Not exactly, but read my link above. France gave a lot of help to Israel with its early nuclear program.
Actually, that’s a pretty good reason to “pretend”. Your cheating-wife analogy has one big political advantage—by pretending not to notice, you can go on living your life with your usual routine. As soon as you make a big issue of it, you have to go make huge changes—and no politician wants to do that.
If you chose not to “pretend”–you have to go to divorce court, upset your life, sell your house, ruin your finances, start searching for a new spouse, and all your friends have to decide whether to join sides with you or with your wife, and cut off relations with the other. That’s a political problem.
It’s easier just to pretend not to notice…
Does the US pretend not to notice, though? What would we be doing differently if we did notice. India developed weapons far more recently the Israel, and yet our relations with them are probably better now then in any time in the past. Ditto Pakistan.
I couldn’t find any offical gov’t list of nuclear states, but if such a thing does exist, I wouldn’t be suprised to find that we do in fact include Israel on it.
Agreed, although there is a difference between perception and reality. The US subscribed to the notion of “tactical” or battlefield nuclear weapons (as does the current occupant of the White House, whether due to indiffference to the result or obtuseness about the same) despite the fact that it is well appreciated in the post-Cuban Missile Crisis world that the use, or even threat of use, of any size nuclear weapon creates the opportunity and justification for virtually unlimited widening of the application of nukes, up to a full strategic exchange. When you can wipe out entire divisions, armies, or fleets, there’s no reason for your opponent not to respond with equally destructive power, and so forth. In game theory terms, there is no Nash Equilibrium when it comes to a nuclear exchange; there’s no point at which it is advantageous for both sides to think to themselves “I’ll use this much of my inventory and no more.” On this basis, it is bad news for everyone if Israel uses the threat, even implied, that it has nuclear capacity.
It is a load of crap from any objective point of view, but in fact nations have, do, and will no doubt continue to pretend, both to moderate interactions with other nations and to save face at home. Consider, if I may kick this deceased equine a bit longer, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Krushchev agreed, after a couple of desperate communications between the Kremlin and the White House, to remove nuclear weapons and ballisitic missiles from Cuba in exchange for the US dropping the blockade and (secretly) removing IRBMs from Turkey and Italy. The result? Krushchev claimed victory, 'cause he saved Cuba from invasion. Kennedy claimed victory; he faced down the Bear and forced her to remove missiles from Cuba. The reality? Nobody won a damn thing; the Soviet missiles were highly inaccurate, unlikely to make a successful direcgt strike on Washington. The removal of IRBMs from Southern Europe was in line with plans to deploy US-based ICBMs anyway; the Jupiter and Thor were always interim solutions anyway. Cuba comes off best–they didn’t get turned into a pile of slag, and Castro got to shake his hand at the imperialist dogs to the north. The whole thing, in retrospect, was a silly clash of egos. But for everyone to be able to claim victory was important for all parties involved.
Pretending that Israel has no weapons allows the US to make the facile claim of being a nominally neutral party in Mid-East interests, thus allowing anti-Israel nations to maintain diplomatic and economic channels without appearing to compromise their positions. Israel feels safe(r), and thus is less likely to engage in more land grabs as a pre-emptive measure. Everybody knows that a major military effort could result in The Very Bad Nastiness, and so parties are somewhat more reserved than they would be otherwise.
“The Syndicate makes a profit. And everybody gets a share.” Joseph Heller quite knew what he was on about, and the principle wasn’t limited to WWII.
Stranger
Again, can we get a cite for any current US gov’t official claiming Israel doesn’t have nuclear weapons? I’m not conviced the US does this in any substatiative way.
Israel doesn’t admit to having weapons (though I don’t think it denies having them any longer either) but I’m not conviced that the US has bought into this fiction in any way.
Well, we’re not insisting on IAEA oversight or protesting proliferation the way we are with, say, Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea. And we’re not using it as an excuse (real or imagined) for regime change as we are in a certain Middle East nation. For the US to accept Israel owning or maintaining a nuclear arsenal would remove whatever high road claim we have to protesting against proliferation.
Like the “Two Chinas” issue, and your great-aunt up in her locked attic room, we pretend that if we don’t talk about the issue that it doesn’t exist. It’s a Bluebeard Problem, to which the solution is to feign ignorance, at least in public.
Stranger
Maybe. I’m not conviced that not doing anything about Israels weapons is the same as denying they have them. After all, we’re not doing anything substantial about Indias weapons either, even though they’ve gone the extra step and actually exploded one.
And on TV when various politicians are asked why the double standard for Israels weapons vs, say Irans, the usual response is not “Israel doesn’t really have weapons” but some variant of “because they’re different” (either because their an ally, a democracy, they already have the weapons vs Irans program to develop, etc.)
Iran and N. Korea are NPT signers, and so IAEA inspections can be seen as part of thier treaty obligations. We’re not really insisting Pakistan agree to IAEA inspections. By my understanding, they’ve been asked to voluntarily submit to inspections, which they’ve agreed to do so to the extent that suits them.
well, there you have it. surely they would not have punished him for telling the truth, so he must have been spreading a calumny.
It is conclusinve–Israel is nuke-free…
I googled up this paper which seems fairly well-researched and ‘official’, given that it’s written by a US Army officer and hosted by the Air Force University. I have no idea whether it is accurate or not, but it does make some pretty eye-opening claims.
You may be misremembering what you read. That claim is sometimes made of Japan.
Of course, many issues don’t exist unless they’re talked about. The “Two Chinas” issue is an obvious example. The PRC can afford to ignore Taiwan – if it wants to.
But it doesn’t. And from the billions of dollars of military support provided by the US, neither do we.
Stranger
i believe France paid for/helped with the nuclear reactor in Dimona. and i believe it was in the 50’s. before and during the Suez War, the two countries were chummy. things cooled off in the sixties.
Its not surprising if Israel surrounded by the genocidal lunatics that she is does have nukes.
I would not be stunned with amazement if she had the technological knowhow to develop them independantly,just as I wouldn’t be SWA if she and the previous South African regime co operated together on making them.
'Israel and the Bomb' : Documents : The Battle over the NPT Kennedy was against proliferation and wanted Israel not to have them. They were like Iran and lied about what they were working on.
Nope, they got them from South Africa. Remember, South Africa developed our own nuclear arsenal. Of course, we gave it up again. Go us!
Oooh - nuclear zombie!
Oh, come on. Who ever heard of a Jewish nuclear physicist?
Not even Einstein would think of that!
As stated Mordechai Vanunu blabbed that Israel had over 200 nuclear weapons- far more than anyone estimated. (From Espionages Most Wanted by Tom E. Mahl. I am not saying that it is gospel).
http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20090602/155150021.html Here’s one from the Russians. The definition of nuclear state is one that had them before 1967. Israel is listed a a member of the nuclear club.