It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britain helped Israel make the atom bomb secretly without telling the Americans : BBC report

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Documents uncovered in the British National Archives show how, in 1958, Britain agreed to sell Israel 20 tonnes of heavy water, a vital ingredient for the production of plutonium at Israel's top secret Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev desert.

The 20 tonnes of heavy water were part of a consignment which Britain bought from Norway in 1956, but the UK later decided this was surplus to requirements.

...British officials decided it would be "over-zealous" to impose safeguards on the Israelis, and chose not to insist that Israel only use the heavy water for peaceful purposes. Earlier the Americans had refused to supply heavy water to Israel without such safeguards.

The papers in the National Archives in London show how officials presented the sale internally as a straight sale from Norway to Israel. But the minutes reveal that the heavy water was shipped from a British port in Israeli ships - half in June 1959 and half a year later.

In 1960 the Daily Express first exposed the Israelis' work at Dimona and the fact that Israel was probably making a bomb. When Israel asked Britain for a further five tonnes of heavy water in 1961 the Foreign Office decided against a second transaction.

"The fact that Israel was trying to develop a nuclear bomb should not have come as any surprise ... But that Britain should have supplied it with heavy water was indeed a surprise to me. It's very surprising to me that we weren't told because we shared information about the nuclear bomb very closely with the British." - Robert McNamara, JFK's Secretary of Defense

"One must assume they must have known ... And what's more they seemed to have no idea of the political or indeed even the technical and foreign policy implications of what they were doing. They just seemed to be concerned with making a bit of money." - Lord Gilmour, Former Defence and Foreign Office minister

Until now both France and Norway have been criticised for helping the Israelis develop the bomb, but Britain has escaped criticism.

More extraordinary, the archives suggest that the decision to sell heavy water was taken simply by civil servants, mainly in the Foreign Office and the UK Atomic Energy Authority.


One of the documents uncovered at the British National Archives


READ THE FULL DOCUMENT --- FROM BBC


This is shocking to say the least. What are your views ???

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Stealth Spy]




posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
so it was the Brits who helped Israel to become a nuclear powers.
, so the Americans were not implicated in helping Israel become a nuclear power. after all this time.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
... and your point is? .....

Why SHOULD Britian HAVE to tell America what they are doing?

Since when did America have veto over anything an ally did in this regard?



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Well you know it would've been nice to know a little about Isreal's nuclear capabilities. So sad, I wish they told us. But hey, maybe they did but it's still top secret.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
This is a very good find, a very good one indeed. Makes for very interesting reading. Tho I would hardly call it shocking. Why?

The Brits were Alies with the Israelis back then.

- The Brits siezed the Suez with the Israelis.

- The Brits helped the Israelis with the Merkava. (Rather they Israelis participated in the construction of the Centurion. and were in line to get as many as they wanted as a reward before the Arabs stepped in with oil embargo threats....nevertheless, the experience gained was invaluable for the Israelis when they sat down to design their own tank.

- It was the cold war. The Arabs sided with the Soviets, Israel with the west.

So I guess from a British view selling them heavy water made sense. I guess the Americans wanted guarantees because of their close relationship with the House of Saud.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
The Brits are still 'allies' with the Israelis just like the Brits are, by and large, 'allies' with any largely democratic nation. The occupation of non-mandated territory, won by conquest by Israel and its associated injustices have been a problem in Anglo-Israeli relations for some time, but ultimately I think both Israel and Britain understand they have more in common than otherwise. Isreal likes to explain British reservations over its occupation as a manifestation of 'foreign office anti-semitism' because it serves its purposes to do so, and Britain understands that as Israeli foreign ministry speak for "sod off." Ultimately Isreal is a 'special needs' country for obvious reasons, and that's fair enough but nevertheless, here we are with lots of people of one persuassion lording it over lots of people of another.

Peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of justice.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Given this was time of Suez and America's backlash against us & the French was in full swing it's understandable UK was reluctant to spill all.

Not a chapter of our history to be proud of, add to all the others!

Plus you don't have to tell the Americans for them to know what's going on

R

[edit on 3/8/05 by CTID56092]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Considering it was Britians decision making that led to the conflict in the middle east, and that they abandoned the Israelies to the Arabs in 1947, then helping them to protect themselves seems good karma.

This is not like pakistan or Nth Korea developing Nucleur weapons, "so what", is still my view.

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Netchicken]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
But the Brits now talk about non-proliferation and how they have championed the cause of non-proliferation and all that, ask other countries to sign the NPT, etc when they themselves have done this !!



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
But the Brits now talk about non-proliferation and how they have championed the cause of non-proliferation and all that, ask other countries to sign the NPT, etc when they themselves have done this !!


You kind of got it there Stealth.

In my opinion, this is a liberal press attack trying to use this morally bankrupt analogy to discredit the UK's moral authority in negotiating over the situation with Iranian nuclear weapons development.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
What I think is most interesting is the that the bureacracy was so thick that it was apparently done without approval from higher-ups. Scary.

I don't think the US started helping Israel much before '67 or so.
It was still France that basically built Dimona for them, compared to that some heavy water doesn't seem like a big deal.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I wonder if the Israeli secret nuke program was somehow linked to their attack on the US spy ship USS Liberty.

