perhaps Syria (after a peace agreement) an Israeli nuclear umbrella of protection.134 A nuclear Iran or Iraq might use its nuclear weapons to protect some states in the region, threaten others, and attempt to control oil prices.135
 
Another speculative area concerns Israeli nuclear security and possible misuse. What is the chain of decision and control of Israel's weapons? How susceptible are they to misuse or theft? With no open, frank, public debate on nuclear issues, there has accordingly been no debate or information on existing safeguards. This has led to accusations of "monolithic views and sinister intentions."1360 Would a right wing military government decide to employ nuclear weapons recklessly? Ariel Sharon, an outspoken proponent of "Greater Israel" was quoted as saying, "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."137 Could the Gush Emunim, a right wing religious organization, or others, hijack a nuclear device to "liberate" the Temple Mount for the building of the third temple? Chances are small but could increase as radicals decry the peace process.138 A 1997 article reviewing the Israeli Defense Force repeatedly stressed the possibilities of, and the need to guard against, a religious, right wing military coup, especially as the proportion of religious in the military increases.139
 
Israel is a nation with a state religion, but its top leaders are not religious Jews. The intricacies of Jewish religious politics and rabbinical law do affect their politics and decision processes. In Jewish law, there are two types of war, one obligatory and mandatory (milkhemet mitzvah) and the one authorized but optional (milkhemet reshut).140 The labeling of Prime Minister Begin's "Peace for Galilee" operation as a milchemet brera ("war of choice") was one of the factors causing it to lose support.141 Interpretation of Jewish law concerning nuclear weapons does not permit their use for mutual assured destruction. However, it does allow possession and threatening their use, even if actual use is not justifiable under the law. Interpretations of the law allow tactical use on the battlefield, but only after warning the enemy and attempting to make peace. How much these intricacies affect Israeli nuclear strategy decisions is unknown.142
 
The secret nature of the Israeli nuclear program has hidden the increasing problems of the aging Dimona reactor and adverse worker health effects. Information is only now public as former workers sue the government. This issue is now linked to continued tritium production for the boosted anti-tank and anti-missile nuclear warheads that Israeli continues to need. Israel is attempting to obtain a new, more efficient, tritium production technology developed in India.143
 
One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their "use" on the United States. America does not want Israel's nuclear profile raised.144 They have been used in the past to ensure America does not desert Israel under increased Arab, or oil embargo, pressure and have forced the United States to support Israeli diplomatically against the Soviet Union. Israel used their existence to guarantee a continuing supply of American conventional weapons, a policy likely to continue.145
 
Regardless of the true types and numbers (see Appendix A) of Israeli nuclear weapons, they have developed a sophisticated system, by myriad methods, and are a nuclear power to be reckoned with. Their nuclear ambiguity has served their purposes well but Israel is entering a different phase of visibility even as their nuclear capability is entering a new phase. This new visibility may not be in America's interest.146 Many are predicting the Israeli nuclear arsenal will become less useful "out of the basement" and possibly spur a regional arms race. If so, Israel has a 5-10 year lead time at present before mutual assured destruction, Middle East style, will set in. Would regional mutual second strike capability, easier to acquire than superpower mutual second strike capability, result in regional stability? Some think so.147 Current Israeli President Ezer Weizman has stated "the nuclear issue is gaining momentum [and the] next war will not be conventional.148
 
Appendix A
 
Estimates of the Israeli Nuclear Arsenal
 
 
Notes
 
1. Hersh, Seymour M., The Samson Option. Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (New York: Random House, 1991), 223.
 
2. Aronson, Slomo and Brosh, Oded, The Politics and Strategy of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East, the Opacity Theory, and Reality, 1960-1991-An Israeli Perspective (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1992), 20.
 
3. Karsh, Efraim, Between War and Peace: Dilemmas of Israeli Security (London, England: Frank Cass, 1996), 82.
 
4. Cohen, Avner, Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 16.
 
5. Cordesman, Anthony, Perilous Prospects: The Peace Process and the Arab-Israeli Military Balance (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1996), 118.
 
6. Pry, Peter, Israel's Nuclear Arsenal (Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 1984), 5-6.
 
7. Quoted in Weissman, Steve and Krosney, Herbert. The Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East. (New York, New York: Times Books, 1981), 105.
 
8. "Former Official Says France Helped Build Israel's Dimona Complex." Nucleonics Week October 16, 1986, 6.
 
