Ex-President Carter slams Israel, claims they have "150 nuclear weapons"

[weltweit]

Truly a wondrous application of logic, that.

Thanks, I liked it.

Consider if Israel does / did have nukes.

None of their immediate neighbours have them.
There is no MAD deterrent afoot here.

Israel must therefore hope that they will deter conventional forces.
But the traditional way to deter conventional forces with nukes is to have tactical or battlefield nukes and to use these to deter the enemy from amassing a force for invasion because once such a force is amassed it is easily wiped out in one go by a tactical nuke.

This was the anti Warsaw pact strategy of BAOR and a convenience in that situation was that the tactical nukes would likely have been dropped on East Germany, where the Soviet forces would have amassed. A long long way from London and Britain.

For Israel to use tactical nukes it will have to drop them right on its own doorstep, bad. Thus tactical nukes are not such a great thing for Israel.

So instead what about city levelers, does Israel have these? what would it hope to achieve with these. There is no MAD situation in which such weapons would provide a deterrent.

Perhaps they plan to level cities in their neighbouring enemies if they, their neighbours attack with conventional weapons. That would mean annihilating civilians on a massive scale.

Perhaps that is their plan, threaten to anihilate cities in response to a conventional attack on Israel.

When else?

When would Israel think it a morally acceptable plan to anihilate cities full of civilians?

If they are not prepared to do this, there is no point in having the weapons, if indeed they do have the weapons.

 

[agricola]

Thanks, I liked it.

Consider if Israel does / did have nukes.

None of their immediate neighbours have them.
There is no MAD deterrent afoot here.

Israel must therefore hope that they will deter conventional forces.
But the traditional way to deter conventional forces with nukes is to have tactical or battlefield nukes and to use these to deter the enemy from amassing a force for invasion because once such a force is amassed it is easily wiped out in one go by a tactical nuke.

This was the anti Warsaw pact strategy of BAOR and a convenience in that situation was that the tactical nukes would likely have been dropped on East Germany, where the Soviet forces would have amassed. A long long way from London and Britain.

For Israel to use tactical nukes it will have to drop them right on its own doorstep, bad. Thus tactical nukes are not such a great thing for Israel.

So instead what about city levelers, does Israel have these? what would it hope to achieve with these. There is no MAD situation in which such weapons would provide a deterrent.

Perhaps they plan to level cities in their neighbouring enemies if they, their neighbours attack with conventional weapons. That would mean annihilating civilians on a massive scale.

Perhaps that is their plan, threaten to anihilate cities in response to a conventional attack on Israel.

When else?

When would Israel think it a morally acceptable plan to anihilate cities full of civilians?

If they are not prepared to do this, there is no point in having the weapons, if indeed they do have the weapons.

Nonsense. Have you seen how big Israel is? Any attacker wouldnt have to use more than two or three warheads (even including a-bombs rather than h-bombs) to wipe most of the place out. Any regime nearby that has nukes is an immense threat to Israel's existence, especially ones that are hostile to it - thats why they bombed Osirak in the 1981 and the Syrian reactor very recently in defiance of nearly every piece of international law, though I certainly can see why they did it.

As for "well, there is no MAD, so no point in having them" - this is tremendously naive. Were the worst case scenario to happen and Israel's conventional forces (air or land) to be defeated, there is not enough space with which to trade for time, in order to regroup. There would be a choice between nuking the attackers (or their country), or surrender. At that point considering the effect of fallout on Israel would be very much down the list of things to worry about.

 

[Darios]

If Israel had Nukes they would not worry about Iran getting them because that would just create stalemate and continued peace.

Israel is getting excited about Iran getting them, hence Israel does NOT have them.

Israeli interests have been heavily involved in the A.Q.Khan nuclear proliferation network, which has been active since the 70s. Pakistan developed its nukes with the direct assistance of this illegal and extensive network plus through siphoning off significant amounts of financial assistance from the U.S. into the programme and the ISI (the latter improving Pakistan's ability to make use of (and possibly help develop) the network). All the while U.S. (and UK) authorities winked at them rather than take action.

