Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Declassified Papers Hint US Uranium May Have Ended Up In Israeli Arms

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the long-long-ago dept.

Government 165

Lasrick (2629253) writes "Victor Gilinsky and Roger J. Mattson update their story on the NUMEC affair to take into account the recent release of hundreds of classified documents that shed additional light on the story. In the 1960s, the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) was found to be missing about a 100 pounds of bomb-grade uranium. Based on available evidence, Gilinsky and Mattson are convinced that the material ended up in Israel nuclear bombs. The newly release documents add more to the story, and Gilinsky and Mattson are calling on President Obama to declassify the remainder of the file."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Happy Saturday from The Golden Girls! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794231)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Re:Happy Saturday from The Golden Girls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794287)

Why you say "cosmonaut" when lyric no say "cosmonaut"? Most peculiar.

Re:Happy Saturday from The Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794689)

That's a good point.

But did you know that the majority of white people did not vote for Obama? That it was the fact that pretty much all the niggers voted for him, that he became president? And because of that he has, is, and will continue to do what niggers to best which is fuck things up?

Isn't this story ancient? (4, Insightful)

lseltzer (311306) | about 6 months ago | (#46794239)

I think this has been known for many decades

Re:Isn't this story ancient? (2, Interesting)

Assmasher (456699) | about 6 months ago | (#46794283)

Agreed, this is known to just about anyone with an interest in nuclear proliferation issues, or the history of post 1948 Israel.

Re:Isn't this story ancient? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794369)

Obama won't do anything unless he can spin it into a smear campaign against someone he doesn't like.

or it gives him a chance to make a self important selfie.

Re:Isn't this story ancient? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794463)

Obama won't do anything unless he can spin it into a smear campaign against someone he doesn't like.

or it gives him a chance to make a self important selfie.

Yes he is a politician but we knew that already.

Cue the rabid bedwetter type of libs who call you a racist for daring to suggest that a darkskinned politician is no different from all the other politicians. You would think that constitutes equal treatment, but no, somehow it's racism. Naturally calling a complete stranger a "racist" carries no burden of proof, just your feelings of hostility will do.

Oh and the double standard is hilarious if it weren't so sad. That kind of libs will always stick up for a black man and call anybody who questions him a racist... unless the black man is conservative. Then he's a TRAITOR and libs don't stick up for him and the fact that he's black suddenly isn't important anymore. It's as though the libs were never really committed to the premise at all and just wanted to use "racist" as a cheap way to silence opponents who ask difficult questions.

But it's okay, I am sure their motives are pure.

Re:Isn't this story ancient? (2)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 6 months ago | (#46794785)

Cue the rabid

So far it's just you talking... that's such a weird pattern, this fantasizing about opponents who never show up... your motives may be pure, but your equipment is kinda broken.

Re:Isn't this story ancient? (0)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 6 months ago | (#46794525)

I also wouldn't be surprised if any wound up in Chinese, Russian or Indian arms as well.

I am pretty sure some was sold to Iraq. Hell, we sold them planes, tanks and other shit back in the 80s, why not Uranium?! I bet that is how we 'knew' they had WMDs. We just looked at their receipt.

Re:Isn't this story ancient? (1, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 months ago | (#46794849)

I bet that is how we 'knew' they had WMDs.

We "knew" they had WMD's because they used poison gas on their Kurds, just like the Syrians did.

Do remember that poison gas is a WMD, and under US policy is treated exactly the same way as nuclear weapons.

I think you are speaking about Iraq and not Israel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795399)

I think you are speaking about Iraq and not Israel

Re:Isn't this story ancient? (2)

boundary (1226600) | about 6 months ago | (#46795739)

Are you aware of the Reagan administration's well-documented involvement in supplying Iraq with precursor substances for chemical and biological weapons?

WMD is overused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795761)

Hell, a potato gun [foreignpolicy.com] qualifies as a WMD under US statute.
(block javascript to read that site)

Re:Isn't this story ancient? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46795861)

We "knew" they had WMD's because they used poison gas on their Kurds, just like the Syrians did.

