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 gave Israel plutonium in 1960s

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Reuters UK



Britain secretly supplied Israel with a small amount of plutonium in 1966 despite a warning from intelligence officials that it could help develop a nuclear bomb, BBC television reported on Thursday.

Britain also made hundreds of shipments of restricted materials to Israel in the 1960s which could have aided a nuclear arms programme, the BBC said in a summary of a report to be shown on its Newsnight programme later in the evening.

Tony Benn, who served as technology minister under Wilson, said he had no knowledge of the decision although he had suspected civil servants were doing deals behind his back.

"I'm not only surprised, I'm shocked," he told the BBC. "It never occurred to me they would authorise something so totally against the policy of the government."

Britain's Foreign Office had no immediate comment on the BBC report.

The Deals that happen behind Closed Doors, ey?

Ofcourse, we also remember Last Years report, how UK also sent Isreal 20 tonnes of heavy water.

Mister Robert McNamara, President John F Kennedy's defence secretary, has told Newsnight he is "astonished" at the revelation that Britain kept this secret from America and from the World.

So - not only Heavy Water, but also Plutionium.




posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Souljah, we've known this for decades....mabye you didnt notice the thousands of articles on the web detailing this and the french giving them the bomb.

Or are we dragging out old skeletons again?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Is this or isn't this illegal under the NPT?



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Europe is responsible for a number of nations, some of them rogue nations, by the irresponsibleness with nuclear technology, the french being the absolute worse.......geee thanks europe



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Europe is responsible for a number of nations, some of them rogue nations, by the irresponsibleness with nuclear technology, the french being the absolute worse.......geee thanks europe

No I'd say britain as a whole is the worst what have we brought to the worst: Death camps, interogation, attacking civilians, rape, pillaging, imperialism and varios other lovely things.

Anyone else feel better that we've dragged all of em old bones out of the cupboard??



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Is this or isn't this illegal under the NPT?


This took place before the NPT was drafted and opened for signatures in 1968.

Therefore it would not apply. Then we have the fact that Isreal never signed the NPT but that is neither here nor there since Britain and the US did.

This is really a none Issue anyhow the OP is just trying to stir up @#$# about Britain where there is none






[edit on 3/13/2006 by shots]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Um, this is OLD news that EVERYONE knows about, Souljah. You are presenting it as if its some shocking, damning revelation.

Big deal. So Britian gave Israel nuke materials. So? Its not like they were the only ones ever. The whole of Europe and the US was selling crap to saddam in the 70's and 80's. The US and Russia sold stuff to Iran.

Whoopdie do. The Russians also sold nasty stuff to Israel's enemies.

BIG DEAL. Its biz as usual in the international weapons markets.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
If there is a conspiracy, this is it. They (governments of the world) are swapping nukes back in forth like playing cards.
(and pointing fingers at each other and trying to create some drama in the world cause their bored.


Time to let them play their games, and get on with life. (always the same stories)


Gods peace to all

dalen



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
You know what really annoys me, "Isreal"...its "Israel" people


This is important because it highlights that nuclear proliferation takes place pre, during and post NPT. We should cut the bull crap and simply state that the only requirement for gaining nuclear weapons is that you are allied/subservient to us. Thats the only thing that matters.

They can throw as much phony propaganda around as they like, fact of the matter is that "we" dont like Iran and therefore they will do as we say. If that means impinging on their declared right to enrich uranium, as outlined in the NPT which all but 3 nations signed, then so be it. We make the rules, we enforce the rules, and we break the rules - why cant our governments have the balls to just opennly say it so we can cut the rigmarole of pretending to be decent and honest nations.

[edit on 13/3/06 by subz]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Is this or isn't this illegal under the NPT?


Israel hasnt signed the NPT.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by Nygdan
Is this or isn't this illegal under the NPT?


Israel hasnt signed the NPT.


Britain did



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Britain did

Several years after the deal



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Several years after the deal


No, actually Britain and the US both signed it on the very same day along with 59 other countries.

NPT FAQ

Now if you are thinking ratification that may well be true. Even the US did not ratify it until 1970.



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
the banking system controls the politicians. follow the money and see who is really in charge and why they do what they do.

Funny but we got Britain setting up Israel, then reputedly bringing the US into WWII and later on doing whatever it can to defend it.

So who is running Britain, it ain't the queen thats for sure unless you believe David Icke that they are a bunch of lizards.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
No, actually Britain and the US both signed it on the very same day along with 59 other countries.

NPT FAQ

Now if you are thinking ratification that may well be true. Even the US did not ratify it until 1970.


Well then we should be asking at what time did they deliver the nuke and what time did they sign the treaty?

