New Nixon Papers: Suggest Israel Stole from US to create their nuclear program...

[JMS]

It's been rummored that America gave Israel nuclear fisionable material to create their first nuclear weapon. Newly released Nixon papers have Henry Kissinger suggesting in 1967 Israel stole nuclear material from the US to create their first weapon.

Nixon Papers Recall Concerns on Israel’s Weapons

By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 — In July 1969, while the world was spellbound by the Apollo 11 mission to the moon, President Richard M. Nixon and his close advisers were quietly fretting about a possible nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Their main worry was not a potential enemy of the United States, but one of America’s closest friends.

“The Israelis, who are one of the few peoples whose survival is genuinely threatened, are probably more likely than almost any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons,” Henry A. Kissinger, the national security adviser, warned President Nixon in a memorandum dated July 19, 1969.

Israel’s nuclear arms program was believed to have begun at least several years before, but it was causing special fallout for the young Nixon administration. For one thing, President Nixon was getting ready for a visit by Prime Minister Golda Meir of Israel, who was also in her first year in office and whose toughness was already legendary.

Should Washington insist that Israel rein in its development of nuclear weapons? What would the United States do if Israel refused? Perhaps the solution lay in deliberate ambiguity, or simply pretending that America did not know what Israel was up to. These were some of the options that Mr. Kissinger laid out for President Nixon on that day before men first walked on the moon.

The Nixon White House’s concerns over Israel’s weapons were recalled in documents held by the Nixon Presidential Library that were released today by the National Archives. They provide insights into America’s close, but by no means problem-free, relationship with Israel. They also serve as a reminder that concerns over nuclear arms proliferation in the Middle East, currently focused on Iran, are decades-old.

The papers also allude to a campaign by friends of W. Mark Felt, who was then the second-ranking F.B.I. official, to have him succeed J. Edgar Hoover as director of the bureau in 1972. President Nixon, of course, did not take the advice, choosing L. Patrick Gray instead, and Mr. Felt later became the famous anonymous source “Deep Throat,” whose Watergate-scandal revelations helped to topple the president.

There are also snippets about Washington’s desire to manipulate relations with Saudi Arabia, so that the Saudis might help to broker a peace in the Mideast; discussion of possibly supporting a Kurdish uprising in Iraq; and a 1970 incident in which four Israeli fighters shot down four Russian Mig-21’s over eastern Egypt, even though the Israelis were outnumbered two-to-one in the battle.

But perhaps the most interesting material released today, and the most pertinent given the just-completed Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, concerns Israel and its relations with its neighbors, as well as with the United States.

“There is circumstantial evidence that some fissionable material available for Israel’s weapons development was illegally obtained from the United States about 1965,” Mr. Kissinger noted in his long memorandum.

One problem with trying to persuade Israel to freeze its nuclear program is that inspections would be useless, Mr. Kissinger said, conceding that “we could never cover all conceivable Israeli hiding places.”

“This is one program on which the Israelis have persistently deceived us,” Mr. Kissinger said, “and may even have stolen from us.”

Israel has never officially acknowledged that it has nuclear weapons, but scientists and arms experts have almost no doubt that it does. The United States’s reluctance to press Israel to disarm has made America vulnerable to accusations that it is a preacher with a double standard when it comes to stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

Mr. Kissinger’s memo, written barely two years after the Six-Day War and while memories of the Holocaust were still vivid among the first Israelis, implicitly acknowledged Israel’s right to defend itself, as subsequent American administrations have done.

After President Nixon met Prime Minister Meir at the White House in late September 1969, he said: “The problems in the Mideast go back centuries. They are not susceptible to easy solution. We do not expect them to be susceptible to instant diplomacy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/washington/29nixon.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Burgold]

Lot of qualifiers in that memo. Lots of "may haves" versus dids. Well, at least there's some "circumstantial evidence" to back up the claim.

[The_cavalierman]

One of the worst kept secrets in the history of secrets...

[headexplode]

One of the worst kept secrets in the history of secrets...

Still, not as bad as this one I just found out:

It actually is butter.

[Predicto]

This is not exactly news, is it?