We knew they had poison gas because we kept the receipts. We knew they didn't have poison gas any more because they had already used it, and it was very old.

Common Knowledge (4, Informative)

megalomaniacs4u (199468) | about 6 months ago | (#46794241)

I thought this was well known, just unofficial.

Hell, it even made a Tom Clancy novel!

Exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794307)

It was made at February, 1968, Savannah River, US. The stuff from K-reactor was stolen by US itself and given to Israelis. This is all common knowledge.

Re:Common Knowledge (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794445)

Loooong before Tom Clancy wrote it, Ken Follet wrote "Triple". A truly amazing book.

Re:Common Knowledge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794497)

I thought this was well known, just unofficial.

This is America. If you are aware of something before it's officially spelled out, that doesn't mean you were smart enough to read between the lines or put two and two together. No. It means you're a paranoid tinfoil hat-wearing nutter. Especially if you dare suggest that government is not to be trusted given its long history of deceit and abuse of power. Man, that would really be crazy talk.

Oh and it's hilarious the way you can't question 9/11 because that would make you a conspiracy theorist. Nevermind that the official explanation of 9/11 is in fact a conspiracy theory. It's just that the official conspiracy theory requires that the laws of physics be suspended while the "inside job" theory doesn't, but you're a tinfoil hat nutter if you notice that.

Really read up sometime on the demolition industry. You'll find out one thing pretty quick - causing a building to implode and collapse neatly into its own footprint is HARD. It doesn't just happen. It requires careful engineering and precise placement of explosives. Read up a bit more and you'll find that planes have crashed into other skyscrapers of similar construction with fires that burned for DAYS and those buildings didn't collapse at all. Read up a little basic physics and you will see that the top of the building fell faster than it would if it were free falling in a vacuum, and there was not a vacuum there was resistance from the floors below.

But whatever, just let the greatest crime in recent history go unquestioned. And Europeans say we're fat and stupid, hah we sure showed them.

Re:Common Knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794739)

"Really read up sometime on the demolition industry. You'll find out one thing pretty quick - causing a building to implode and collapse neatly into its own footprint is HARD."

And y'know the really interesting thing about the WTC?

They did NOT just fall into their own footprint.

So I ask you... being the sooper-de-duper smart person in the room...

Did they fly the planes into the buildings to cover up the explosive charges?
Or did they set the explosive charges to cover up the remote controls used to fly the planes into the buildings?

Yes. You ARE fat and stupid.

Re:Common Knowledge (0, Offtopic)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46794743)

Read up a little basic physics and you will see that the top of the building fell faster than it would if it were free falling in a vacuum

Yes, the secret government conspiracy equipped the building with an alien gravity booster. Only then, it brainwashed a dozen or so of dedicated terrorists who already hated the USA (and wanted to attack it) to hate the USA (and attack it). :-p

Re:Common Knowledge (1, Funny)

climb_no_fear (572210) | about 6 months ago | (#46794899)

The US government is in cahoots with aliens? Why, that explains so much, you're absolutely brilliant !

Re:Common Knowledge (0, Offtopic)

sir-gold (949031) | about 6 months ago | (#46795027)

From what I understand, the buildings collapsed the way they did because of the particular way they were built. They had central support columns instead of a traditional exterior steel frame, and the intense heat from the fire caused those central columns to fail.

Basically, the WTC didn't fall like a normal skyscraper, because it wasn't a normal skyscraper

Re:Common Knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795117)

But they didn't "fall into their own footprint". That's why the surrounding buildings had so much damage. Obviously they didn't fall over like a tree but that was because of the nature of how the support struts failed so there was little lateral energy to go anywhere but mostly down but the upper debris did start to "topple" as they went down.

Figures (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794243)

The US government is run by jews.

Re:Figures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794391)

great more religouous nuts having access to nukes

Re:Figures (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794401)

The US government is run by jews.