Israel has far superior facilities, capabilities and a much closer and influential relationship with the U.S. plus a massively higher military budget than Pakistan. It took Pakistan a long time to develop the nukes because it is effectively a third world nation and only received outside assistance because it was seen as a strategic asset during the cold war. Yet develop nuclear capability it did. Now what do you think the massively more wealthy and advanced Israel was able to do, making use of the same network?

 

[weltweit]

...As for "well, there is no MAD, so no point in having them" - this is tremendously naive. Were the worst case scenario to happen and Israel's conventional forces (air or land) to be defeated, there is not enough space with which to trade for time, in order to regroup. There would be a choice between nuking the attackers (or their country), or surrender. At that point considering the effect of fallout on Israel would be very much down the list of things to worry about.

So you agree with me, the question is :

When would Israel think it a morally acceptable plan to anihilate cities full of civilians?

If they are not prepared to do this, there is no point in having the weapons, if indeed they do have the weapons.

 

[weltweit]

Personally I don't feel any (not even one little bit) safer because the elected leader of my country has the real ability to turn a city the size of Paris into ashes and incinerate all its population.

I should think that all inhabitants of cities worldwide who know he has this capability probably think he is an asshole of the highest order and I would have to agree.

Nuclear weapons do not make the world a safer place.

Israel having them has not prevented attacks on Israel nor will they, except in MAD.

 

[agricola]

So you agree with me, the question is :

When would Israel think it a morally acceptable plan to anihilate cities full of civilians?

If they are not prepared to do this, there is no point in having the weapons, if indeed they do have the weapons.

I dont agree with you, as should be blatantly obvious. As for the rest of your text, they probably are prepared to nuke an attacker's cities (or at the very least, threaten to if an advance is not stopped) in the circumstances described - you are talking about "national survival", after all.

 

[weltweit]

I dont agree with you, as should be blatantly obvious. As for the rest of your text, they probably are prepared to nuke an attacker's cities (or at the very least, threaten to if an advance is not stopped) in the circumstances described - you are talking about "national survival", after all.

So you are a national in a neighbouring city, and you know that Israel maintains the right and the capability to incinerate the whole population of your city in an instant. How does that make you feel towards Israel?

This capability might make Israelis feel safer but how does it make these others (the targetted ones) feel about Israel?

 

[frogwoman]

So you are a national in a neighbouring city, and you know that Israel maintains the right and the capability to incinerate the whole population of your city in an instant. How does that make you feel towards Israel?

This capability might make Israelis feel safer but how does it make these others (the targetted ones) feel about Israel?

How do they feel about Israel anyway?

 

[agricola]

So you are a national in a neighbouring city, and you know that Israel maintains the right and the capability to incinerate the whole population of your city in an instant. How does that make you feel towards Israel?

This capability might make Israelis feel safer but how does it make these others (the targetted ones) feel about Israel?

Thats irrelevant - the reasons I gave are probably the reasons Israel has the weapons. Also, as Frogwoman notes, the populations of most of the states around Israel are pretty much anti-Israel anyway, to varying degrees of course.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thanks, I liked it.

Consider if Israel does / did have nukes.

None of their immediate neighbours have them.
There is no MAD deterrent afoot here.

Does there have to be?
The philosophy of "mutually assured destruction" was only ever applicable between so-called super-powers. It's not even particularly relevant in today's post-cold war world, where states have got wise to the possible threats of "terrorism", nuclear or otherwise.

Israel must therefore hope that they will deter conventional forces.
But the traditional way to deter conventional forces with nukes is to have tactical or battlefield nukes and to use these to deter the enemy from amassing a force for invasion because once such a force is amassed it is easily wiped out in one go by a tactical nuke.

You're making a (to be blunt) very simplistic assumption about the nature of warfare, IMHO, in that you appear to be viewing it as a chess game.
The issue isn't just that one would "need" battlefield or tactical nukes, or even that one might wish to deter conventional forces from taking the field or utilise backpack nukes to take out armoured divisions, it's that given the geo-political and geo-strategic importance of Israel to "the west", it's imperative for the state of Israel to have weapons with which it can "terrorise" it's neighbouring nation-states, with which it can send the message "if you attempt to invade, if you even annoy us, we have the power to obliterate your main cities, regardless of your military forces".

