Should the USA Stock Israel with Nuclear Weapons or has it already?

My research indicates that Israel "may" have nuclear weapons. Should this be generally known or unknown?

I do know the USA needs an extreme ally in the Middle East.

No. if anything we should be taking away everyones playtoys in the ME and make them all sit in the corner for a few years until they all learn how to play nice together.

ThePieMan, is Israel a strong ally, a weak ally, or no ally at all? I might be uninformed but I believe that Israel is at least a weak ally.

Israel has roughly 100-400 undeclared nuclear warheads, courtesy of UK and French technology transfers, etc.
US kept in the dark as secret nuclear deal was struck
Secret sale of UK plutonium to Israel
Israel's Nuclear Weapons






seekerof

They are far from being weak. They are highly secretive about what they possess as far as defenses go. I would say they have a strong compliment of conventional,nuclear and chemical weaponry amassed that would compete with several larger countries put together. They are highly developed and manufacture and maintain their own weaponry. They also budget big dollars towards their defense. I would think they consider us allied with them more then they are allied with us.

Seekerof, thank you for the information. To what degree is optimal secrecy involved in "declaration" or "nondeclaration"?

ThePieMaN, I believe Israel is a strong country; I just hope Israel is a strong ally.

Those nukes cannot be weaponised unless Israel have conducted at least 5 to 10 live tests..
There is isn't any concrete evidence of the same(few vague references to 'possible' joint tests conducted by Israel and South Africa) and so it is very logical to assume that at least half of these weapons have not been constructed on Israeli soil. Especially since many claim that Isreal has warheads with yields upto to the hundreds of KT( maybe even 1 MT). These yields cannot be simulation tested unless you've had at least one live test.
Interesting reads by seekeroff..

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Those nukes cannot be weaponised unless Israel have conducted at least 5 to 10 live tests..

If they test their nukes in their small land, their neighbours would (literally) get wind of it, and they won't be happy. That has to be taken into consideration.

Just because they have not tested them in Israel, does not mean they are not weaponised.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
and so it is very logical to assume that at least half of these weapons have not been constructed on Israeli soil.

Constructed on Israeli soil or not, they're Israeli nukes.

Testing problems (Like I have mentioned above) would mean Israel may test in other countries like they did in S Africa, and they probably simulate tests on computers.

Too much risk involved in actually testing: Too small a space to not affect neighbours.

It would not be necessary for any country, including Israel, to conduct "live tests" if another country has already tested and there is a 100% transfer of nuclear weapon data from the latter to the former. The same logic would apply to computer simulations.

How much nuclear weapon information the USA and other countries give Israel is a wide open question.

I suppose it's safe to say that if one is using the exact technical documentation to build a copy of the previously proven device, and sticks rigorously to the specs of every element (inlcuding timing devices and composition of the conventional explosives), it's pretty much guaranteed to work.


Somebody mentioned the joint South African/Israeli exercise -- most likely the South Atlantic nuclear event that took place in the 1970s; we'll never know for sure but it's not unlikely at all. After all, somebody detonated that nuke.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Those nukes cannot be weaponised unless Israel have conducted at least 5 to 10 live tests..
There is isn't any concrete evidence of the same(few vague references to 'possible' joint tests conducted by Israel and South Africa) and so it is very logical to assume that at least half of these weapons have not been constructed on Israeli soil. Especially since many claim that Isreal has warheads with yields upto to the hundreds of KT( maybe even 1 MT). These yields cannot be simulation tested unless you've had at least one live test.
Interesting reads by seekeroff..

In addition:

Israel purchases/purchased warheads from the Russian mafia in order to 'prevent' them from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Thank you for your comment Aelita. For those wanting to check out more on the Vela Incident, should look at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_Incident

A theory of mine is that if a person or people were unintentionally killed in a nuclear bomb test, especially a person or people of tester nations or tester ally nations, that it will be classified, maybe forever.

Should Israel be the dominant force in the Middle East, from a historical and current perspective? I believe it should for Spiritual, political, economic, and technological reasons.

Should the USA make partnerships with all different "area-dominant" countries? Which Spiritual, political, economic, and technological reasons prevent us from doing so?

Originally posted by GreatTech
Should Israel be the dominant force in the Middle East, from a historical and current perspective? I believe it should for Spiritual, political, economic, and technological reasons.

Sorry but I don't see a grain of logic in this argument. I don't buy the "spiritual" card at all. A particular religion is just not a deciding factor unless you are a religious right wing nut as some of the leaders we have. Political? What political?

We should stop the sponsorship of Israel, period.

Aelita, who should the USA support in the Middle East, one or more nations or none?

Should we support Iraq and Iran over Israel? I think not.

We should stop buying oil by turning to other energy sources. With all the money we spent on Iraq and on a larger scale, on Israel's defense, we could have done it already two times over.

Then we should leave the Middle East for good and concentrate on strengthening America domestically. Better health for all Americans and better education would be a good start. It's a shame that we are trailing developed nations in both metrics.

Aelita, good comments.

When will there be an America for the World, an America for America and the World, and America for America balance achieved. Any mathematics formulas being derived?

In health and education, we are not too far behind, but based on our size, we are #1 based on what I have read and my metrics. No country is ever too good.

Originally posted by Regensturm


Constructed on Israeli soil or not, they're Israeli nukes.

Indeed and thats part of the problem. Proliferators galore..

There are 6 types of nations in the world:

Own Nuclear Weapons
1) Inventive Capacity for Nuclear Weapons
2) Modification Capacity for Nuclear Weapons
3) Neither Inventive nor Modification Capacity for Nuclear Weapons

Do Not Own Nuclear Weapons
4) Inventive Capacity for Nuclear Weapons
5) Modification Capacity for Nuclear Weapons
6) Neither Inventive nor Modification Capacity for Nuclear Weapons

Whether a nation should own nuclear weapons depends on the degree it falls withing USA interests AND how well it can MANAGE them. I trust Israel to manage its nuclear weapons carefully.

The USA is the type 1) category more than any nation in the world. The USA reigns supreme but should never rest on its laurels.