Although it is even more well known that Britain affirmatively helped Israel develop nukes.

[JMS]

This is not exactly news, is it?

Although it is even more well known that Britain affirmatively helped Israel develop nukes.

It was news to me and I follow the Middle East quite closely. I've never heard Israel stole nuclear material from the US. I've only ever heard it rummored that America gave it to them in the 1960's.

[Burgold]

It was news to me and I follow the Middle East quite closely. I've never heard Israel stole nuclear material from the US. I've only ever heard it rummored that America gave it to them in the 1960's.

That's because Israel MAY have stolen nuclear material and there is SOME CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that points to it. One opinion memo that isn't proof. One opinion memo that qualifies itself because it has no proof is also not proof.

Mind you, I'm not saying Israel didn't steal the fissionable material, but this hardly does anything other than cast suspiscion. Likely, we'll never know with absolute certainty or even legal certainty.

[Predicto]

It was news to me and I follow the Middle East quite closely. I've never heard Israel stole nuclear material from the US. I've only ever heard it rummored that America gave it to them in the 1960's.

We don't know that Israel stole nuclear material from the US. That article you posted doesn't even say that. Kissinger didn't even say what he thought was stolen, or even that anything was stolen for sure.

We do know that Israel has conducted espionage in the US. Jonathan Pollard was caught.

[JMS]

That's because Israel MAY have stolen nuclear material and there is SOME CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that points to it. One opinion memo that isn't proof. One opinion memo that qualifies itself because it has no proof is also not proof.

Mind you, I'm not saying Israel didn't steal the fissionable material, but this hardly does anything other than cast suspiscion. Likely, we'll never know with absolute certainty or even legal certainty.

Some circumstantial evidence? Dude the National Security Advisor is bringing the subject up with the President of the United States. I agree with you he qualified his accusation, it's also almost fifty years old, but I still find the accusation news worthy, damning, and very compelling.. Along with their obvious concern over Israel's nuclear program.

I have never heard Israel stole that material from the United States. Never even seen it alluded too. What also makes this interesting is that Nixon is the first president to put America squarely in Israel's camp by increasing military aid in 1972 by 6x, and again by increasing it in 1974 by an additional 5x. Johnson's last complete year in office 1968 America gave Israel 100 million dollars. Nixon's last year in office 1974 Amerca gave Israel 2.6 billion. Did Nixon decide to raise Israel to regional super power status ( increase aid by 26 times over that of his predicessor) because he was afraid Israel would nuke somebody? This new evidence when put into context is pretty interesting stuff.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

[Burgold]

Some circumstantial evidence? Dude the Secretary of State is bringing the subject up with the President of the United States. I agree with you he qualified his accusation, it's also almost fifty years old, but I still find the accusation news worthy, damning, and very compelling..

And in fifty years since what more evidence has been brought to bare? Not enough to damn in my opinion.

I do agree it's newsworthy. I'm iffy on compelling.

[Predicto]

I have never heard Israel stole that material from the United States. Never even seen it alluded too.

Where in the article or the quote from Kissinger does it say that?

Israel didn't need to steal fissionable material from the US - Britain GAVE it to them as far back as 1958, and continued to do so throughout the 1960s.

Top secret British documents obtained by BBC Newsnight show that Britain made hundreds of secret shipments of restricted materials to Israel in the 1950s and 1960s. These included specialist chemicals for reprocessing and samples of fissile material—uranium-235 in 1959, and plutonium in 1966, as well as highly enriched lithium-6 which is used to boost fission bombs and fuel hydrogen bombs. The investigation also showed that Britain shipped 20 tons of heavy water directly to Israel in 1959 and 1960 to start up the Dimona reactor. The transaction was made through a Norwegian front company called Noratom which took a 2% commission on the transaction. Britain was challenged about the heavy water deal at the International Atomic Energy Agency after it was exposed on Newsnight in 2005. British Foreign Minister Kim Howells hid behind the Noratom contract and claimed this was a sale to Norway. But a former British intelligence officer who investigated the deal at the time confirmed that this was really a sale to Israel and the Noratom contract was just a charade.[10] The Foreign Office finally admitted in March 2006 that Britain knew the destination was Israel all along.[11]

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

What they took from us was information - just like every other country in the world that ever developed nukes.