This was the anti Warsaw pact strategy of BAOR and a convenience in that situation was that the tactical nukes would likely have been dropped on East Germany, where the Soviet forces would have amassed. A long long way from London and Britain.

I'm quite familiar with the fact that myself and my comrades were expected to roast on the German plain.

For Israel to use tactical nukes it will have to drop them right on its own doorstep, bad. Thus tactical nukes are not such a great thing for Israel.

So instead what about city levelers, does Israel have these? what would it hope to achieve with these. There is no MAD situation in which such weapons would provide a deterrent.

Perhaps they plan to level cities in their neighbouring enemies if they, their neighbours attack with conventional weapons. That would mean annihilating civilians on a massive scale.

Your point being...what...that they wouldn't do so? Their main sponsor has, they've got the example of most of the wars of the 2nd half of the 20th century to show that the obliteration of cities is part and parcel of "modern" warfare.

Perhaps that is their plan, threaten to anihilate cities in response to a conventional attack on Israel.

When else?

When would Israel think it a morally acceptable plan to anihilate cities full of civilians?

If they are not prepared to do this, there is no point in having the weapons, if indeed they do have the weapons.

Why does there have to be a point to having the weapons beyond the purely instrumental point of "having them because we can, and because they give us leverage"?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So you agree with me, the question is :

When would Israel think it a morally acceptable plan to anihilate cities full of civilians?

If they are not prepared to do this, there is no point in having the weapons, if indeed they do have the weapons.

You shouldn't be asking "when would Israel...?", you should be asking "when would the generals and the politicians find it expedient/convenient?"

Remember that in the final analysis Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the result of convenience and expedience; the convenience and expedience of using 2 bombs and a handful of planes as opposed to a massed bombing campaign followed by tens of divisions of infantry. The devil, as always, is in the cost/benefit analysis.

 

[frogwoman]

You shouldn't be asking "when would Israel...?", you should be asking "when would the generals and the politicians find it expedient/convenient?"

Remember that in the final analysis Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the result of convenience and expedience; the convenience and expedience of using 2 bombs and a handful of planes as opposed to a massed bombing campaign followed by tens of divisions of infantry. The devil, as always, is in the cost/benefit analysis.

Also don't forget that the Japanese looked as though they were surrendering anyway but the Americans wanted to be sure they would surrender to them and not the Russians.

 

[gorski]

Really? That's a new piece of info for me. Any sources, please? Ta!

And do tell it to Kyzer, please!!! In Philosophy forum, yes...

 

[weltweit]

Does there have to be?
The philosophy of "mutually assured destruction" was only ever applicable between so-called super-powers. It's not even particularly relevant in today's post-cold war world, where states have got wise to the possible threats of "terrorism", nuclear or otherwise.

I am not so sure. There tends to be peace when there is a balance of forces. Hence in the UK the population is largely unarmed and we are largely at peace with each other. In the USA the population is largely armed and likewise there is largely peace. Between the USA & USSR there was balance and MAD and there was "largely" peace.

At the moment there is no balance between Israel and Palestine, Israel has all the forces and Palestine is opressed. I doubt there will be peace in that region until Palestine has the same weapons that Israel has. And I would include nukes in that. Balance in rifles, tanks, armoured bulldozers, nukes etc. Then it would not only be Palestinians that have something to lose from continued conflict, Israel could also lose on a similar scale.

You're making a (to be blunt) very simplistic assumption about the nature of warfare, IMHO, in that you appear to be viewing it as a chess game.
The issue isn't just that one would "need" battlefield or tactical nukes, or even that one might wish to deter conventional forces from taking the field or utilise backpack nukes to take out armoured divisions, it's that given the geo-political and geo-strategic importance of Israel to "the west", it's imperative for the state of Israel to have weapons with which it can "terrorise" it's neighbouring nation-states, with which it can send the message "if you attempt to invade, if you even annoy us, we have the power to obliterate your main cities, regardless of your military forces".

