Wikipedia

Talk:Israel and weapons of mass destruction

Latest comment: 4 years ago by 50.111.56.138 in topic Article rather short
Learn more about this page

Recent questionable edits of nuclear weapons section

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

There has been a string of edits to this section, increasing estimates of Israel's nuclear stockpile, making claims about its nuclear weapons design, and making assertions about the Jericho III. As far as I can tell, these new claims are not supported by the added citations, with the possible exception of reference to Jane's Intelligence Review. These changes seem dubious to me. Can someone attempt to verify the claims? NPguy (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we tried to verify the claims, but the United States Library of Congress and the Senate mis-appropriation committed unlawful censure of materials which would aid any such referencing. It seems that there is a bit of collusion going on to cover their illicit activities in payload delivery systems because Israel has some anti-American business projects in the emerging privatized space sector, which may be in use to divert attention from its nuclear delivery systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.179.0.179 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Interesting! Is very clear that all matters nuke by Isr. are brushed under the carpet by U.S., while Iran is being made up out of the thin air. Double standards! 60.142.185.110 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the soapboxing Japanese anon, but this isn't the place for such ... prattle. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Why is it that I disbelieve every single letter that npguy is writing ... 126.65.226.77 (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

estimates

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

" it has been estimated that Israel possesses up to 400 thermonuclear weapons, believed to be of Teller-Ulam design, including strategic warheads in the megaton-range"

I looked at the sources cited for this, at least the ones I could access online. Both of the online ones put the upper limit at 200 or so. Neither speculated on yield or design. Most sources I have seen, like the ones linked to on List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons, put put a lower limit at around 75-80 and don't speculate on weapons types. I'm fine with having the "optimistic" estimates on here, but we should make it clear that among the informed estimates, there is clearly a range. Most estimates I have seen put it well lower than 400, in any case, which is the most "optimistic" estimate I have seen. I don't think it is a representative estimate—it looks inflated or cherry-picked to me. I certainly doubt that whatever source gave the 400 number suggested they were all thermonuclear (which seems extraordinarily unlikely, given that any Israeli H-bombs are probably fairly clunky—conventional wisdom is that making small H-bombs requires a fairly rigorous testing regime). Perhaps wording more like below would paint a more accurate picture of what is known, unknown, and estimated:

"Israel's nuclear stockpile is usually estimated at being between 75 and 200 nuclear weapons, though some estimates have suggested they may have as many as 400. It has been suggested that Israel has thermonuclear (Teller-Ulam design) capability, which would allow it to produce strategic warheads in the megaton range."

I imagine this article is contentious so I won't edit it myself. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The 200+ estimates are based on Dimona capacity per year to produce KG of plutonium, which is roughly known and Isr. does not sell significant quantities of that to other countries  ;-) 60.142.185.110 (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Article rather short

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Considering the relatively high amount of controversy surrounding Israel's pursuit of nuclear weapons, mostly thanks to their secrecy and the relationship with South Africa, I find this article rather short. Perhaps it just hasn't been developed much, but it seems poor that there is so much information in the article on nuclear weapons, yet so little here. Coming here, I wouldn't have minded a rehash of the stuff I already knew, as well as perhaps learning some things I didn't know.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

You've answered your own question. New nuclear-related text should go in the main article on the topic, not here. By contrast, there just isn't nearly as much to say on (or interest in) Israel's biological or chemical weapons; if you have something relevant to add on those topics, you are welcome to do so here. YLee (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
There is also a lot of censorship, reverting and banning going on, the second someone does not tow the Mossad line. So many editors are proactively discouraged and "zionist content" often prevails. 60.142.185.110 (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
There is also a lot of unsupported accusations violating WP:AGF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.56.138 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Guardian article on the South African documents

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I reverted to a point before the recent edits. The mini edit war was pointless for the following reasons:

  • The nuclear section is meant to be a stub summary that points people to the main article, Nuclear weapons and Israel. Any elaboration should occur there, not here.
  • The Guardian report does not change the extant policy of deliberate ambiguity over Israel's nukes. Many foreign governments have published documents over the years that state, or at least assume, that Israeli nukes exist. The Guardian report does not change the status quo, and nothing will change until and unless the day the Israeli government itself says so.
  • And, as stated in the edit history, it in any case does not belong in the summary. YLee (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I respectfully disagree with the above. The South African documents are not just the opinion of a foreign government as to Israel's nuclear weapons status, they are minutes of meetings with Israeli officials. As such, they demonstrate Israel saying they have nuclear weapons, albeit only saying that in secret meetings. And, as such, this information is significant enough that it warrants mention here too, and not just in Nuclear weapons and Israel. This isn't some detail; it's central to the whole discussion! It also seems odd to have information on the subject in South Africa and weapons of mass destruction that is disallowed here. I will make some article edits based on this. Bondegezou (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely not. You are mistaken. The Guardian is one tabloid that has reported on this alleged offer, and if you read carefully, you will see that there is no concrete evidence showing any Israel offer of sale or even confirmation that Israel has nuclear weapons. Numerous other media outlets have published stories of various Israeli and South African officials denying these allegations and analyzing them to show that they are nearly impossible or make no sense. Your text says, in the encyclopedia's voice, that Israel surely has nuclear weapons and surely offered to sell them. This is untrue and therefore inappropriate. Breein1007 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm split here. I think a brief sentence covering the material might be NOTABLE in the context of the stub. Something like "In 2010, minutes from a meeting between South African and Israeli officials suggested that Israel had offered to sell nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa" .@Bond Do you have references beyond "The Guardian"? That newspaper is liberal leaning. NickCT (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Guardian is not a "tabloid" newspaper, although it is liberal leaning. The reports in The Guardian are trailing much lengthier coverage in a new book, so I expect there will be more citations available soon, although I recognise we can't act on those until they are available. What seems significant to me here is that this isn't just The Guardian making allegations: this is based on official South African government documents declassified there. This is an emerging story. There is an element of interpretation of the documents. Some denials have come out, some counter-denials analysing the denials have now come out... We do need to reflect that debate, absolutely. But I think it would be wrong to ignore the matter entirely. Israeli cooperation with the apartheid-era government is well documented; their cooperation over nuclear weapons is already described in several Wikipedia articles but has lacked detail given the understandable lack of primary historical materials. This new evidence is central to the matter. Yes, report the controversy, but not mentioning the matter at all seems very odd to me. Bondegezou (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Again, there have been many, many documents from other governments that clearly state that Israel has nuclear weapons, so unduly focusing on this one is a case of WP:RECENT (and, for that matter, WP:UNDUE). Israeli nukes are an open secret (Area 51 is another example of this); the only reason we don't say that Israel definitely has nuclear weapons is because that country itself hasn't ever said so. Reports of new South African documents don't change anything. In any case, discussion doesn't belong here, but in Nuclear weapons and Israel. YLee (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
While I understand the point you make about there being a separate Nuclear weapons and Israel article, clearly it is appropriate for key points to be included here. This is currently a very short section in an overall fairly short article: I don't see any particular space pressure meaning we can't slip in an additional few sentences, and this is some pretty big new stuff. These are not like other documents where other governments express a view that Israel has nuclear weapons, as I say above. They seem to me and to reliable sources to be qualitatively different in that they directly report Israeli officials. If you can point me to a equivalent document before, I'm all ears. I really would appreciate a response to this key point that these documents are different to any old report from another government saying they think Israel has nukes. Bondegezou (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
NickCT: the book is "The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa" by Sasha Polakow-Suransky, Pantheon Books, ISBN: 0375425462. Bondegezou (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
My point isn't that there isn't room in this article to discuss the Guardian report. It is a question of maintaining order when a main article exists, and also remaining in line with the existing consensus there (which transfers to here) on how to discuss the existence of Israeli nukes. If and when Israel acknowledges that that it has nukes, then the appropriate portions of the summary and the section would be rewritten to mention this, but the bulk of both would not change. You're doing this backwards, by claiming that a single new newspaper article claiming the existence of non-Israeli documents allegedly quoting Israeli officials is substantially different from 40 years of non-Israeli government documents and reliable sources categorically stating that Israel has nukes (like The CIA says that Israel had nukes as early as 1974; also see the version with commentary at George Washington University's well-known National Security Archive project), but not changing the first sentence of the summary. And, no, I'm not telling you to change the first sentence! I'm saying that WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE should be read and reread. YLee (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Strange how this article is short

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I find very interesting that article about Israel, country armed to the teeth, with every weaponry and technology imaginable, is at least five times smaller (shorter) then same article about Iran, country which has no possession of any weapons of mass destruction, and except dubious and often vague allegations made by Israel and USA, we have nothing substantial to say on Iran. However, for some reason we have even less to say on Israel, country in possession of nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal, and often willing to use it in attacks against civilians of Gaza, in form of white phosphorous. My opinion is worth (or not) as anybody else's, but I believe this article is in desperate need of extension.--Santasa99 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Read up on things like the Megaphone desktop tool and you will not find it that interersting anymore. I don't. Articles like this are heavily "maintained" lets say.75.92.102.144 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Voice Does Israel Really Have a Thermonuclear Weapon?

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/31/does-israel-really-have-a-thermonuclear-weapon/

Phd8511 (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

FAS doubts that Isr. has the capacity to develop all those nuke variants

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Developing all those different nuke types requires quite some effort and Isr. is only a very small country. They also did rather little real testing though they may have copies of French test results. 60.142.185.110 (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israel and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Israel and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Israel and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction&oldid=1234706972"