[Riggo-toni]

Some circumstantial evidence? Dude the National Security Advisor is bringing the subject up with the President of the United States.

Yeah, but it's Kissinger and Nixon; the two most paranoid, power hungry men ever to grace the oval office.

Nixon once said of Kissinger "Henry doesn't lie because it's in his best interests; Henry lies because it's in his nature."

[JMS]

Where in the article or the quote from Kissinger does it say that?

Predicto, am I missing your point? The memo clearly quotes Kissinger saying exactly that..

“There is circumstantial evidence that some fissionable material available for Israel’s weapons development was illegally obtained from the United States about 1965,”

What they took from us was information - just like every other country in the world that ever developed nukes.

That's not what the national security adviser was telling the President in 1967.

On another not. Googleing for information, it's amaizing how active some of the folks are out there on the next. This Nixon memo is really out there... A lot of folks are picking up on it.

[Burgold]

“There is circumstantial evidence that some fissionable materialavailable for Israel’s weapons development was illegally obtained from the United States about 1965,”

He is not saying that there is credible evidence. He is not saying there is evidence. He is saying that there is circumstantial evidence. That's about as weak a statement as you can make. Again, they might have stolen it, but as was discussed above... you got too very paranoid individuals and you have a country that was already being given fissionable material. The gain of a little more would not be worth the risk of angering Israel's most important ally. If there wasn't that other source...

You may be right, but then again, you tend to look at everything Israel with cyanide colored glasses

[The_cavalierman]

Plausible deniablity.....If questioned...we didn't "give" Israel anything

[zoony]

One of the worst kept secrets in the history of secrets...

That was my reaction too.

But Israel has proven itself to be a stable and responsible Republic, and I don't necessarily have a problem with it. THough I'm not happy about it

[Burgold]

Plausible deniablity.....If questioned...we didn't "give" Israel anything

I think this is an excellent thought. It's certainly possible.

[Predicto]

Predicto, am I missing your point? The memo clearly quotes Kissinger saying exactly that..

“There is circumstantial evidence that some fissionable material available for Israel’s weapons development was illegally obtained from the United States about 1965,”

That's not what the national security adviser was telling the President in 1967.

Ack. I fail reading comprehension 101.

[JMS]

He is not saying that there is credible evidence. He is not saying there is evidence. He is saying that there is circumstantial evidence. That's about as weak a statement as you can make. Again, they might have stolen it, but as was discussed above... you got too very paranoid individuals and you have a country that was already being given fissionable material. The gain of a little more would not be worth the risk of angering Israel's most important ally. If there wasn't that other source...

You may be right, but then again, you tend to look at everything Israel with cyanide colored glasses

The United States spent 20 billion dollars on the Manhattan project 1940-1942.

http://virtualology.com/MANHATTENPROJECT.COM/costs.manhattanproject.net/

We had an entire town in Oak Ridge Tennessee producing fisionable material. And we still aguable used significant captured fisionable material from Nazi Germany in order to complete two bombs which were eventually dropped on Japan.

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/447/4440.html

If Israel was getting material from Britain, it doesn't mean they didn't need material from America.

[JMS]

Ack. I fail reading comprehension 101.

No problem, I thought I was missing your point.

[Burgold]

Your and Kissingers' suspiscions may be totally right. All I'm saying is that while there may be suspiscion, there is no proof. And I'm just wary of convicting someone without clear evidence.

Then again, it is the internet... so, I guess our standards can be a bit lower than that

[mjah]

We had an entire town in Oak Ridge Tennessee producing fisionable material. And we still aguable used significant captured fisionable material from Nazi Germany in order to complete two bombs which were eventually dropped on Japan.

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/447/4440.html

Some additional context is required for this claim. In particular, the Nazi uranium was never necessary to "complete" any of the three nuclear bombs that were detonated during WW2.