9. Milhollin, Gary, "Heavy Water Cheaters." Foreign Policy (1987-88): 101-102.
 
10. Cordesman, 1991, 127.
 
11. Federation of American Scientists, "Israel's Nuclear Weapons Program." 10 December 1997, n.p. On-line. Internet, 27 October 1998. Available from http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Israel/Isrhist.html.
 
12. Nashif, Taysir N., Nuclear Weapons in Israel (New Delhi: S. B. Nangia Books, 1996), 3.
 
13. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, 48-49.
 
14. Bennett, Jeremy, The Suez Crisis. BBC Video. n.d. Videocassette and Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi. Every Spy a Prince. The Complete History of Israel's Intelligence Community. (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990), 63-69.
 
15. Weissman and Krosney, 112.
 
16. "Revealed: The Secrets of Israel's Nuclear Arsenal" (London) Sunday Times No. 8,461, 5 October 1986, 1, 4-5.
 
17. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, 57-59.
 
18. Peres, Shimon, Battling for Peace. A Memoir (New York, New York: Random House, 1995), 122.
 
19. Pry, 10.
 
20. Loftus, John and Aarons, Mark, The Secret War Against the Jews. How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People (New York, New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1994), 287-303.
 
21. Green, Stephen, Taking Sides. America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1984), 152.
 
22. Cohen, Avner, "Most Favored Nation." The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 51, no. 1 (January-February 1995): 44-53.
 
23. Hersh, The Samson Option, 196.
 
24. See Cohen, Avner, "Israel's Nuclear History: The Untold Kennedy-Eshkol Dimona Correspondence." Journal of Israeli History, 1995 16, no. 2, 159-194 and Cohen, Avner, Comp. "Recently Declassified 1963 Correspondence between President Kennedy and Prime Ministers Ben-Gurion and Eshkol." Journal of Israeli History, 1995 16, no. 2, 195-207. Much of the documentation has been posted to http:\\www.seas.gwu.edu/nsarchive/israel.
 
25. Weissman and Krosney, op. cit.,114-117
 
26. Cohen, op. cit., Israel and the Bomb, 82-83.
 
27. Spector, Leonard S., The Undeclared Bomb (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishers, 1988), 387 (n.22).
 
28. Quoted in Stevens, Elizabeth. "Israel's Nuclear Weapons"A Case Study." 14 pages. On line. Internet, 23 October 1998. Available from
http://infomanage.com/nonproliferation/najournal/israelinucs.html.
 
29. Green, Taking Sides, 148-179 and Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, 1990, 197-198.
 
30. Weissman and Krosney, 119-124.
 
31. Black, Ian and Morris, Benny, Israel's Secret Wars. A history of Israel's Intelligence Services (New York, New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991), 418-419.
 
32. Hersh, 257.
 
33. Green, Stephen, Living by the Sword: America and Israel in the Middle East, 1968-1987 (London: Faber, 1988), 63-80.
 
34. Cordesman, 1991, 120.
 
35. Weissman and Krosney, 124-128 and Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, 1990, 198-199.
 
36. Spector, The Undeclared Bomb, 395(n. 57).98-199
 
37. Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, 1990, 58.
 
38. Milhollin, 100-119.
 
39. Stanghelle, Harold, "Israel to sell back 10.5 tons." Arbeiderbladet, Oslo, Norway, 28 June 1990 in: Center for Nonproliferation Studies, "Nuclear Developments," 28 June 1990, 34-35; on-line, Internet 22 November 1998, available from http://cns.miis.edu.
 
40. Hersh, op. cit., 139.
 
41. Center for Nonproliferation Studies. "Israeli Friends," ISIS Report, May 1994, 4; on-line, Internet 22 November 1998, available from http://cns.miis.edu.
 
42. Abecasis, Rachel, "Uranium reportedly offered to China, Israel." Radio Renascenca, Lisbon, 9 December 1992 quoted in Center for Nonproliferation, "Proliferation Issues," 23 December, 1992, 25; on-line, Internet 22 November 1998, available from http://cns.miis.edu.
 
43. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, op. cit., 231-232 and 256-257.
 
44. Nordeen, Lon O., Nicolle, David, Phoenix over the Nile (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1996), 192-193.
 