No, the reality is that the US government as well as the Israeli government are run by criminals.
And since the Israeli are alway protected by their sugar daddy, they can commit the most heinous acts without repercussions on the international scene. Yeah it's almost a given they have nuclear weapons. Israel is as bat shit crazy country as they come (some of it justified, most of it not).
Maybe the US should ask that uranium/plutonium back. And while they're at it impose the kind of economic sanctions they they impose on another country THAT DOES NOT HAVE the bomb. Hypocrisy all around.

And now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794411)

And now, here's Tom with the weather.

Re:Figures (3, Insightful)

Teun (17872) | about 6 months ago | (#46794507)

I would say there is a slight difference.

The Israelis would use a nuclear bomb as a last resort to keep what they have, a tiny strip of land.

Their adversaries and a few other rogue states and groups are not above using a nuclear bomb to get what they want, a tiny strip of land or even the whole western world.

Re:Figures (3, Insightful)

Rob Y. (110975) | about 6 months ago | (#46794607)

I agree that the Israelis would only use the bomb as a last resort - just don't see how they could do that and still keep their strip of land. Besides, if the issue is preventing Israel's enemies from getting their own nukes, and one of the primary reasons those enemies can cite for pursuing them is "Israel has them, so why can't we", then the best way to end the middle east arms race would be for israel to give up its nukes in exchange for a US promise to retaliate against any nuclear strike against them.

Perhaps Israel didn't trust the US as an ally in the 60's, but they have no other reliable friends now - so they better start trusting us.

Re:Figures (2, Insightful)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 6 months ago | (#46794667)

Why bother trusting the US when they can simply use AIPAC to bribe our representatives into doing what benefits them?

In the Ukraine... (3, Insightful)

Nova Express (100383) | about 6 months ago | (#46794677)

...we're seeing that, when push comes to shove and certain people are in charge, the "promise" of the United States doesn't mean squat [wikipedia.org] .

Nukes in the hand are worth an infinite number of promises and strongly-worded letters...

Re:In the Ukraine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795913)

The link you posted to is a memorandum and clearly not a treaty that has been ratified nor international law. So what was promised? Russia hasn't imposed sanctions against the Ukraine, used nuclear weapons, nor attacked it with conventional weapons so no law has been violated. Crimea was gifted to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic from the Soviet Union in '54. Since that time till today the majority (by a wide margin) ethnic group has been Russian. In '91 when communism fell it became an autonomous republic. Now that autonomous republic wants to join the Russian Federation. Currently the Eastern half of Ukraine is contemplating the same thing. Having nuclear weapons wouldn't change anything since that half would also have nuclear weapons.

Re:Figures (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46794753)

I agree that the Israelis would only use the bomb as a last resort - just don't see how they could do that and still keep their strip of land.

Well, if the US has all the ICBMs only for defense, why have them when they won't have their strip of land either after an attack regardless of whether they use them or not? Same logic.

Re:Figures (2, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 6 months ago | (#46795007)

Their adversaries and a few other rogue states and groups are not above using a nuclear bomb to get what they want, a tiny strip of land or even the whole western world.

The construction of this statement is priceless if not vague, inaccurate and worthless. The intersection of adversaries of Israel and lunatics particularly is quite laughable.

Re:Figures (1)

failedlogic (627314) | about 6 months ago | (#46795317)

The use of the nuke for the Israelis is to preserve their land to continue living on it. I would agree having nukes is a deterrent. The risks of nuclear fallout seem the greater risk.

Re:Figures (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795587)

This land was taken by force, and the natives (continue to be) interned and executed. The surrounding areas do not pick on Israel because the people are Jewish, but because those who call themselves Israeli commit both crimes and crimes against humanity. Start with this book bt prof Chomsky:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fateful_Triangle

Re:Figures (2)

quantaman (517394) | about 6 months ago | (#46796595)

I would say there is a slight difference.

The Israelis would use a nuclear bomb as a last resort to keep what they have, a tiny strip of land.

Their adversaries and a few other rogue states and groups are not above using a nuclear bomb to get what they want, a tiny strip of land or even the whole western world.