If the Israelis thought the Liberty had picked up something concerning their nuclear weapons program and they didn't want it getting back to Washington - I could see that being a valid reason in their eyes to lay waste to the Liberty.

Thoughts?

[edit on 4-8-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
Considering it was Britians decision making that led to the conflict in the middle east, and that they abandoned the Israelies to the Arabs in 1947, then helping them to protect themselves seems good karma.

This is not like pakistan or Nth Korea developing Nucleur weapons, "so what", is still my view.

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Netchicken]



Sorry to bug your rhetoric with facts but....

'fraid not. We wanted to give 'em a bit of Uganda but Zionist interests in US (primarily!) objected.

"1903: Britain offers an area of 15,500 km² in Uganda in Africa, an area of virgin land to the Jews of the world, where a Jewish homeland could be established.
1905: 7th Zionist Congress refuses Britain's Uganda proposal. Israel Zangwill forms the Jewish Territorial organization, which sought to find territory for a Jewish state, no matter where this would be. His organization got only few supporters."

lexicorient.com...://i-cias.com/e.o/zionism.htm



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   

If the Israelis thought the Liberty had picked up something concerning their nuclear weapons program and they didn't want it getting back to Washington - I could see that being a valid reason in their eyes to lay waste to the Liberty.


So an American boat spots activity, and what better way to remain under the radar and quiet than to blow it up? Are you kidding? If anything that's the best way out there to get more attention focused on the region.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
Considering it was Britians decision making that led to the conflict in the middle east, and that they abandoned the Israelies to the Arabs in 1947, then helping them to protect themselves seems good karma.

This is not like pakistan or Nth Korea developing Nucleur weapons, "so what", is still my view.

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Netchicken]


Check your facts. Your right in that Brits abandonned the Israelis in 1947 but remember up until that point the Brits were still trying to hold onto what was then still Palestine as part of the British empire. (Another great example of see sawing British policy at the time). In fact there were deaths on both sides, a lot of bombing etc etc, but the Jews got what they wanted. The minute the British withdrew from Palestine is when the trouble started, i.e. the Arab armies invaded. (Still you are right. We Brits have a lot to answer for when it comes to the situatuion in the middle east)

Im not sure about the Karma thing, but its a valid thought. We Brits have in turn helped massively and screwed over massively when it comes to the Israelis. I think that the heavy water decision came at a time when Arab dominance in the Middle East was looking likely and because the Arabs were backed by the Soviets, this would have meant a Soviet dominance over the Worlds oil supplies. This would have not been acceptable.

The Arabs at the time were been supplied with masses of high tech Soviet Weaponry. Thousands of tanks and missles. You probably wouldn't have been able to fit that many tanks in Israel so what better way to off set this numerical advantage? You guessed it! An atom bomb. From a political view at the time it probably made a lot of sense.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
I wonder if the Israeli secret nuke program was somehow linked to their attack on the US spy ship USS Liberty.



Oooooh good one. I have never considered that angle before. I will have to take a look at that. Did US intel ships during the cold war carry sniffer equipment? I know that the USN did launch a U-2 off of a carrier to monitor French nuclear tests but did the ships have them as well?



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
I wonder if the Israeli secret nuke program was somehow linked to their attack on the US spy ship USS Liberty.

If the Israelis thought the Liberty had picked up something concerning their nuclear weapons program and they didn't want it getting back to Washington - I could see that being a valid reason in their eyes to lay waste to the Liberty.

Thoughts?

[edit on 4-8-2005 by intelgurl]


They even fired at one or two SR-71s which flew over Israeli airspace(not to spy on Israelis but to help them get a good view of arab tank posns. in the 73' war) in the 70s, I think..

Was the Liberty crisis at the same time??

Also what's interesting is that the BBC has been hot on the heels of the Israeli nuke program much beofre this Iranian crisis thing came up..
Actually I remember watching a "reporters" program long ago about that Mordachai Vanunu guy who supposedly exposed the Israeli nuke program for what it is..
And this was much before Mordachai's release.. I remember the reporters(and Mord's british guardians) were trying to get permission to meet Mordachai and they had to back empty-handed...
The BBC- Israeli nukes relation goes back much before Iran or 9/11 even..
Its definitely not some liberal attempt to do whatever was mentioned in some post above..



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
What I think is most interesting is the that the bureacracy was so thick that it was apparently done without approval from higher-ups. Scary.

My sentiments exactly. It makes you wonder what else our unelectedcivil service gets up to. And to think, people still believe it is politicians that run the country.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   
If thats true it doesn't look so good for England, but then again... During the cold war the British leaders and the americans weren't looking aye to eye on certainthings in the east...



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
If thats true it doesn't look so good for England, but then again... During the cold war the British leaders and the americans weren't looking aye to eye on certainthings in the east...


The Americans weren't exactly seeing eye to eye with each other, remember Vietnam ?

This is just another liberal attempt to smear Britain. These people would get some repsect from me if they were so keen to condemn Muslim or African nations who murder and mutilate their own people. They consider that helping an ally develop weapons to protect themselves from mutual enemies is somehow evil.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join