45. O'Balance, Edgar, The Third Arab-Israeli War (London: Faber and Faber, 1972), 54.
 
46. Brecher, Michael, Decision in Crisis. Israel, 1967 and 1973 (Berkley, California: University of California Press, 1980), 104, 230-231.
 
47. Cohen, Avner. "Cairo, Dimona, and the June 1967 War." Middle East Journal 50, no. 2 (Spring 1996), 190-210.
 
48. Creveld, Martin van. The Sword and the Olive. A Critical History of the Israeli Defense Force (New York, New York: Public Affairs, 1998), 174.
 
49. Burrows, William E. and Windrem, Robert, Critical Mass. The Dangerous Race for Superweapons in a Fragmenting World (New York, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 282-283.
 
50. Aronson, Shlomo, Israel's Nuclear Options, ACIS Working Paper No. 7. Los Angeles, California: University of California Center for Arms Control and International Security, 1977, 3, and Sorenson, David S., "Middle East Regional Studies-AY99," Air War College: Maxwell Air Force Base, AL, 542.
 
51. Hersh, op. cit., 126-128.
 
52. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, op. cit., 210-213.
 
53. Spector, Leonard S., "Foreign-Supplied Combat Aircraft: Will They Drop the Third World Bomb?" Journal of International Affairs 40, no. 1(1986): 145 (n. 5) and Green, Living by the Sword, op. cit., 18-19.
 
54. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 280.
 
55. Cohen, op. cit., Israel and the Bomb, 237.
 
56. Ibid., 273-274.
 
57. Milhollin, op. cit., 103-104.
 
58. Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, Friend in Deed: Inside the U.S.-Israel Alliance (New York New York: Hyperion, 1994), 299.
 
59. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 464-465 and Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, op. cit., 1990, 304-305.
 
60. Spector, The Undeclared Bomb, op. cit., 179.
 
61. Dowty, Alan. "Israel and Nuclear Weapons." Midstream 22, no. 7 (November 1976), 8-9.
 
62. Hersh, op. cit., 217, 222-226, and Weissman and Krosney, op. cit., 107.
 
63. Green, op. cit., Living by the Sword, 90-99.
 
64. Loftus and Aarons, op. cit., 316-317.
 
65 Smith, Gerard C. and Cobban, Helena. "A Blind Eye To Nuclear Proliferation." Foreign Affairs 68, no. 3(1989), 53-70.
 
66. Hersh, op. cit., 230-231.
 
67. O'Balance, Edgar, No Victor, No Vanquished. The Yom Kippur War (San Rafael, California: Presido Press, 1978), 175.
 
68. Ibid., 234-235 and Aronson, S, op. cit., 15-18.
 
69. Spector, The Undeclared Bomb, op. cit., 396 (n. 62); Garthoff, Raymond L., Détente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, 1994), 426, n76 and Bandmann, Yona and Cordova, Yishai. "The Soviet Nuclear Threat Towards the Close of the Yom Kippur War." Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 1980 5, no. 1, 107-9.
 
70. Cherkashin, Nikolai, "On Moscow's Orders." Russian Life, 39, no. 10 (October 1996), 13-15.
 
71. Brownlow, Cecil. "Soviets poise three-front global drive. Nuclear weapons in Egypt, artillery buildup at Guantanamo, Communist concentrations in Vietnam aimed at political gains." Aviation Week and Space Technology 99, no. 19 (5 November 1973), 12-14; Holt, Robert. "Soviet Power Play." Aviation Week and Space Technology 99, no. 19 (5 November 1973), 7 and Gur-Arieh, Danny, "A non-Conventional Look at Israel During '73 War." IsraelWire Tuesday, October 6, 1998 17, 23; on-line, Internet 20 November 1998, available from http://www.israelwire.com/new/981006/9810068.html.
 
72. Hersh, op. cit., 321-235.
 
73. Creveld, 1998, op. cit., 220-221.
 
74. Evron, Yair, Israel's Nuclear Dilemma (Ithaca, New York: Cornell Publishing, 1994), 62-74.
 
75. Cohen, Avner, "Peres: Peacemaker, Nuclear Pioneer." The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 52, no. 3 (May/June 1996), 16-17 and Aronson, S, op. cit., 11-12.
 
76. Karsh, op. cit., 86.
 
77. Quoted in Hersh, op. cit., 180 and Stevens, op. cit., 1-14.
 
78. Hersh, op. cit., 216, 276 and Kaku, Michio. "Contingency Plans: Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War." In Altered States: A Reader in the New World Order, Bennis, Phyllis and Moushabeck, Michel, Eds. (New York, New York: 1993), 66.
 
