Global, Israel

Nuclear News Round-up

  • The Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College has released a document titled “Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran“. The report outlines a “roadmap” of sorts leading to a Nuclear-free Middle East. To prevent Iran’s apparent drive for nuclear weapons, concludes Henry Sokolski – one of the co-editors – Israel should freeze and begin to dismantle its nuclear capability beginning with the reactor at Dimona.
  • George Bisharat, professor of law at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco writes in the Los Angeles Times about the Strategic Studies Institute paper and notes:

    The study’s authors include retired Israeli Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom and Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy — in short, no enemies of Israel. Their suggestion is comparatively mild: Israel should take small, reversible steps toward nuclear disarmament to encourage Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Nonetheless, Israeli leaders reportedly have already demurred.

  • Arieh O’Sullivan goes against the grain in the Jerusalem Post and argues that Israel has little to lose by attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
  • Britain is being accused of trying to cover up its role in helping Israel develop its nuclear weapons UK Foreign Office minister Kim Howells told Mohamed ElBaradei that Britain did not sell the material to Israel. MPs now allege that minister Kim Howells tried to mislead the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over Britain’s role.
  • Israeli scientists have reported finding radioactive water in the southern Israeli desert. Report author Avner Vengosh denied that the radioactivity was linked to the nearby Dimona nuclear plant.
  • Rami G. Khouri has an excellent analysis of the Iranian situation in the Lebanese paper The Daily Star, via the International Herald Tribune.

7 thoughts on “Nuclear News Round-up

  1. How dare you compare Israel to Iran?
    Iran is a theocratic, closed, terrorist supporting state, posession of weapons of mass destruction by them is an immediate risk to Israel and the world.
    I find it very troubling that a country which publically claims to destroy Israel develops nuclear weapons, DON’T TELL ME THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO INCIDENTS.
    p.s You should start learning some history, focus on Nazi propganda, because what you do is becoming more and more alike.

  2. Israeli disarmament is a good thing. I’m actually going to agree with John Brown here. Not because I think nuclear weapons possessed by Israel are a greater threat than any other state (including and specifically Iran in this case) but because I think the entire world needs to disarm their stockpiles.
    No one should have nuclear weapons. Bottom line.

  3. um, think your ridiculous thoughts about “what john brown believes” all you want, but don’t be foolish as to claim that these are “his views.” this is just a roundup of related articles.

  4. Jared,
    Most people who ultimately desire peace would agree that, in an ideal world, nobody should have nuclear weapons. The problem, though, is that we don’t live in an ideal world.
    Think about the situation in terms of game theory: if the defender disarms first, hoping that it will lead the aggressor to disarm, he is setting himself up for disaster. How/Why should Israel be the first to disarm, while Iran is blatantly violating the NPT and developing its nuclear energy capabilities to potentially be used for weapons.
    And add to that Iran’s frightening rhetoric about wiping out Israel. If I were in charge of Israel’s defense, I would never be able to willingly put all its citizens at such risk by giving up our weapons first. It’s simply too idealistic but wholly impractical.
    When the real agressors in the region show their sincere willingness to disarm, and security guarantees are made to Israel, only then should it consider disarming as well. Until then, I’ll take security over vulnerability.

  5. Israel must, in my opinion, maintain an undeclared nuclear deterrent for several reasons not the least of which is the recent declarations of the Iranian president to wipe Israel off the map (a diatribe begun by Khomeini and repeated by more than one Iranian government representative over the years).
    That said, I’d have to agree that the article as John Brown has listed it is nothing more than a round-up of related articles. Take exception to the ideas expressed in them if you wish, but I have to give JB credit for not selectively editing the articles to suit his argument. Indeed, I can’t see that he has really presented an argument, nor has he equated Iran with Israel so far as I can see.
    Do I think that Israel should follow the advice of the Strategic Studies Institute or any of the other sources John cites? Not for a second, with the exception of Arieh Sullivan. But equally I believe that we have voiced our disgust at John Brown for equating Israel with Nazi Germany and Stalin, et al. and he seems to have taken that on board. Hence, I think we do owe him the benefit of the doubt that this article is nothing more than a round-up of related articles.

  6. “um, think your ridiculous thoughts about “what john brown believes” all you want, but don’t be foolish as to claim that these are “his views.” this is just a roundup of related articles.”
    That’s what Charles Johnson always says!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.