Which strip of land? Israel or the West Bank? I agree that Iran has said some worrying things and Israel seems a nice place to live filled with generally pleasant people. But they are without a doubt the aggressors in the current conflict and having nukes is one of the factors that has emboldened them to adopt such an extreme strategy. Now their enemies having nukes is a really scary proposition because Israel has adopted an extremely aggravating position predicated on the idea that their enemies are powerless to harm them.

Re:Figures (1)

boundary (1226600) | about 6 months ago | (#46795765)

No - something much worse - it's run by Americans.

Were they insured? (4, Funny)

Marrow (195242) | about 6 months ago | (#46794249)

I mean, how do you report that to your insurance agent anyway?

Re:Were they insured? (1)

phrostie (121428) | about 6 months ago | (#46794385)

+1
if only I had mod points.

Re:Were they insured? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794635)

+1 if only I had mod points.

Start posting something more interesting than "me too!" then.

100 pounds? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#46794275)

You sure that's not missing a few 0s?

One hundred pounds is more than enough (1)

JEBJr (982480) | about 6 months ago | (#46794633)

You may have hit on something there, as 100 pounds of highly enriched uranium would constitute less than went into the Little Boy weapon that exploded over Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945; judging from various online sources, that weapon contained about 64 kilograms of HEU, and 100 pounds amounts to only 45 kg. On the other hand, the design of the Little Boy weapon was (again, judging from online sources) highly inefficient. My rough guess is that 100 pounds of HEU would be enough for two or three weapons that employed an efficient design.

Someone call Ben Affleck (0)

LeonPierre (305002) | about 6 months ago | (#46794285)

Thank you Tom Clancy, for preparing us for this moment when we realize that we'll steal our own nuclear material and give it to our "allies" so the Israelis will "lose it" so it ends up in the hands of someone in the long list of people who'd love to target us using our own material.

There is no way the Israelis would give away or lose the material you say? Yea, that makes sense as well...

Re:Someone call Ben Affleck (3, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 6 months ago | (#46794315)

Theres a lot of evidence linking the Israelis to the South African nuclear weapons program with a lot of people thinking it was a "legitimatised" nuclear program that would only get SA into trouble internationally while Israel could walk away with a lot of improvements scot free, so if US technology and material ended up in Israeli hands, then I have no doubt equally that some of it then made its way on to apartheid South Africa.

Re:Someone call Ben Affleck (5, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46794395)

Theres a lot of evidence linking the Israelis to the South African nuclear weapons program

Yes there's been official disclosure from the South African end.

made its way on to apartheid South Africa

No need to make a big deal about apartheid. We still put up with Israel doing it.

Re:Someone call Ben Affleck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795499)

Theres a lot of evidence linking the Israelis to the South African nuclear weapons program with a lot of people thinking it was a "legitimatised" nuclear program that would only get SA into trouble internationally while Israel could walk away with a lot of improvements scot free, so if US technology and material ended up in Israeli hands, then I have no doubt equally that some of it then made its way on to apartheid South Africa.

Apartheid South Africa is now just South Africa. In the meantime, these materials probably haven't moved, geographically speaking. This means that Zuma has this stuff now, and probably soon Julius Malema (a.k.a. the Antichrist) will have it shortly.

I think we should be scared.

Re:Someone call Ben Affleck (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 6 months ago | (#46795535)

South Africa gave up its nuclear program after the fall of the apartheid regime.

Re:Someone call Ben Affleck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795747)

South Africa deliberately destroyed its nuclear weapons when it became clear that the apartheid regime would fall. The white government were terrified at the thought of the blacks being in control of nuclear weapons. This means that South Africa is the only country to have developed a functional nuclear arsenal and then given them up,

There's some evidence that the HEU and remaining YellowCake went to Israel.

Re:Someone call Ben Affleck (0)

cavreader (1903280) | about 6 months ago | (#46796377)

The Ukraine voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons and look at their current predicament. Thanks to Putin violating the treaty under which the Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal no country in the world is going to give up their nuclear weapons. On a side note if there is one country in the world that actually needs nuclear weapons it is Israel. They live in a region where everyone around them is taught to hate them practically from birth.

