I recall reading about the Mordechai Vanunu affair (an Israeli national who sold Israeli bomb secrets to newspapers). I recall that the Israelis were making plutonium-based atomic bombs, possibly in the 20-500 KTon yield range. Is there any evidence that they have built hydrogen bombs as well? Can you build a hydrogen bomb, with good assurances it wil explode (withoutactually testing it)?
Making the step from fission bombs to fusion bombs is much, much easier than making fission bombs in the first place. I would take as the default assumption that any country with real, working, deployable fission bombs (i.e., something of a greater level than North Korea has) probably has fusion bombs, too.
They don’t strike me as people who would do things halfway. I’m sure they want the most bang for their buck.
I had heard that the Israeli arsenal supposedly consisted of “fusion-boosted” devices =use small amounts of tritium to boost the neutron flux in the core of the fissionable material. One problem with developing a full-fledged fusion bomb is testing: it would be next to impossible to adequately test your designs without confirming that you possess nukes.
However, there are known and proven thermonuclear devices for which the general construction is known; from there, an analytical assessment of the details should be enough to develop a reliable design provided you allow enough margin (x-ray and neutron budgets, confinement period, et cetera). The main advantage of the US testing program was that it allowed us to refine the designs to progressively more compact dimensions. I would say that it is unquestionable that Israel has boosted fission devices and very likely some modest size (100-500 kT) thermonuclear devices. Large yields aren’t especially useful except in hitting hardened targets, which probably won’t be of concern to Israel.
Stranger
Being Israeli, I can assure you: We have no nuclear weapons. Really. I swear.
In an area where you are most probably going to be using the weapons as anti invasion tactical weapons, it is far more useful to have three 50 kiloton bombs than it is to have on 500 kiloton bomb. A tritium enriched multi-staged fission bomb can easily reach the megaton range, and higher.
For retaliatory strikes against government centers, accuracy overwhelms yield entirely. If you don’t kill the guy who ordered the strike against you, you did nothing of strategic value to your cause.
All this assumes strategic value of any nuclear strike as if it was actual, and real. Mostly nukes are used for blackmail, on an international scale, and will continue to be such until someone actually uses one. The carnage of the response may well change that view, as well.
Tris
Since it takes a regular nuke to “fire off” the “hydrogen bomb” part of a hydrogen bomb, if your design aint quite right and has never been tested, you still get anywhere from a good old fashioned nuke to a full blown H bomb.
Or in other words, it doesnt hurt to give it a try as there is no real downside IMO.
I have no way of knowing whether Israel does or does not have nukes.
But let’s say they don’t. In that case, like Saddam Hussein, they’d be very foolish to come out and ADMIT they don’t! They benefit greatly from the perception and widespread belief that they DO have them and might use them against invaders.
Israel’s official policy regarding nukes is one of “vagueness” (the official wording): we don’t have nukes, but we don’t *not *have nukes, either.
I mean, the deterrence value of any weapon seems (to me anyway) related to the fact that your potential enemy knows that you have them and will USE them.
So why the comical denials? The israelis would be better off to take out an ad in the LONDON TIMES, and just say:Yes, we have nuclear bombs. Any attack on Israeli cities will result in total destruction of the country launching the attack. Have a nice day!
Anyway, one more question: that enormous H-bomb that the Russians built (and tested) a few years back: what’s the use of these >1000 Mton yield bombs? Is it better to have lots of smaller bombs than a few big ones?
Again, why didn’t Saddam Hussein just tell the world, “I don’t have any nukes. Look for yourself, anywhere you like”?
Because, in his area of the world, it’s important to be feared. Even if he DIDN’T have nukes, he wanted the Iranians to think he did. Understandably.
Israel is in a similar boat. They definitely have the know-how to build a nuclear arsenal. Do they actually HAVE nukes? I don’t know- but even if they don’t, they have good reason not to tell their neighbors that.
The Tsar Bomba was only 50 Mtons (theoretically adjustable up to 100 Mtons, but only one test was ever conducted), and you’re right about its usefulness: The only purpose to a bomb that size is to show off to the rest of the world.
Strategic Ambiguity. A lot of the smaller nuclear powers such as Israel and Pakistan follow this. The idea is thus, the other guy does not know or can reasonably guess at what your nuclear threshold is or even if you have nukes. Will you go ballistic over a few border skirmishes? A full scale invasion? Armies in full retreat? When you are attacked with nukes?
Keeps adventurism at a minimum.
Therein lies the tactical value of a big hoofing megaton H-bomb. The certain knowledge that your capital city will be wiped from the earth complete, rather than merely very severely damaged is significant.
Jimmy Carter sais that Israel has 150 nukes. Did he ever retract/qualify that statement?
I think that also there are treaties and automatic sanctions imposed on these rogue nuclear powers. Israel, and the US, doesn’t want to have to impose any sanctions since our two countries are so chummy, especially since we’d have legions of conservatives crying about how Israel has a right to defend itself. Its all politics really; Israel has the bomb, but keeps it vague so that the US doesn’t impose sanctions on it or limit its foreign aid. Meanwhile, the US doesn’t look closely at Israel’s doings so it can keep sending them money
Except that Israel’s unofficial wink-and-nudge policy regarding their nuclear arsenal gives any opposition a general idea of what Israel’s capability, while the official deniability works both ways; Syria and Iran don’t have to publicly stand toe-to-toe with Israel regarding the nuclear issue in Cuban Missile Crisis style. No doubt Israel has actually informed Iran and other nations (either by official covert channels or by proxy) what it would regard as being provocation for the use of nuclear weapons, this being the only effective way to use nuclear weapons for deterrence. However, for Israel, this is less an ideological issue than a practical one; it is both literally and culturally a country under siege, and I find it very likely that they would intend to use nuclear weapons in a battlefield capacity. This is viable because of the lack of nuclear parity by other players, which would be destabilized if Iran or another threat built or acquired significant nuclear capability and delivery means.
Stranger
For those interested I asked about Israel having nukes a few years ago. Worth a quick read if you are interested: Does Israel Have Nuclear Weapons?
You’d get more certainty, as well as more versatility, by instead spending that same amount on several smaller bombs. Toss them all at the same city if needed, or spread them out amongst multiple targets.