79. Weissman and Krosney, op. cit., 109.
 
80. Gillette, Robert, "Uranium Enrichment: Rumors of Israeli Progress with Lasers." Science 183, no. 4130 (22 March 1974), 1172-1174.
 
81. Barnaby, Frank, The Invisible Bomb: The Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East (London: I. B. Tauris, 1988), 25.
 
82. "Israel: The Covert Connection." Frontline, PBS Network, May 16, 1989, quoted in Spector, Leonard S., and McDonough, Mark G., with Medeiros, Evan S., Tracking Nuclear Proliferation. A Guide in Maps and Charts, 1995 (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1995).
 
83. Nashif, Taysir N., Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East: Dimensions and Responsibilities (Princeton, New Jersey: Kingston Press, 1984), 22-23.
 
84. Hersh, op. cit., 216.
 
85. Barnaby, Frank, "Capping Israel's Nuclear Volcano," Between War and Peace. Dilemmas of Israeli Security, edited by Efraim Karsh (London, England: Frank Cass, 1996), 98.
 
86. Hersh, op. cit., 271-275.
 
87. Nashif, op. cit., 32.
 
88. Gaffney, Mark, Dimona: The Third Temple? The Story Behind the Vanunu Revelation (Brattleboro, Vermont: Amana Books, 1989), 100-101.
 
89. Pedatzur, Re'uven, "South African Statement On Nuclear Test Said to Serve Israel," Ha'aretz, 29 July 1997. On line: Internet, 22 November 1998 and Kelley, Robert. "The Iraqi and South African Nuclear W"ôNuclear Abstracts," 1 March 1996, or on-line, Internet, 22 November 1998, both available from http://cns.miis.edu.
 
90. "Was there a Nuclear Test near Eilat?" IsraelWire, 16 June 1998, or on line Internet, 22 November, 1998, available from http://www.israelwire.com and "Deputy Defense Minister Denies Israeli Nuclear Testing." Israeli Wire, June 18, 1998, or on-line. Internet, 13 October 1998, available from http://www.israelwire.com/New/980618/9806184.html.
 
91. McKinnon, Dan. Bullseye One Reactor. The Story of Israel's Bold Surprise Air Attack That Destroyed Iraqi's Nuclear Bomb Facility (Shrewsbury, England: Airlife Publishing Ltd., 1987).
 
92. "Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Report on the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Moscow, 1993." Journal of Palestine Studies XXII, no. 4 (Summer 1993): 135-140; Creveld, Martin van, Nuclear Proliferation and the Future Of Conflict (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 105; and Clark, Philip. "ôThird successful Israeli satellite launch." Jane's Intelligence Review 7, no. 6 (June 1995), 25-26.
 
93. Sunday Times, London, op. cit., 1,4-5.
 
94. Toscano, Louis, Triple Cross: Israel, the Atomic Bomb and the Man Who Spilled the Secrets (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1990).
 
95. Green, Living by the Sword, op. cit., 134.
 
96. Spector, The Undeclared Bomb, op. cit., 165-166.
 
97. Hersh, op. cit., 291.
 
98. Levran, Aharon, Israeli Strategy after Desert Storm: Lessons from the Second Gulf War (London: Frank Cass, 1997), 1-10.
 
99. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 278.
 
100. Cohen, Avner and Miller, Marvin, Nuclear Shadows in the Middle East: Prospects for Arms Control in the Wake of the Gulf Crisis (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1990), 10.
 
101. Aronson and Brosh, op. cit., 276.
 
102. Raviv and Melman, op. cit., 399.
 
103. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 297n and Creveld, 1998, op. cit., 321-322.
 
104. Levran, op. cit., 8-10.
 
105. Ahmar, Moonis, "Pakistan and Israel: Distant Adversaries or Neighbors?" Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, 1996, 20, no.1, 43-44.
 
106. "Nuclear proliferation didn't start in 1998 . . .and not in Pakistan nor with Islam," Middle East Realities, or on-line, Internet, 21 September 1998, available from http://www.middleeast.org/1998_06_28.htm.
 