Re:Someone call Ben Affleck (3, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46794375)

There is no way the Israelis would give away or lose the material you say

Around 2000 there was a huge fuss about a top secret US tank fire targetting system that was stolen from the hardware that was donated to Israel, sold to China and then on-sold to Iran. Apparently even the thieves were pretty upset about that outcome.
However nuclear stuff makes people a bit more careful about keeping tabs on things.

Re:Someone call Ben Affleck (3, Informative)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 6 months ago | (#46794759)

The Israelis have a long standing relationship in trading military hardware with the Chinese. Another example is their air-to-air missiles the Rafael Python-3 which is manufactured in China under license as the PL-8.

I do not know exactly why the Israelis do this thing. If it is strictly for profit or if it is because they want to have a backup in case the US for whatever reason stops supporting them. Probably both. At one point their major weapons suppliers were the UK and France but after the Suez Crisis botch up the UK withdrew support. France kept selling them weapons until their other major costumers, the Arabs, said they would no longer buy weapons from them if they also sold to the Israelis. So they became reliant on the US for most weapons systems.

Re:Someone call Ben Affleck (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 6 months ago | (#46794867)

In the long run, there are no allies, just business relationships.

Re:Someone call Ben Affleck (1)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#46794909)

Clancy touched upon the rumor that nuclear materials made it from the USA to Israel. There is also a rumor that the transfer included technology and designs and a few working warheads just to get them up and running quickly.

There is no way the Israelis would give away or lose the material you say?

The premise of Clancy's novel is highly unlikely. We don't officially acknowledge Israel's possesion of nuclear weapons. But if one was lost in hostile territory, if Israel didn't go in to recover it, we would. It wouldn't serve global politics well to find US part numbers in an Israeli bomb.

SHOCKED! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794349)

Shocked I say!

flogging a dead horse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794431)

This happened almost 50 years ago, seriously, who cares?

Re:flogging a dead horse (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 6 months ago | (#46794873)

This happened almost 50 years ago, seriously, who cares?

Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.....

Personal anecdote . . . (1)

mmell (832646) | about 6 months ago | (#46795161)

Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.....

...in summer school.

This article is Antisemitic, please delete (5, Funny)

Suiggy (1544213) | about 6 months ago | (#46794441)

This is quite disgusting of Slashdot to be spreading bigotry and hate in this day and age. This article should be removed immediately for spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (5, Insightful)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 6 months ago | (#46794519)

The worst part of debating Israeli issues on the internet?

I have no idea whether this guy is kidding.

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794955)

You put your comment where my comments have been since ancient times. Expect retaliatory strikes.

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795231)

Your family killed some of my relatives (800 years ago), therefore, I must kill you now!

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46796249)

Sons of Abraham... stay this madness!

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795207)

Satire about the misuse of charging a person or group with anti-Semitism to silence their voice is, itself, an anti-Semitic attack and must, therefore, be wiped from the face of the internet.

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 6 months ago | (#46795423)

Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (1)

burisch_research (1095299) | about 6 months ago | (#46795517)

Perhaps this is one of the most piercing forms of trolling?

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795213)

Jokes aside, You are implying that Israelis and Jews use the "antisemitic" card too often.

Can you actually prove that? Perhaps anti-Semitism is a prolific as it was back in the 1930s, yet for some reason, you rather mock the ones that point it out?

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (1)

NicBenjamin (2124018) | about 6 months ago | (#46795491)

I actually would not blame the Israelis for this being funny. Same for non-Israeli Jews. Some of the more nationalistic strains of Orthodox Jews can be quite sensitive to criticism of Israel, but they are a definite minority and tend to get stared down by less unreasonable folks.

In my experience the people who conflate criticism of Israel with Anti-Semitism most often are actually white Conservative Catholics, and White Evangelicals. Stephen Harper pretty much said this flat-out while speaking in the Knesset. Sarah Palin, who knows so much about Anti-Semitism that she referred to criticism of herself as "blood libel" firmly supported him.

