stevenlmeyer

Much of what you say is true:

- Israel's Dimona reactor (aka the Negev Nuclear Research Center) was built in secret indeed by thousands of French technicians. Its cover, very thin, was that it was a fertiliser or desalination plant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center

- Dimona had/has too small an output for power generation but ideal for plutonium production. The French also built the plutonium reprocessing plant next to the Dimona reactor.

[all covered by Hersh]

- The UK is known to have supplied heavy water for Dimona.

- US technical help was/is often informal in the sense that Jewish-American nuclear scientists were (and are) permitted to immigrate or retire to Israel with the full expectation in the US DOE and DoD that these scientists will pass their knowledge to the Israeli nuclear weapons effort.

Financial help from France, UK came from the "gifting" of the Dimona complex and the heavy water. Jewish-Americans and others of the Jewish diaspora provided a vast amount of Israel's nuclear weapons budget through donations collected by vague Israel funds but widely understood, in quiet conversation, as nuclear protection for Israel.

On "--I doubt any US president would have acquiesced to passing nuclear weapons technology to Israel or any other country."

There is, of course, the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_US%E2%80%93UK_Mutual_Defence_Agreement - "a bilateral treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom on nuclear weapons cooperation.

...The agreement enables the US and the UK to exchange classified information with the objective of improving each party's "atomic weapon design, development, and fabrication capability".

This includes development of defence plans; training personnel in the use and defence against nuclear weapons; evaluation of enemy capabilities; development of nuclear delivery systems; and research, development and design of military reactors. The agreement also provides for the transfer of special nuclear material (e.g. plutonium, highly enriched uranium, tritium), components, and equipment between the two countries, and the transfer of "non-nuclear parts of atomic weapons" to the UK"

"non-nuclear parts" is a fine line when the US supplies Trident missiles etc to the UK.

Regards

Peter Coates

Hullo Stevenmyer, you caught me using my back country rough and readiness instead of checking on the historical dates.

Certainly learnt about it, but even my middle ground is now a long time ago seeing I'll be 89 come June.

You seem very much like a historical tutor, mate, so I'd better pull my old socks up.

Yep, you are right about France giving Israel early info on nukes, similar to right-wing South Africans later offering help.

Certainly does prove how the Israelies still look for help from a style of politics that proved so gruesomely cruel to them.

Might say it goes right back to the time the Jews sought help from the Romans to put Jesus on Trial.

Anyhow must say most historical academics are correct not only about Henry Kissinger being Nixon's Minister of State, but also how he gave warning not so much about it happening, but that a small nation like Israel going militarily atomic would not offer permanent protection for the new little Israel only upsetting the ME balance of power, ultimately bringing the world's strongest power, America into the picture.

Thus it was only natural that the strongest Islamic ME power, Iran would also be brought into the historical picture.

As Iran was already a nation of over 70,000 at the time and was able to act strongly against America on at least two occasions in the following years, what has happened since, might only bring on much bigger war war - which might easily be pictured by a competent historian -

which I believe you are, Steve'...

Regards, BB, formerly Buntine, WA.

Bushbred you seem fond of making comments unsupported by reality.

“But little Israel already has the most deadly of them, Shadow Minister, and because she is so over-ready to use them on Iran, what else can Iran do?” What BS, please show how you reached this conclusion, given that they haven’t used them in the last 3 decades, or did you simply say the first thing that came to mind?

Considering the consequences of a first strike, they are only an effective deterrent against an invasion, the only chance of which is from the US. Similarly Israel after 3 coordinated invasion attempts by the Arab states developed the bomb and effectively put an end to further similar attacks.

The risk is that if Iran is stupid enough to use the weapon against Israel, is that Israel would retaliate en masse. China and Russia would not intervene, as they are fully aware of the consequences of an Israeli retaliation.

Well Bushbred you have a quarter century on me. I hope that when I'm 89, if I make it that far, I too am able to adapt to new technologies.

Why your focus on Israel?

I'm not asking you whether you like or dislike Israel. I'm just interested in why you are interested.

Stevenimeyer, why I focus on Israel, is because my teachings in political science tell me her unlawful adaption of nuclear armoury has made her a global criminal.

Furthermore, those nations who still believe Israel in her possibly precarious position should have been allowed to get away with it, are global criminals too.

As regards Iran, most academics would be correct in saying that right now, a nuclear armoured little Israel is also justifying Iran to break the law in order to protect herself from Israeli nuclear rockets.

Finally might say that Iran still regarded by certain historians as being proud of her Persian past, might pass judgment better than certain Western nations who link Iran with other Islamic nations whom they abuse by using the term Low Life.

Bushbred,

Considering that israel does not share a border with Iran, the only viable scenario for Israel using nukes against Iran is if Iran fires first. There is no scenario in which Iran is better off after using a nuke.

The problem with Iran is that it is more likely to use it on its neighbors than Israel, or in a fit of instability try to use one on Europe.

On the other hand Israel has not suffered any mass attempts of invasion since it acquired nukes, something which it used to suffer regularly at the hands of the Arab nations.