Thursday 1 March 2018

Update on Unofficial Nuclear Proliferation: #Israel #Egypt #SaudiArabia #IranDeal #GoodNeighbours #NUMEC #TacticalNukes #USForeignPolicy #Yemen #Iran #Syria #NKorea

"The NUMEC Cover-up: The Diversion of U.S. Weapons Grade Uranium from NUMEC to Israel"

Go to: for video.

Stealing the Atom Bomb.

Quote: "In 1968, CIA Director Richard Helms was presented with a disturbing National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stating that Israel had obtained atomic weapons, a dangerous development that occurred earlier than the CIA had anticipated.

It was particularly dangerous because just the year before, the Six Day War had marked the beginning of open hostilities between the Israelis and Arab nation states. To prevail, Israel had launched preemptive air attacks against Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq at the start of the conflict. Considering that violent backdrop, Helms immediately arranged a meeting with President Lyndon Johnson to inform him of this troubling milestone.

The man who had prepared the NIE and gave it to Helms was the CIA's chief science and technology officer, Carl Duckett. After Helms met with Johnson, the CIA Director told Duckett about the President's rather odd reaction. LBJ did not get upset, and he did not order an investigation into how it happened. Further, he did not tell Helms to let both the Defense Department and State Department know about it so they could establish intelligence inquiries or consider sanctions.

Instead, Johnson did the opposite. He told Helms to keep the news secret and specifically told the Director not to let the secretaries of State or Defense know about it.

Helms obeyed the orders of his Commander in Chief, but he decided to talk to the FBI about how this development had occurred earlier than expected. Thus begins Roger Mattson's Stealing the Atom Bomb: How Denial and Deception Armed Israel, the riveting story of duplicity, betrayal, cover-ups and deceit.

As the book shows, the cover-ups and duplicity did not just come from Israel and its agents in America. The deceit also came from men inside the American government who, for whatever reasons, decided to cast a blind eye on what was really happening under their jurisdiction, even after they had been alerted to it.

What Mattson reveals is no less than an atomic heist - one that could have been prevented if men in high positions had done their duty."...

..."Author Roger Mattson was part of the inquiry about the illegal transfer of atomic secrets to Israel, working in the NRC's safeguards department when Conran first voiced his fears about a diversion at NUMEC. Thus, Mattson became part of an internal review of the Shapiro case, seeing firsthand how certain intelligence agencies were, by accident or design, obstructing the investigation.

Mattson concludes his important book by stating that this policy of casting a deliberate blind eye towards a nuclear heist by Israel places the U.S. in a compromised position when trying to enforce a policy of non-proliferation on other nations because of the obvious double standards." Go to: for full article.

"Softening-up" post  9/11: Change of policy and change of munitions?

Quote: "Continuity in relation to the Bush-Cheney era:  President Obama has largely endorsed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formulated by the previous administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administration confirmed  "that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran" for its non-compliance with US demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program. (U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat - IPS, April 23, 2010). The Obama administration has also intimated that it would use nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack on Iran. (Ibid). Israel  has also drawn up its own "secret plans" to bomb Iran with tactical nuclear weapons:
"Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said." (Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran - Times Online, January 7, 2007)
Obama's statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea are consistent with post 9/11 US nuclear weapons doctrine, which allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.* 
Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an instrument of peace, namely a means to combating "Islamic terrorism" and instating Western style "democracy" in Iran. The low-yield nukes have been cleared for "battlefield use". They are slated to be used against Iran and Syria in the next stage of America's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons.
"Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent." (Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)
The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapons (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (e.g. B61.11), with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional"  BLU 113. or Guided Bomb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky,, see also . While the US does not contemplate the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons against Iran, Israel's nuclear arsenal is largely composed of thermonuclear bombs which are deployed and could be used in a war with Iran. Under Israel's Jericho‐III missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be within reach." Go to:   
for full and extensive article. 