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (0)

martas (1439879) | about 6 months ago | (#46795595)

When is the last time a large population of Jews had their belongings confiscated, were required to register with the government, and were confined to special neighborhoods?

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795811)

Much before any of that, there was just "simple" bigotry and anti-semitism.

Today's world's no less dangerous for Jews than it was 100 years ago.

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795629)

Oh please ... the current state of affairs is like the story of the kid who cried wolf, except it's not a kid but dedicated lobby and propaganda organisations who cry "Anti-semite!" all day.

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795993)

The real kicker is, both Arabs and Jews are Semitic peoples. So, which group can you hate and still not be antisemitic? Neither.

Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete (1)

Suiggy (1544213) | about 6 months ago | (#46796527)

Sure. Take a look at this video interview of former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Intelligence. Wisdom. Common sense. (2)

mmell (832646) | about 6 months ago | (#46795273)

None of those require the other two. None of those should be exclusive of the other two. Unfortunately, none of those are required to post on Slashdot - just a keyboard and an internet connection. I still want this sign:

"--- You must be this intelligent to ride the internet. Shorter riders must be accompanied by a parent or guardian."

cor (1)

tleaf100 (2020038) | about 6 months ago | (#46794529)

and who else A ) could have supplied and B ) could have supplied little isreal but greater isreal.. this is hardly a new theory and there is probably not enough left in classified stuff still to prove it anyway. there were even less places in them days to source from. the russians would'nt,uk coud'nt,france yes if price was right,so that only realy leaves greater isreal that could and would.and did.another international criminal act,carried out by americans with usa gov knowledge and help but we will never see even anyone charged let alone face an international court.

PLUMBAT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794531)

Wasn't this covered in a non-fiction book called "The PLUMBAT Affair?"

Good for them. (3, Insightful)

burni2 (1643061) | about 6 months ago | (#46794545)

Actually, I have two oppinions on this matter

1.) if a country is in possession of nuclear weapons,
they should join the nuke arms test & proliferation ban

Israel should join this treaty.

No army and nobody should own nuclear weapons.

And Mordechai Vanunu should be given the chance to go exile.

2.) Israel is a special case

a.) The country is actually nothing more than an airstrip, from north to south it's approx. 200km wide. If aggressors try to invade it's a really short walk.

Or just four thermonuclear devices to split a country.

b.) Israel would never use the nuclear bomb as a first strike option. This can be seen as it never officially admitted having nukes, but everybody knew. It's a much critized politic style - but it worked - and choses nukes as a means of mutually assured destruction or retaliation.

So actually I'm ok with Israel having nuclear weapons and german fuel cell drivin subs to launch them.

But to be clear on the other point when it comes to Israel:
I'm absolutely not ok with the politics Israel undertakes towards the palestineans, the actual worst enemy for peace in Israel( In my count Gaza and west jordan area are part of Israel) is the whole politics of blame and shame.

Cattle are more dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794637)

Actually it currently appears if you are an ally of the USA you will need nuclear weapons to protect yourself, because despite claims that the USA will help you they won't when it comes to it. You will have to endure harsh language from the USA if you choose this option

If you are an enemy of the USA, you are free to build nuclear weapons without the harsh language and the USA might even help keep other countries off your ass while you do so, see Iran.

If you have cattle in the west, that is unacceptable to the USA government and armed agents will be sent out immediatly to take care of the issue.

Yes, the USA government will treat its own citizens far harsher for having too many cattle then they will an enemy state making nuclear weapons. What does this get you? Russia invading Ukrane with no consequences.

Re:Good for them. (2, Insightful)

Xenkar (580240) | about 6 months ago | (#46795043)

Look up the Samson option. Israel plans on nuking every major European city they can if Israel falls. They are holding us hostage and forcing us to support their government.

An ideal that is good shouldn't require the threat of annihilation just to get others to go along with it.