107. Garrity, Patrick J. "The Next Nuclear Questions." Parameters, XXV, no. 4 (Winter 1995-96), 92-111.
 
108. Cohen, Eliezer. Israel's best defense: the First Full Story of the Israeli Air Force, (New York, New York: Random House, 1993), 495.
 
109. Cohen and Miller, op. cit., 18.
 
110. "Before Meeting with King, Peres Claims Israel's Nuclear Arsenal was built for Peace," Jordan Times, July 14, 1998. Quoted in Sorenson, op. cit., 542.
 
111. Beres, Louis Rene, "Israel's Bomb in the Basement: A revisiting of `Deliberate Ambiguity' vs. `Disclosure', Between War and Peace: Dilemmas of Israeli Security, edited by Efraim Harsh (London, England: Frank Cass, 1996), 113-133.
 
112. Hersh, op. cit., 319.
 
113. Amos, Deborah, Lines in the Sand: Desert Storm and the Remaking of the Arab World (New York, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992), 105.
 
114. Dowler, Thomas W. and Howard II, Joseph H., "Countering the threat of the well-armed tyrant: A modest proposal for small nuclear weapons," Strategic Review, XIX, no. 4 (Fall 1991), 34-40.
 
115. Beres, Louis Rene, "Israel's bomb in the basement: A revisiting of `Deliberate Ambiguity' vs. `Disclosure.' " In Karsh, Efraim, op. cit., Editor, Between War and Peace: Dilemmas of Israeli Security (London, England: Frank Cass, 1996), 116.
 
116. Cordesman, op. cit., 1996, 265.
 
117. Hough, Harold, "Israel reviews its nuclear deterrent," Jane's Intelligence Review 10, no.11 (November 1998), 11-13.
 
118. Creveld, op. cit., 1993, 105.
 
119. Burrows, and Windrem, op. cit., 311-312 and "Israel begins test of nuclear missile submarines," The Irish Times, July 2, 1998, or on-line, Internet, 24 December 1998, available from http://www.irish-times.com/irish-times/paper/1998/0702/wor13.html.
 
120. Melman, Yossi, "Swimming with the Dolphins," Ha'aretz, Tuesday, June 9, 1998, and "Report: Israel to get Subs with Nuclear Strike Capability," Jerusalem Post, I July 3, 1998, 3 and Sorenson, op. cit., 543.
 
121. Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, op. cit., 1990, 344-345, 422-423.
 
122. Shahak, Israel, Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies (London: Pluto Press, 1997), 72-73.
 
123. Davis, Douglas, "Defense Officials Said Urging Nuclear Second-Strike Capability," Jerusalem Post, 6 August 1998, 3; or on-line, Internet, 22 November 1998, available from http://cns.miis.edu.
 
124. Inbar, Efraim, "Israel's security in a new international environment," in Karsh, Efraim, Editor, Between War and Peace: Dilemmas of Israeli Security (London, England: Frank Cass, 1996), 41.
 
125. Hough, Harold, "Could Israel's Nuclear Assets Survive a First Strike?" Jane's Intelligence Review, September 1997, 407-410.
 
126. Terrill, W. Andrew, "The Chemical Warfare Legacy of the Yemen War." Comparative Strategy, 10 (1991), 109-119.
 
127. Boyne, Sean, "Across the Great Divide. Will Assad go for the Golan?" Jane's Intelligence Review, 10, no. 4 (April 1998), 21-24 and Cordesman, 1996, op. cit., 254.
 
128. Cordesman, op. cit., 1996, 243.
 
129, Harel, Amos and Barzilai, Amnon, "Mordechai says Arrow alone cannot protect against missiles," Ha'aretz, 13 January 1999, or on-line, Internet, 13 January 1999, available from http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/htmls/3_9.htm
 
130. Shahak, op. cit., 78-79.
 
131. Chubin, Shahram, "Does Iran Want Nuclear Weapons?" Survival 37, no. 1 (Spring 1995), 91-93.
 
132. O'Sullivan, Arich, "New F-15I Warplanes Expand Israel's Reach," The Jerusalem Post, 19 January 1997, or on-line, Internet 22 November 1998, available from http://www.jpost.co.il.
 
133. Karsh, op. cit., 9.
 
134. Shahak, op. cit., 4-5.
 
135. Garrity, op. cit., 92-111.
 
136. Dowty, op. cit., 8.
 
137. Gaffney, op. cit., 165.
 
138. Ibid., 37-38 and Friedman, Robert I. Zealots for Zion: Inside Israel's West Bank Settlement Movement (New York, New York: Random House, 1992), 132-52.
 