Imperative? not to me, "importance to the west" not to me, in fact the importance of the region to me is that there is conflict that has gone on for generations and the adults on the scene seem completely to have failed to grasp the nettle that is needed to obtain peace.

One could be taken to believe that Israel in fact does not at all want peace, instead it wants the continuation of what it has had, the ability to take what it wants when it wants it by force.

I'm quite familiar with the fact that myself and my comrades were expected to roast on the German plain.

I think the Germans were also pretty patient given their territory was to be the likely scene of the East west showdown. still they did pretty well in compensation when our armoured vehicles wrecked their crops during exercises.

Your point being...what...that they wouldn't do so? Their main sponsor has, they've got the example of most of the wars of the 2nd half of the 20th century to show that the obliteration of cities is part and parcel of "modern" warfare.

Indeed, one of the worst examples of WW2, why would anyone want to consider a repeat of such a war crime?

Why does there have to be a point to having the weapons beyond the purely instrumental point of "having them because we can, and because they give us leverage"?

There is no point in having weapons you are not prepared to use. There is no deterrent in having weapons your enemy does not believe you would use.

Israel claims (or do they not, I wonder) that they have nuclear weapons, hence they are prepared to use them to incinerate the populations of the cities of their enemies and neighbours. What a friendly state to establish, what a peace loving thing to do. Such a move only speaks of how warlike you are, how you are determined only to have your way at the expense of others.

Sweden and Denmark do not each have nuclear weapons, why is that I wonder? perhaps because they have made investments not in ways to attack each other but in ways to cooperate peacefully.

Israel does not want peace, - to obtain peace you must talk to your enemies, not just your friends - (source Desmond Tutu)

 

[frogwoman]

@ gorski -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate...Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary
and here:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hiroshima1.html

 

[agricola]

@ gorski -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate...Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary
and here:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hiroshima1.html

As it states further up the Wikipedia link, it is very questionable whether Japan would have surrendered without an invasion of the Home Islands - even after both bombs had been dropped there was a serious coup attempt.

While the atomic bombings were obviously deeply unpleasant events, they were in all likelyhood fully justifiable given the alternatives (invasion, starvation blockade and conventional bombardment, Soviet domination) and the nature of the Japanese government at the time.

 

[gorski]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=249968

That's what they would want you to believe, yes...

There are always other possibilities...

In all things Human!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I am not so sure. There tends to be peace when there is a balance of forces. Hence in the UK the population is largely unarmed and we are largely at peace with each other. In the USA the population is largely armed and likewise there is largely peace. Between the USA & USSR there was balance and MAD and there was "largely" peace.

You're conflating civilian and military conceptions of peace. The two are nothing alike.
As for your point about the USA and USSR, the "peace" between the main blocs was only there because conflicts fought through proxies served as "containment" of a greater struggle.

At the moment there is no balance between Israel and Palestine, Israel has all the forces and Palestine is opressed. I doubt there will be peace in that region until Palestine has the same weapons that Israel has. And I would include nukes in that. Balance in rifles, tanks, armoured bulldozers, nukes etc. Then it would not only be Palestinians that have something to lose from continued conflict, Israel could also lose on a similar scale.

Which is all very well, but fails to acknowledge geo-political and geo-strategic reality, and misses a very obvious disparity between state populations.

Imperative? not to me, "importance to the west" not to me, in fact the importance of the region to me is that there is conflict that has gone on for generations and the adults on the scene seem completely to have failed to grasp the nettle that is needed to obtain peace.

Blunt as this may seem, how imperative or important things are to you doesn't really matter to those who have it within their power to actually do anything about the situation, whereas "capital" does matter to them.

One could be taken to believe that Israel in fact does not at all want peace, instead it wants the continuation of what it has had, the ability to take what it wants when it wants it by force.

It's not the taking that actually matters, it's the holding.

I think the Germans were also pretty patient given their territory was to be the likely scene of the East west showdown. still they did pretty well in compensation when our armoured vehicles wrecked their crops during exercises.

...and stole their chickens.

Indeed, one of the worst examples of WW2, why would anyone want to consider a repeat of such a war crime?