Re:Good for them. (3, Interesting)

mark_osmd (812581) | about 6 months ago | (#46796481)

That's a rumor of a strategy, usually quoted from unidentified third parties or as personal opinions of military historians. I don't know of any official Israeli government document or statement that there's such a doctrine. It would be hard for them to since there's no official admission by Israel that they possess nuclear weapons. When looked up in wikipedia it's described as "...the name that some military analysts have given to Israel's hypothetical deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence" hardly equivalent to nuking "every major European city" which implies those cities are in nations not attacking Israel.

Re:Good for them. (2, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#46795077)

I'm absolutely not ok with the politics Israel undertakes towards the palestineans, the actual worst enemy for peace in Israel( In my count Gaza and west jordan area are part of Israel) is the whole politics of blame and shame.

That's nice and all, but maybe you can get the palestinian's government to explain why they're so pro-genocide in their teachings. With the various terrorist organizations, which were elected actively supporting said teachings, and taking money from the countries in the region to wage a proxy war. And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain why the BDS movement is so anti-Israeli while said organizations actually hire and pay said palestinians not only a good wage, but an amazing wage. All the while there are arab, druze, and palestinians in the Knesset. Let's be realistic, between the two? I'll back Israel every time.

Re:Good for them. (5, Insightful)

Xenkar (580240) | about 6 months ago | (#46795247)

I think it might be because at the start of every peace negotiation, Israel announces a new illegal settlement project in the West Bank.

Gaza and the West Bank are basically open air prisons. Do the prisons in the US make prisoners a better fit for society, or merely drive them further into anti-social lifestyles?

Every new building in the West Bank needs almost impossible to get Israeli approval. Those who dare to build houses without approval get there structured knocked down by armored bulldozers.

Gaza has a hard time getting raw materials shipped in to build buildings. Any farming they do will probably be destroyed by Israeli armed forces.

Now let me ask you, if someone urinated on your face and you weren't into that, would you be grateful for them to do it, or will it piss you off? Asking him to stop just makes him aim it closer to your eyes. His buddies come up and beat the shit out of you if you dare strike back. They then join in the urination party. This is the Israeli-Palestinian relationship.

Re:Good for them. (1, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#46795619)

Well let's be realistic then shall we? Technically they're not beholden to anyone to not build on the West Bank, being that it was a captured territory. Useful point, that much of it was already bought previously and before 1940. And every time that they gave land up--end when it was fully productive the palestinians fully destroyed it, looted it, and went on their way instead of taking it over and using it to bolster their own economy.

Gaza and the West Bank are "open air prisons" of their own making. Their own making revolved around: Palestinians, sniping at civilians along the highways, strapping explosives to themselves and blowing themselves up at cafes, bus stops, and other crowded civilian areas, and so on. Of course we can't forget the "rock throwing" brigades either, or some of the other incidents.

Building is restricted because terrorist organizations love to build bunkers, and weapons munitions dumps within civilian structures, and in places near to the border with Israel, they like to build tunnels to try getting under border check points. In other cases to build smuggling tunnels into Egypt. In order to smuggle in whatever they can.

The reason that building materials are hard is see the last paragraph, the last time they allowed unfettered access to building materials it went right to the terrorist groups who used it for bunkers, and weapons dumps. Big shock right?

So, let me ask you. If you had a "neighbor" who was doing that to you, and not only that but was launching rockets on a regular basis at the entire southern part of your country, to the point where all of your civic buildings are now bomb hardened structures, and houses are now moving that way too, how long would you simply put up with that? Especially when they've been claiming that it's "all in the name of peace."

Re:Good for them. (4, Insightful)

Xenkar (580240) | about 6 months ago | (#46795849)

I tried to look up some cases of Palestinians destroying factories but I couldn't find any in the Google search results. It consisted mostly of Israelis destroying Palestinian factories and farms, or a Palestinian concrete factory that recycled rubble from bombed out structures from Israeli raids. Please enlighten me with some links.

I took a look at the statistics a while back and Israelis are more likely to die from an automotive accident on their Israeli-only highways that web throughout the West Bank than from any Palestinian attack.