That link says:

Even if the four kg of U-235 had been extracted, it probably still would not have played a decisive role in the making of the U.S.' first atomic-bomb. In Little Boy (the bomb dropped on Hiroshima), about 60 kg of U-235 was used. Even without the German delivery, there would have been more than enough material for the necessary chain reaction.

So the first bomb conceivably could have used the material, but it didn't need it.

The article continues:

The German uranium could have been used in the two plutonium bombs: Trinity, tested in the New Mexico desert, and Fat-Man, dropped on Nagasaki three days after Hiroshima.

So the Nazi Uranium conceivably could have been used as the "tamper" for the plutonium bombs. But this wasn't a requirement, as the tamper is natural Uranium, of which the Manhattan Project had more than enough.

The Manhattan Project could have used the Nazi Uranium, but didn't need it.

[JMS]

Your and Kissingers' suspiscions may be totally right. All I'm saying is that while there may be suspiscion, there is no proof. And I'm just wary of convicting someone without clear evidence.

Then again, it is the internet... so, I guess our standards can be a bit lower than that

I'm not convicting anybody. I find it fascinating that the President who increased foreign aid to Israel by 25 times over his term and a half (69-74) in office had his national security advisor telling him:

(1) Israel was more likely to use nukes than any other country.

(2) They had evidence that Israel stole fusionable material from America.

(3) Israel consistantly mislead or lied to the US about their nuclear program

[JMS]

The Manhattan Project could have used the Nazi Uranium, but didn't need it.

I don't find that a creditable statement. I'm not an authority so I likely am wrong, but this is my reasoning. I've always been told, and have a tape of truman himself stating, the reason we droped two bombs in rapid sucession was because we didn't have enough fisionable material to make another bomb for six months. That we wanted the Japaneese to believe we would drop a few more on them if they didn't surrender and that we were basically bluffing.

Knowing that 560 kg of uranium was delivered to Oak Ridge off of a captured Nazi sub months before we dropped the bombs doesn't seem to me to jive with the claim we had all the fisionable material we needed, when clearly we have statements from the President saying otherwise.

[mjah]

Knowing that 560 kg of uranium was delivered to Oak Ridge off of a captured Nazi sub months before we dropped the bombs doesn't seem to me to jive with the claim we had all the fisionable material we needed, when clearly we have statements from the President saying otherwise.

The president never said we were short on uranium-238. He just said we were short on fissionable material.

For starters, let's just go ahead and assume that the U-boat uranium DEFINITELY went to Oak Ridge. That 560kg of regular ol' uranium from the U-Boat only would have yielded 4 kg of uranium-235, which is what a fission bomb requires and what the Oak Ridge operation was feverishly producing.

The US already had more than the 60kg of uranium-235 required to make one fission bomb. That's even stated in your link. The theoretical 4 kg from the Nazis wouldn't have changed that.

But the US did NOT have the 120 kg necessary to make two uranium-235 fission bombs. They were far short. And the extra 4 kg of uranium-238 from the Nazis wouldn't have changed that, either. So it was nice to have, but couldn't have made much difference to US bomb building efforts.

The other two bombs built for use in 1945 were plutonium implosion bombs, not uranium-235 bombs. These bombs did use uranium in their design, but it was regular old uranium-238, of which the US already had more than enough. The hundreds of kilograms of uranium-235 from the Nazis would have been a drop in the bucket compared with the thousands of kilograms of uranium-235 the US already had. Again -- nice to have, but not a difference maker, because you only needed a couple hundred kg of uranium-238 per plutonium bomb. So that was already covered.

Plutonium was the resource that dictated how many plutonium bombs they coud make. And the plutonium was made by bombarding regular old uranium-238 so it would predominantly become uranium-239, which then naturally decayed into plutonium-239. The relatively small amount of Nazi uranium didn't seem to make a dent in this process, either, because the source of uranium-238 wasn't the bottleneck.

So with or without the Nazi uranium, we had enough for one functional uranium bomb and two functional plutonium bombs. Truman did say we were short on fissionable material, but we weren't short on uranium-238. We were short on uranium-235 -- of which the Nazis only floated 4 kg -- and plutonium, which was a processing problem instead of a uranium supply problem.