Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

37 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't this story ancient? by lseltzer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think this has been known for many decades

    1. Re:Isn't this story ancient? by Assmasher · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      --
      Loading...
    2. Re:Isn't this story ancient? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:Isn't this story ancient? by boundary · · Score: 2

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

  2. Common Knowledge by megalomaniacs4u · · Score: 4, Informative

    I thought this was well known, just unofficial.

    Hell, it even made a Tom Clancy novel!

  3. Were they insured? by Marrow · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  4. 100 pounds? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

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

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:100 pounds? by chgros · · Score: 2

      100 pounds of enriched uranium is a lot.
      https://xkcd.com/1162/

  5. Re:Someone call Ben Affleck by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:Someone call Ben Affleck by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Someone call Ben Affleck by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  9. This article is Antisemitic, please delete by Suiggy · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete by NicBenjamin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The worst part of debating Israeli issues on the internet?

      I have no idea whether this guy is kidding.

    2. Re:This article is Antisemitic, please delete by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

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

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  10. Re:Figures by Teun · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  11. Good for them. by burni2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Good for them. by Xenkar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Good for them. by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Good for them. by Xenkar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Good for them. by Xenkar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Good for them. by mark_osmd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Good for them. by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Good for them. by Sun · · Score: 2

      I've read the Samson option, and don't recall that particular strategy ever coming up there. Would you care to give a page number?

      It is true (at least according to said book) that Israel let US spy satellites take photos of missiles ready for launch in 1973, to push the US to lift the weapons embargo on Israel, and again in 1991, to nudge the US to start doing something about Saddam firing ground to ground missiles at civilians. In both cases, however, I don't think anyone thought the missiles were aimed at European cities. It certainly doesn't say so in the book you refer to.

      The threat of Israel nuking an Arab nation was enough to do the trick in both cases.

      Shachar

  12. Re:Figures by Rob+Y. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  13. Re:Figures by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  14. In the Ukraine... by Nova+Express · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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.

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

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  15. Re:Someone call Ben Affleck by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:Someone call Ben Affleck by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  17. Re:flogging a dead horse by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

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

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

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  18. Re:Figures by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  19. Intelligence. Wisdom. Common sense. by mmell · · Score: 2
    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."

  20. Re:Someone call Ben Affleck by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

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

  21. Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  22. Re:Figures by quantaman · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  23. Re:Someone call Ben Affleck by Suiggy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ukraine's current predicament was created by the the US government. They orchestrated and funded the coup. Here's a leaked phone call of Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine, discussing which puppet they're going to install in the new Ukrainian government, and worrying about when Russia will respond.

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

  24. Re:Figures by Lew-the-nerd · · Score: 2

    That's it just skip away from the facts that the world trusts the Israelis not to do crazy things with nuclear weapons and we don't trust Iran, etc in the same way.
    Just skip into backbiting.