Why? Because it's part of the armoury, it's tactical and strategic value, as a threat and as a reality, is taught to every staff officer. It's part of the job of any general to consider use if necessary, and to make sure permissions are in place.
You also have to bear in mind that the more militarised a society is, the more likely military solutions are to be applied to civilian problems, the more often the knowledge of generalship and the ideological drives of a politician may come together in the same person.

There is no point in having weapons you are not prepared to use. There is no deterrent in having weapons your enemy does not believe you would use.

Israel claims (or do they not, I wonder) that they have nuclear weapons, hence they are prepared to use them to incinerate the populations of the cities of their enemies and neighbours. What a friendly state to establish, what a peace loving thing to do. Such a move only speaks of how warlike you are, how you are determined only to have your way at the expense of others.


Sweden and Denmark do not each have nuclear weapons, why is that I wonder? perhaps because they have made investments not in ways to attack each other but in ways to cooperate peacefully.

Israel does not want peace, - to obtain peace you must talk to your enemies, not just your friends - (source Desmond Tutu)

I'm sure that Israel does want peace.
Unfortunately, I'm just as sure that the democratically-elected representatives of the people of Israel (who are, after all, the bedrock of Israel) are engaged with a system of governance, and beholden to an economic system, that requires that there currently be no peace.

 

[Malamud]

Also don't forget that the Japanese looked as though they were surrendering anyway but the Americans wanted to be sure they would surrender to them and not the Russians.

While I certainly agree that the Americans wanted to end the War before the Russians gained too much, there is very little evidence that the Japanese were planning to surrender anyway. All the evidence, IMO, suggests the very opposite.

 

[ViolentPanda]

While I certainly agree that the Americans wanted to end the War before the Russians gained too much, there is very little evidence that the Japanese were planning to surrender anyway. All the evidence, IMO, suggests the very opposite.

We certainly know the intentions of the Japanese govt (i.e. that the population s of the islands would be mobilised as suicidal impediments to the progress of any extension from beachheads).
What we can't say is what a tired and starving population would have actually done, when faced with massed infantry assaults and no possibility of survival.

 

[Malamud]

What we can't say is what a tired and starving population would have actually done, when faced with massed infantry assaults and no possibility of survival.

We never could. And still can't.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

DetroitCity: Equating Israel with the Nazis is out of vogue by now, you better get with it...

Really? Only I read that an Israeli official - the deputy defence minister in fact - threatened a "Holocaust" on Gaza in an Israeli radio interview?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7270650.stm

 

[weltweit]

You're conflating civilian and military conceptions of peace. The two are nothing alike.
As for your point about the USA and USSR, the "peace" between the main blocs was only there because conflicts fought through proxies served as "containment" of a greater struggle.

Sure, thats why I said "largely" ..

I would think that the only conception of peace that matters is civilian but perhaps you would like to expand on what you mean about civilian and military peace and how they differ?

Unless perhaps as in the case of Israel you are an army with a state rather than a state with an army in which case it could be confusing.

Blunt as this may seem, how imperative or important things are to you doesn't really matter to those who have it within their power to actually do anything about the situation, whereas "capital" does matter to them.

To US politicians Israel obviously means a lot, but I don't think for reasons of capital, more for reasons of intertwined political influence. I think UK politicians if they were honest care much less for Israel, and in my opinion so they should.

It's not the taking that actually matters, it's the holding.

Indeed.

Why? Because it's part of the armoury, it's tactical and strategic value, as a threat and as a reality, is taught to every staff officer. It's part of the job of any general to consider use if necessary, and to make sure permissions are in place.

Re: Nuclear. It does not make me sleep any safer in my bed in the knowledge that Gordon Brown has the capability to reduce a city the size of Paris to a smouldering wreck. In the time of East West confrontation across the German plain I have / had no problem with battlefield nukes, I can see their reasoning and it makes sense but us maintaining nuclear armed submarines patroling the world "in case" they are needed is toy town thinking, completely redundant. They were anti Soviet and we were being the last state of the US union. Those times should be past imho.