Mind you after that day they never broke the convention so technically it isnt against the NPT.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well then we should be asking at what time did they deliver the nuke and what time did they sign the treaty?

Mind you after that day they never broke the convention so technically it isnt against the NPT.

Britain still has nuclear weapons, 37+ years after signing an agreement saying they would dismantle them. Along with China, Russia, the US and France - Britain has failed to live up to its pledge under the NPT. Why should other nations continue to hamstring their defence when the explicit pledge from the nuclear powers to disarm themselves never eventuated.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Britain still has nuclear weapons, 37+ years after signing an agreement saying they would dismantle them. Along with China, Russia, the US and France - Britain has failed to live up to its pledge under the NPT. Why should other nations continue to hamstring their defence when the explicit pledge from the nuclear powers to disarm themselves never eventuated.

Britain has at this moment about about 768 warheads in total , inside 64 missiles. It has been dismanteling them for several decades hell we only have 4 viable launch platforms and even then most likely 2 are in port at any one time.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Britain has at this moment about about 768 warheads in total , inside 64 missiles. It has been dismanteling them for several decades hell we only have 4 viable launch platforms and even then most likely 2 are in port at any one time.

And that changes what I said how exactly? Iran doesnt even have a nuke but the mere suspicion of building one is enough to get them stomped on. So Britain still has nukes (you even admitted it) 37+ years after pledging to get rid of their arsenal.

That was the whole premise of the NPT deal. Other nations would explicitly forgo their sovereign right to acquire any weapons they deem necessary on the condition that the nuclear armed countries would get rid of their nukes.

The NPT was an agreement to rid the world of nuclear weapons, not to just allow a select few elite nations to have have them. This is the big misnomer, the NPT was not meant to institutionalize international elitism. It was designed to give the non-nuclear armed nations a reason not to pursue nuclear weapons - that never eventuated.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
And that changes what I said how exactly?

The fact that we can only defend ourselves realisticly against 24 countries.



Iran doesnt even have a nuke but the mere suspicion of building one is enough to get them stomped on. So Britain still has nukes (you even admitted it) 37+ years after pledging to get rid of their arsenal.

It pledged to reduce it, did it say it would remove it?
Irans president has preached that they should wipe sevearl thousands peoples lives off the face of the earth now tell what you dont understand about that?


That was the whole premise of the NPT deal. Other nations would explicitly forgo their sovereign right to acquire any weapons they deem necessary on the condition that the nuclear armed countries would get rid of their nukes.

Yeah eventually, if you hadnt noticed we have been doing so for quite some time but unfortunatly we've been distracted by just a few small things like having our citizens blown up.


The NPT was an agreement to rid the world of nuclear weapons, not to just allow a select few elite nations to have have them. This is the big misnomer, the NPT was not meant to institutionalize international elitism. It was designed to give the non-nuclear armed nations a reason not to pursue nuclear weapons - that never eventuated.

Do you know what a vulcan bomber is? It WAS our nuclear bomber force but was decomisioned a decade ago, we used to have several hundred ways to deploy a nuclear warhead but now we only have 2 ways.

Fight aircraft or submarine both are limited to the number of weapnos they can carry.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Iran doesnt even have a nuke but the mere suspicion of building one is enough to get them stomped on. So Britain still has nukes (you even admitted it) 37+ years after pledging to get rid of their arsenal.

Thats just it, Iran under the NPT cannot build a nuke and Iran is signatory to the NPT. Further more Iran cannot be compared to the UK in term of credibility as Iran and its administration have made their intentions for the region clear and also its recalcitrant behaviour towards the international community and the IAEA has caused it to lose its locus standi as a credible non-nuclear state under the NPT.


That was the whole premise of the NPT deal. Other nations would explicitly forgo their sovereign right to acquire any weapons they deem necessary on the condition that the nuclear armed countries would get rid of their nukes.

Well that wasnt the "primary" aim of the NPT, but was in fact as the name suggest a treaty basically intended to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, technologies and know how. The Nuclear weapon states were asked to pledge that they would not transfer their nuclear technology, expertise to non-nuclear states but would enable nuclear weapon states to keep the status quo as long as tensions exsisted internationaly and disarmament would be left in the purview of the nuclear states themselves.
The NPT states that no new states that are signatory to it would have the right to aquire new nuclear weapons and shall only confine themselves to nuclear power generation.
However you are right to mention that the ultimate goal of the NPT was to see the "liquidation of all nuclear wepons" by easing international tensions and creating a productine environment to do so.

However the NPT also proposes a non-nuclear Middle East and Iran by adopting a pro-nuclear approach threatens to undermine this goal.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join