*Italics mine.

Arafel: Reading between the lines is not difficult here, clearly there have been those right at the top of successive U.S administrations who have assisted Israel in its acquisition of nuclear weaponry. The implication is that a Pentagon Paper wall-of-silence has more-or-less always existed with regard to Israel's nuclear ambitions and capabilities (and probably like the Pentagon Papers if such should be revealed would elicit only feigned surprise from most of the U.S populace -and most of the rest of the World-).

 As the U.S has spread the B-61 "bunker-buster" around Europe Israel's stick-to-beat the Americans with has been the Israeli nuclear program, the supply of smaller U.S designed bombs has no doubt been intended to ensure both "correct" somewhat "limited" use by Israel and to limit the possibility of either failure or explosive accident (which is how the U.S has unofficially justified supplying them to the Israelis to the international community -the implication also being that these bunker-busting weapons are primarily considered as for use against Iran-). The Israelis may have calculated that given the assistance of its Saudi allies and the local "good neighbour" policy between themselves Egypt and Saudi Arabia a tactical nuclear strike against the Yemeni rebels (who are supported at least by the Iranian administration), was "justifiable", especially so as the Iran Deal was (at the time of the alleged strike), just about to be signed. Israel is known for forcing the hand of the U.S by stepping beyond the accepted boundaries of international behaviour, perhaps flashing their nuclear armoury has been another example. 


Explaining Israel's aberrant behaviour is not that difficult either, spoiled children who are rewarded when they behave like mavericks develop an inflated opinion of themselves
and they make mistakes. No matter how hard the Deep State attempts to obscure the use of tactical nukes by the "Israel ibn Saud" alliance (incl. indulging in the wholesale breach of the human rights of the people of Yemen by trapping them within a war zone the Powers that Be don't want the prying eyes or open ears of aid agency workers or journalists to penetrate -an apparently somewhat desperate and panicked reaction-), the truth will out but let's hope it does so before another and bigger theatre of war is opened in either Korea or Iran and the initial flash of the Yemen strike is obscured by the fog of a larger nuclear war.

 There is however a more subtle but equally plausible narrative, clearly the opinion analysts and manufacturers (both inside and outside), of The State Dept. have been exercised by the questions (and this for some time); "Does the public (both at home and abroad), now consider a limited nuclear exchange (or the asymmetrical use of such weapons in specific circumstances), to be a different animal to that of a full strategic exchange?" ..(and), .. "Can we make the limited "battlefield" (a somewhat loose term as applied here), use of lower yield nuclear weapons acceptable?" So perhaps the PtB thought; "We'll let the Israelis drop one of theirs on Yemen and see if anyone jumps!" Outlandish? Not really when one considers just how much time and energy has gone into both the continuing Korean War and preparing for possible conflict with Iran, to put it in cold economic terms; "It's worth a lot more than are a few more dead or outraged civilians in one of the poorest countries in the world" (that's "to them" of-course). Maybe it's a bit of both though (as usual in-fact when it comes to U.S foreign policy), with the right-hand not really knowing what the left-hand is doing. 
 Politicking is just that, however, international law states that if the Saudis and Israelis dropped a tactical nuke on Yemen this was a criminal act and a case should be brought against them and heard under the fullest of international and public scrutinies. 

Also see; "#YemenNuclearStrike #TacticalNukes #UnofficialNuclearProliferation: A serious look into the murky world of post Cold War nuclear politics and proliferation" Go to: for posts containing more video footage..