I've looked at the structures that Palestinians like to construct. Thick walls, preferably earthbound if possible. Now while one might think that this is a horrible crime, it is the only way to build a structure that doesn't require air conditioning in the region. Air conditioners typically require electricity and it isn't like the Palestinians can count on Israelis to not bomb out their infrastructure.

"Hmm, they bulldozed my house for the fifth time. Perhaps I should build something that's a bit more costly for them to destroy this time." Unfortunately they don't realize that the Israeli military is subsidized by the American and German tax payers and thus won't stop the Israelis from just using a bunker buster missile without second thought. They just need to say it was a weapons factory or a terrorist's bunker and all is forgiven.

If I had driven one of my neighbors to do all of that, I'd deeply reflect on my own actions and wonder if building my house right in his front yard and then bulldozing his down was the best course of action.

Re:Good for them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795985)

Grandparent post:

the actual worst enemy for peace in Israel( In my count Gaza and west jordan area are part of Israel) is the whole politics of blame and shame.

Response:

That's nice and all, but maybe you can get the palestinian's government to explain why they're so pro-genocide in their teachings

Irony!

Re:Good for them. (4, Insightful)

quantaman (517394) | about 6 months ago | (#46796639)

That's nice and all, but maybe you can get the palestinian's government to explain why they're so pro-genocide in their teachings. With the various terrorist organizations, which were elected actively supporting said teachings, and taking money from the countries in the region to wage a proxy war.

Absolutely.

Israel is actively occupying Palestine and stealing the Palestinian's land.

Look at the racism that occurs against Hispanics in the US due to them taking some crappy jobs. Is it a surprise that a nation that's been constantly losing it's land to self-identified Zionists for over 100 years is going to end up really antisemitic? Having Palestinians spontaneously turn into a nation of Ghandis isn't a realistic prerequisite for peace in the middle east.

Re:Good for them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795211)

A nuke is the only thing that makes everyone think twice, even superpowers. Can't blame any nation for wanting one.

Invade Israel now to stop rogue WMD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794647)

Oh, wait. AIPAC! Anti-Semitic! Only democracy in the Middle East!

Saddam should have spent a few hundred million on lobbyists - he could still be in power. Just look at the Saudis.

Re:Invade Israel now to stop rogue WMD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794799)

Only democracy in the Middle East!

It's still true. It's a shitty one but one nonetheless. And anything that would replace it would be a hundred times worse.

Re:Invade Israel now to stop rogue WMD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46796559)

Turkey.

Re:Invade Israel now to stop rogue WMD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794843)

No no Israel... just give us your nukes and we promise we'll defend you if attacked... like the Ukraine.

arms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46794935)

what about the legs? Sorry.. I just had to type a stupid joke.

Sum of all fears (1)

bl968 (190792) | about 6 months ago | (#46794981)

Tom Clancy told us this in the Sum of All Fears, the great book; not the horribly butchered movie...

As the evidence increases, the Nuclear NPO Treaty (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795507)

When are we going to put sanction on Israel over their Nuclear Arms program?

Don't be right be smart (1)

iceco2 (703132) | about 6 months ago | (#46795807)

Nothing much has changed in the last 30 years. The US still has intrests in Israel and the middle east. Everyone knows Israel has nuclear weapons but can't prove it and that is just the way Israel likes it. Israel was on the brink of extinction in 1973 and no WMDs were used this proves remarkable self restraint. Accusing Israel of a 50 year old crime would serve no practical purpose. It would hurt relationships with Israel it will harm the peace process it would harm the fight against WMDs because it would show the truth we are much more concerned about dictators with WMDs then we are about democracies.

100 pounds (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 6 months ago | (#46796181)

Note that uranium is extremely dense - 19.1 kg/liter - so we're not talking about a huge amount of material. 100 pounds is only about 2.4 liters - a little more than a half-gallon milk carton.

Re:100 pounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46796529)

But how many megatons does that equal is the real salient question.

...and? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46796369)

..and this is bad... why exactly?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?