You also have to bear in mind that the more militarised a society is, the more likely military solutions are to be applied to civilian problems, the more often the knowledge of generalship and the ideological drives of a politician may come together in the same person.

Indeed and hence my comment that Israel is an army with a state. imo there will be no peace while they think of objectives in military terms. Tutu's comment was I think insightful - for peace you have to talk to your enemies not your friends.

I'm sure that Israel does want peace.
Unfortunately, I'm just as sure that the democratically-elected representatives of the people of Israel (who are, after all, the bedrock of Israel) are engaged with a system of governance, and beholden to an economic system, that requires that there currently be no peace.

I am afraid I am potentially biased, I have only had few interactions with Israeli Jews and many of my interactions showed the individuals involved to be a bit like the state, no turn the other cheek rather an eye for an eye and perhaps even as it seems to be in Israel at the moment ten eyes for an eye.

 

[rachamim18]

Weltweit: First you are ignoring the plethora of rationales used when a nation aims for nuclear capabilities. For example. is it not possible that Iran simply is seeking a more just entry into the world stage and concessions in other areas?

If push came to shove the entire region would be oblierated and as irrational as the Ahmadinejad regime sounds (construing that the US cartoon "Tom and Jerry" is actually a Jewish ploy at world denimination),there truly is a method to thier madness.

Weltweit: "Israel claims or does not claim to have nukes, what a poeaceable thing to do....": Israel claims nothing either way. It allows the world to wagggle their tongues and the only concrete piece of evidence is an almost half century old Inspcetion dossier by an American Team who had to bribe Israel in order to access the facility at all. Israel has NEVER threatened another nation with any kind of tactical response or retaliation.

Ann: I suggest you leanr the definition of both HaShoah and al Nakhba in Hebrew and Arabic respectively. The word Holocaust does not neccessarily apply to a mechanised gnocide as part of a codified national policy. "Shoah" in this sense just means "big disaster," that is all, end of case. In fact it is true. If the Egyptian Cease Fire iniative does fail, there will be tragedies to spare, sadly.

 

[mauvais]

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

The Sunday Times was wary of being duped after having previously been embarassed by the Hitler Diaries hoax. As a result, the newspaper insisted on verifying Vanunu's story with leading nuclear weapon experts, including former U.S. nuclear weapons designer Theodore Taylor and former British designer Frank Barnaby, who agreed that Vanunu's story was factual. Vanunu gave detailed descriptions of lithium-6 separation required for the production of tritium, an essential ingredient of fusion-boosted fission bombs. While both experts concluded that Israel might be making such single-stage boosted bombs, Vanunu, whose work experience was limited to material (not component) production, gave no specific evidence that Israel was making two-stage thermonuclear bombs, such as neutron bombs. (Journalistic accounts which suggested otherwise went beyond Vanunu's evidence.)[12] Vanunu described the plutonium processing used, giving a production rate of about 30 kg per year, and stated that Israel used about 4 kg per weapon.[13][14] From this information it was possible to estimate that Israel had sufficient plutonium for about 150 nuclear weapons.

I imagine, especially given the 'Soviet Union' reference, that the estimation comes from this.

I'm sure r18 can come up with reams more shambolic drivel to try and discredit Vanunu, but I haven't the energy to bother with it.

 

[laptop]

I'm sure r18 can come up with reams more shambolic drivel to try and discredit Vanunu, but I haven't the energy to bother with it.

See, it is the policy of the state of Israel to be confusing and give the appeareance of confusion about nuclear weapons.




So, what else could its faithful servant do?

 

[rachamim18]

Mauvais: Thank you for the kind words. In fact, Vanunu a certified mental patient whose family disowned him and who has himself gone through sat least 6 religious conversions since his original arrest did work at Dimona. What was his position? We do not know, it could have been as a dishwasher in the canteen.

Knowing a tad bit about Lithium-6 Separation can be had by going to a technical library. One need not actually work in the process. I love the experts listening to his nonsense, probably at the expense of the publishing periodical no less and deciding on the veracity of troubled Mr. Vanunu.