Quote; "The $8 billion upgrade to the US B61 nuclear bomb has been widely condemned as an awful lot of money to spend on an obsolete weapon. As an old fashioned ‘dumb’ bomb it has no role in US or NATO nuclear doctrine, but the upgrade has gone ahead anyway, in large part as a result of lobbying by the nuclear weapons laboratories.
In non-proliferation terms however the only thing worse than a useless bomb is a ‘usable’ bomb*. Apart from the stratospheric price, the most controversial element of the B61 upgrade is the replacement of the existing rigid tail with one that has moving fins that will make the bomb smarter and allow it to be guided more accurately to a target. Furthermore, the yield can be adjusted before launch, according to the target.
The modifications are at the centre of a row between anti-proliferation advocates and the government over whether the new improved B61-12 bomb is in fact a new weapon, and therefore a violation of President Obama’s undertaking not to make new nuclear weapons. His administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review said life extension upgrades to the US arsenal would “not support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities.”
The issue has a particular significance for Europe where a stockpile of 180 B61’s is held in six bases in five countries. If there is no change in that deployment by the time the upgraded B61-12’s enter the stockpile in 2024, many of them will be flown out to the bases in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey.
The row has had a semantic tone, revolving on what the definition of ‘new’ is, but arguably the only definition that counts is whether the generals and officials responsible for dropping bombs, view its role in a different light as a result of its refurbishment." Go to:
for full article.

*Italics mine.

Quote; "The capability of the new B61-12 nuclear bomb seems to continue to expand, from a simple life-extension of an existing bomb, to the first U.S. guided nuclear gravity bomb, to a nuclear earth-penetrator with increased accuracy. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) previously published pictures of the drop test from October 2015 that showed the B61-12 hitting inside the target circle but without showing the bomb penetrating underground.
But a Sandia National Laboratories video made available by the New York Times shows the B61-12 penetrating completely underground. (A longer version of the video is available at the Los Alamos Study Group web site.)

Implication of Earth-Penetration Capability

The evidence that the B61-12 can penetrate below the surface has significant implications for the types of targets that can be held at risk with the bomb. A nuclear weapon that detonates after penetrating the earth more efficiently transmits its explosive energy to the ground, thus is more effective at destroying deeply buried targets for a given nuclear yield. A detonation above ground, in contrast, results in a larger fraction of the explosive energy bouncing off the surface. Two findings of the 2005 National Academies’ study Effects of Earth-Penetrator and other Weapons are key:
The yield required of a nuclear weapon to destroy a hard and deeply buried target is reduced by a factor of 15 to 25 by enhanced ground-shock coupling if the weapon is detonated a few meters below the surface.”
Nuclear earth-penetrator weapons (EPWs) with a depth of penetration of 3 meters capture most of the advantage associated with the coupling of ground shock.”"...
..."Even at the lowest selective yield setting of only 0.3 kt, the ground-shock coupling of a B61-12 exploding a few meters underground would be equivalent to a surface-burst weapon with a yield of 4.5 kt to 7.5 kt. 
Implications of Increased Accuracy.
Existing B61 versions (B61-3, -4, 7, -10) are thought to have some limited earth-penetration capability but with much less accuracy than the B61-12. The only official nuclear earth-penetrator in the U.S. arsenal, the unguided B61-11, compensates for poor accuracy with a massive yield: 400 kt. The ground-shock coupling of 400 kt, using the National Academies’ finding, is equivalent to the effect of a surface-burst of 6 Megatons (MT) to 10 MT. The B61-11 replaced the old B53, the Cold War bunker buster bomb, which had a yield of 9 MT. The B61-11 can penetrate into frozen soil; it is yet unknown if the B61-12 has a similar capability. Currently there is no life-extension planned for the B61-11, which is not part of NNSA’s so-called 3+2 stockpile plan and is expected to be phased out when it expires in the 2030s.
What makes the B61-12 special is that the B61 capability is enhanced by the increased accuracy provided by the new guided tail kit assembly, a unique feature of the new weapon. The combination of increased accuracy with earth-penetration and low-yield options provides for unique targeting capabilities. Moreover, while the B61-11 can only be delivered by the B-2 strategic bomber, the B61-12 will be integrated on virtually all nuclear-capable U.S. and NATO aircraft: B-2, LRS-B (next-generation long-range bomber), F-35A, F-16, F-15E, and PA-200 Tornado.
How accurate the B61-12 will be is a secret. In an article from 2011 we estimated the accuracy might be on the order of 30-plus meters. Back then no test drop had been conducted and we didn’t have imagery. But now we do." Go to:
for full article and video.