139. Blanche, Ed, "Is the Myth Fading for the Israeli Army? " Part 1." Jane's Intelligence Review, 8, no. 12 (December 1996), 547-550 and Blanche, Ed. "Is the myth fading for the Israeli Army? " Part 2," Jane's Intelligence Review 9, no. 1 (January 1997), 25-28.
 
140. Cohen, Stuart A., The Scroll or the Sword? Dilemmas of Religion and Military Service in Israel (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997), 11-24.
 
141. Creveld, op. cit., 1998, 298.
 
142. Broyde, Michael J., "Fighting the War and the Peace: Battlefield Ethics, Peace Talks, Treaties, and Pacifism in the Jewish Tradition," or on-line, Internet, 20 November 1998, available from http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/war3.html.
 
143. Hough, Harold, op. cit., 1998, 11-12 and Berger, Julian, "Court Fury At Israeli Reactor." Guardian, 13 October 1997, in Center for Nonproliferation, "Nuclear Abstracts," 13 October 1997, or on-line, Internet, 22 November 1998, available from http://cns.miis.edu.
 
144. Creveld, op. cit., 1998, 252.
 
145. Valry, Nicholas, "Israel's Silent Gamble with the Bomb," New Scientist (12 December 1974), 807-09.
 
146. Harden, Major James D., Israeli Nuclear Weapons and War in the Middle East, Master's Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, December 1997.
 
147. Dowdy, op. cit., 20.
 
148. Aronson, Geoffrey, "Hidden Agenda: US-Israeli Relations and the Nuclear Question," Middle East Journal, 46, no. 4 (Autumn 1992), 619-630.
 
149. Data from Time, 12 April 1976, quoted in Weissman and Krosney, op. cit., 107.
 
150. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 280 and Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, op. cit., 273-274.
 
151. Tahtinen, Dale R., The Arab-Israel Military Balance Today (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1973), 34.
 
152. "How Israel Got the Bomb." Time, 12 April 1976, 39.
 
153. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 302.
 
154. Kaku, op. cit., 66 and Hersh, op. cit., 216.
 
155. Valéry, op. cit., 807-09.
 
156. Data from CIA, quoted in Weissman and Krosney, op. cit., 109.
 
157. Ottenberg, Michael, "Estimating Israel's Nuclear Capabilities," Command, 30 (October 1994), 6-8.
 
158. Pry, op. cit., 75.
 
159. Ibid., 111.
 
160. Data from NBC Nightly News, quoted in Milhollin, op. cit., 104 and Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 308.
 
161. Data from Vanunu quoted in Milhollin, op. cit., 104.
 
162. Harkavy, Robert E. "After the Gulf War: The Future of the Israeli Nuclear Strategy," The Washington Quarterly (Summer 1991), 164.
 
163. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 308.
 
164. Albright, David, Berkhout, Frans and Walker, William, Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1996. World Inventories, Capabilities, and Policies (New York: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute And Oxford University Press, 1997), 262-263.
 
165. Hough, Harold, "Israel's Nuclear Infrastructure," Jane's Intelligence Review 6, no. 11 (November 1994), 508.
 
166. Ibid., 262-263.
 
167. Spector, and McDonough, with Medeiros, op. cit., 135.
 
168. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 283-284.
 
169. Cordesman, op. cit., 1996, 234.
 
170. Ibid., 234.
 
171. Ibid., 230, 243.
 
172. Brower, Kenneth S., "A Propensity for Conflict: Potential Scenarios and Outcomes of War in the Middle East," Jane's Intelligence Review, Special Report no. 14, (February 1997), 14-15.
 
173. Albright, Berkhout, and Walker, op. cit., 262-263.
 
USAF Counterproliferation Center
 
The USAF Counterproliferation Center was established in 1998 to provide education and research to the present and future leaders of the USAF, and thereby help them better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction.
 
Barry R. Schneider, Director
USAF Counterproliferation Center
325 Chennault Circle
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427k
 
(334) 953-7538 (DSN (493-7538)
 
Email: Barry.Schneider@maxwell,af.mil
 
USAF site location for this report:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm
 
This report is also posted at:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm


Disclaimer

http://www.rense.com/general35/isrnuk.htm




MainPage
http://www.rense.com