Ohhhhh, and Vanunu knows just how much material is being worked up each year? Heavens to Betsy he must have been high up in the hierarchy one would imagine! No, but wait! What was his stated position again? "Material Handler?" And he knew what infromation?


Forget that he was found to be mentally ill dating back to his days in the 73 War, forget that he pimped his story, converted to Buddhism and then almost immediately to the Aglican Church (and considered a few others before and after), the man is a nutter. His own family despises him and while that is certainly not proof positive of anything, taking together it paints a pretty accurate picture of the man. By the way his legal name is now John Crossman, not Mordechai Vanunu.

I do not know how much of the info surrounding him has been published so I have to read carefully, so as to not break any laws myself, but I do know that the world is aware that he was anti -Israel in his university days and a radical of sorts. His Clearance should never have allowed him employment with any government facility and alas, he ended up working at Dimona before heading off on a Spiritual Quest to the Himilayas (make a great graphic novel I think).

Only after he migrated down to Australia and was living ina homeless shelter , broke on his a#$ as they say did he decide to pimp the allegations.Anyone putting stock in third hand proof that originated with a manetal case needs to seriously consider how they evaluate infromation.

 

[Malamud]

Mauvais: Thank you for the kind words. In fact, Vanunu a certified mental patient whose family disowned him and who has himself gone through sat least 6 religious conversions since his original arrest did work at Dimona. What was his position? We do not know, it could have been as a dishwasher in the canteen.

Knowing a tad bit about Lithium-6 Separation can be had by going to a technical library. One need not actually work in the process. I love the experts listening to his nonsense, probably at the expense of the publishing periodical no less and deciding on the veracity of troubled Mr. Vanunu.

Ohhhhh, and Vanunu knows just how much material is being worked up each year? Heavens to Betsy he must have been high up in the hierarchy one would imagine! No, but wait! What was his stated position again? "Material Handler?" And he knew what infromation?


Forget that he was found to be mentally ill dating back to his days in the 73 War, forget that he pimped his story, converted to Buddhism and then almost immediately to the Aglican Church (and considered a few others before and after), the man is a nutter. His own family despises him and while that is certainly not proof positive of anything, taking together it paints a pretty accurate picture of the man. By the way his legal name is now John Crossman, not Mordechai Vanunu.

I do not know how much of the info surrounding him has been published so I have to read carefully, so as to not break any laws myself, but I do know that the world is aware that he was anti -Israel in his university days and a radical of sorts. His Clearance should never have allowed him employment with any government facility and alas, he ended up working at Dimona before heading off on a Spiritual Quest to the Himilayas (make a great graphic novel I think).

Only after he migrated down to Australia and was living ina homeless shelter , broke on his a#$ as they say did he decide to pimp the allegations.Anyone putting stock in third hand proof that originated with a manetal case needs to seriously consider how they evaluate infromation.

If Mordechai Vanunu was/is so insignificant why did the Mossad consider it so essential to risk international opprobrium by kidnapping him from Italy?

 

[ViolentPanda]

If Mordechai Vanunu was/is so insignificant why did the Mossad consider it so essential to risk international opprobrium by kidnapping him from Italy?

I suspect Rachamim will post an answer based around "Pour encourager les autres", even though such an argument holds less water than a sieve.

 

[rachamim18]

Malamud: Why , if Vanunun was so inconsequential, did MOSSAD see fir to take him front International Waters off of Italy?": Actually he was considered for Focused Foiling but it was judged a policy that that should not be applied to fellow Jews, even apostates. He was creating alot of attention focusing on the alleged NBC Program within Israel and as such it was deemed nedccessary to stop his running off at the mouth as soon as poossible.


One alternative allegedly considered was to just aloow hiom to continue running off at the moth , feeling most rational adults would see him clearly for what he is, a conflicted mental patient but we have been able to see over the last 18 years how well that has run along , right


As for kidnbapping him from Italy, wrong. It is alleged that he was taken on a yacht in a Honey Trap into International Waters where he was medicated to the point of severe disorientation and then brough broad a freighter in the commercial channels of the Med until his arrival in the homeland he betrayed and on which he deserved to die a slow and agonising death.





/