The sabre-rattling between Pyongyang and Washington is masking a dangerous destabilisation in deterrence – making nuclear war by accident a real possibility.

Quote; "A series of seemingly minor technological upgrades have been destabilising the foundations of deterrence, sparking a new nuclear arms race with unforeseeable consequences. “The danger of an accident leading to nuclear war is as high now as it was during periods of peak crisis during the cold war,” says Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists." Go to: for full article ("paywall" theirs).

Egypt gets Israel’s approval to hand over two islands to Saudi Arabia.

Quote; "The Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom has said that “Egypt needs Israel’s approval to transfer sovereignty of the Tiran and Sanafir islands to Saudi Arabia, especially since the two islands are part of the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.
It added that “Israel has sent its consent to Egypt with regard to the transfer of sovereignty over the two islands, at the time when the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman was visiting Egypt.”
The newspaper explained that “In April 2016, an agreement was reached between Egypt and Saudi Arabia on the two islands and el-Sisi subsequently ratified it. After the Egyptian judiciary canceled the agreement, a judicial decision that approved the handover of the two islands was issued recently, while the Israeli approval has seemingly come from its embassy in Cairo.”
It noted that “Israel’s ratification is necessary because Sanafir and Tiran are part of the demilitarized zone set forth in the Camp David Accords and Sanafir, located in the Strait of Tiran, belongs to the Kingdom, but it was handed over to Egypt in the wake of the 1948 war.”
The newspaper suggested that “The island of Tiran represents a strategic point because it controls the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba and is Israel’s and Jordan’s route to the Red Sea. This island was not populated until the mid-20th century, when it was considered part of Saudi Arabia. Following the Israel’s military occupation of Eilat and its development, Egypt established a base in the island of Tiran with the assent of Riyadh and the question of sovereignty over the island was raised more than once for discussion at the UN Security Council.”" Go to: for full article.


Quote; "On 22 January, the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen unveiled a new plan to deliver "unprecedented relief to the people of Yemen".
The Yemen Comprehensive Humanitarian Operations (YCHO) is a new "aid" programme with the ostensible aim of "addressing immediate aid shortfalls while simultaneously building capacity for long-term improvement of humanitarian aid and commercial goods imports to Yemen".
This will primarily be done through increasing the "capacities of Yemeni ports to receive humanitarian as well as commercial imports" - and all sealed with a whopping $1.5bn in aid contributions. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Starvation politics


The problem here is not only that the funding required to meet the needs created by the Saudi-led coalition is estimated by the UN to be twice that amount. The real problem is that the plan will not, in fact, increase the imports on which Yemen is utterly dependent, but reduce them still further.
This is because the much-vaunted "improvements in port capacity" will apply solely to "coalition-controlled ports", excluding the ports outside their control - Hodeidah and Saleef - which, between them, handle about 80 percent of Yemen’s imports.
For these, absolutely critical, ports, the plan explicitly states that it wants a reduction in the flow of cargo they handle: by around 200 metric tons per month, compared to mid-2017 levels. Yes, you heard correctly: cargo levels in mid-2017 - when 130 children were dying each day from malnutrition and other preventable diseases largely caused by the limits on imports already in place - are now deemed in need of further, major, reductions.

This plan is nothing less than a systematisation of the starvation politics of which the Saudis were accused by the UN Panel of Experts on Yemen in relation to their closure of Hodeidah and Saleef in November.
Back then, noted the panel's final report, all Yemen's ports had been closed following a Houthi missile attack on Riyadh airport. But while coalition-controlled ports were quickly reopened, Hodeidah and Saleef remained closed for weeks.
"This had the effect," said the panel, "of using the threat of starvation as an instrument of war." Today, the "Comprehensive Operations" plan envisages making permanent the juxtaposition of wilful starvation of Houthi-controlled territory (in which the vast majority of Yemenis live) and "generous" aid deliveries into coalition-controlled territories." Go to: for full article.


Quote; "Israeli police questioned Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday for the first time in a corruption case that involves the country's largest telecommunications company Bezeq.
Netanyahu, Israel's dominant political figure for a generation - in power since 2009 and for 12 years in total since 1996 - calls the allegations against him a "witch hunt". He has said he will seek a fifth term in a national election due in late 2019.
So far, partners in Netanyahu's governing coalition have stood by him, saying they are awaiting the attorney general's next move. Political analysts say that could change if the investigations against Netanyahu intensify.
Netanyahu could also call a snap election to try to stall legal proceedings during the campaign and rally his right-wing power base behind him.
Since December 2015, the Israeli police has been investigating in five cases relating to Netanyahu and his family and their links with Israeli and foreign business tycoons." Go to: for full article.

‘The psychopath, the puppet and the princeling’: Preparing PR for war on Iran.

Quote; "In the coming months we can expect to witness an increasing number of speeches and articles demonising Iran, along with a growing number of ‘serious incidents’, that will be used to justify reneging on the nuclear deal. The phoney war on Iran has entered a new phase. The Likud party led by Netanyahu, the Trump administration, supported by the Wahhabi backed princeling in Riyadh…have absolutely no interest in collaborative solutions in the Middle East. Their goal is regime change...
...We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles, and we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program. The Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it. Believe me” – Donald Trump – Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 19th September 2017.
“We know we are a main target of Iran… we are not waiting until there becomes a battle in Saudi Arabia, so we will work so that it becomes a battle for them in Iran and not in Saudi Arabia” –Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi TV Interview – May 2017.
.. "Netanyahu: “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.”*..

.. "The main event still is, and always has been – Iran. They will kill however many people is necessary to achieve their aims…they will tell the world that it is entirely the fault of the evil Iranian government…and then they will claim that it saddens them that they were forced to do so.
Warmongering politicians always ‘regret’ civilian casualties. Bush did, Blair did; every government thug that has ever ordered an attack or a full-scale war always regrets the civilian casualties. They also never admit that any of it is their fault:
“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children” – Golda Meir, Former Israeli Prime Minister, ‘A land of our own’, 1973.
Such an attempt to cast the killing of children as the act of a noble victim is just about as insidious as it gets…but denial is not the exception with politicians…it is the rule. If citizens want the perpetual warfare to cease, we are going to have to get off our backsides and make more noise…a lot more noise." Go to: for full article.

*Underline mine.

...and does anyone remember?

Quote; "British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond told parliament Tuesday that Israel would not have been satisfied with any agreement world powers reached with Iran, and announced he was heading to Israel to personally explain the nuclear deal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."...

"Meeting a day after Hammond slammed Netanyahu for his outspoken opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, the two discussed the terms of an agreement branded by Netanyahu as a “historic mistake.”

“The question you have to ask yourself is what kind of a deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv. The answer of course is that Israel doesn’t want any deal with Iran,” Hammond told lawmakers. “Israel wants a permanent state of standoff, and I don’t believe that’s in the interests of the region. I don’t believe it’s in our interest.”*"

"Netanyahu and Hammond each read from their notes before engaging in an awkward back-and-forth that extended what is usually a standard, brief public appearance with visiting officials into a spirited debate.

The spat reflected how Israel, which has long lobbied against the deal, stands at odds with other world powers over the agreement, especially because it does not require Iran to temper its hostility toward Israel, or rein in support for some of Israel’s enemies, including the Lebanese Hezbollah militant group*."

*Italics mine.

Disgraceful increase in arms exports.

Quote; "However, the opaque nature of the open licence regime, known in Whitehall jargon as Open Individual Export Licences, or OIELs, means the actual volume of exports approved under the secretive system could be far higher, say campaigners.
Thornberry, who has called on ministers to raise the Yemen war with bin Salman when he visits London on Wednesday, added: "This disgraceful increase in the number of open export licences dates precisely from the start of the Yemen war, and means we cannot accurately assess either what weapons are being sold to Saudi Arabia, or their total value."
Thornberry went on to promise "root-and-branch reform" of the arms export system under a Labour government.
The open licence system means arms manufacturers do not have to declare the value of weapons or the exact nature of weapons. It is also very difficult to known how many missiles, machine guns, sniper rifles and components for war planes and military helicopters the UK has actually sent to Saudi Arabia under these licences.

Andrew Smith, spokesperson for CAAT, told MEE the figures suggest "that the scale of arms sales to Saudi Arabia is even higher than we previously expected".
He said: "Tens of millions of pounds worth of deadly equipment is being licensed, with even less transparency that usual.
"With UK arms playing a central role in the ongoing war [in Yemen], and with the crown prince due to visit on Wednesday, it is clear that this government is more concerned with arms exports and its relationship with the Saudi dictatorship than it is with the lives of Yemeni people."
The Saudi-led campaign in Yemen began in the spring of 2015, after the Houthis seized the capital, Sanaa, and forced the government to flee south to Aden.
Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Muslim countries entered the conflict largely to prevent their regional rival, Iran from projecting its influence along their borders by backing the Houthis." Go to: for full article.

Sign our petition and tell the Government to protect children and suspend the sale of British weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Quote; "Britain’s allies are killing, and maiming, children in Yemen. This must stop.

Two and a half years of brutal war have pushed Yemen to the brink of famine.

Children like Aws* are suffering from malnutrition, extreme hunger and disease which is killing an estimated 130 children in Yemen every day.

On-and-off blockading by the Saudi Arabia-led coalition of the country’s northern ports continues to drive the death toll even higher.

This is on top of continued targeting of schools and hospitals in airstrikes that may violate international law.

All warring parties in Yemen have a lot to answer for. But our Government knows one of its allies has blood on its hands – and yet it’s still selling bombs to the Saudi Arabia-led Coalition." Go to:
What is Israel building at its Dimona nuclear site?
Quote;  "An international NGO devoted to halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons recently released satellite imagery showing that Israel, for the first time in decades, was engaged in new construction at its Dimona nuclear site. The reactor there, which first became active in the mid-1960s, manufactures plutonium as fuel for Israel’s reputed stockpile of 80 nuclear warheads.

This excavation has piqued the curiosity of nuclear experts and intelligence agencies around the world. Since the Dimona reactor has long since passed its projected lifespan, some have speculated that Israel may be building a new plutonium reactor.

This seems unlikely, as this element is long lasting, and Israel has already produced enough for current or future needs. Some have speculated that the existing reactor is either substantially shut down or being decommissioned.

The ultimate irony of the Dimona project is that no one questions Israel's right to make nuclear weapons or to improve the lethality of its arsenal

If Israel does not need a new reactor to replace the old one, then what else might it be building there? In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, pointed to another critical element in nuclear warheads: tritium. It is a hydrogen isotope used to increase the yield of nuclear warheads. It also makes the explosive reaction more efficient, so less fuel (in Israel’s case, plutonium) is needed.

Tritium has allowed for advances in weapons design, including smaller devices whose explosive power is magnified. It is also used in neutron bombs, which are designed to kill humans while having a reduced blast area." Go to:
for full article.

Does one detect a rift between the bedfellows? Is Israel simply ensuring the continuance of its dominance in the region and establishing its independence because the U.S has ceased (or in-case it should cease), to supply modern nuclear weapons to the Israeli regime?

1 comment: