Israel offered nuclear weapons to Apartheid S. Africa

Raees

Pythagoras in Boots
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
29,479
Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons.

The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.

The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.

They will also undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.

A spokeswoman for Peres today said the report was baseless and there were "never any negotiations" between the two countries. She did not comment on the authenticity of the documents.

South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.

The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials "formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal".

Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.

The memo, marked "top secret" and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: "In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere."

But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.

The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice." The "three sizes" are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.

The use of a euphemism, the "correct payload", reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong's memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.

In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.

Botha did not go ahead with the deal in part because of the cost. In addition, any deal would have to have had final approval by Israel's prime minister and it is uncertain it would have been forthcoming.

South Africa eventually built its own nuclear bombs, albeit possibly with Israeli assistance. But the collaboration on military technology only grew over the following years. South Africa also provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its weapons.

The documents confirm accounts by a former South African naval commander, Dieter Gerhardt – jailed in 1983 for spying for the Soviet Union. After his release with the collapse of apartheid, Gerhardt said there was an agreement between Israel and South Africa called Chalet which involved an offer by the Jewish state to arm eight Jericho missiles with "special warheads". Gerhardt said these were atomic bombs. But until now there has been no documentary evidence of the offer.

Some weeks before Peres made his offer of nuclear warheads to Botha, the two defence ministers signed a covert agreement governing the military alliance known as Secment. It was so secret that it included a denial of its own existence: "It is hereby expressly agreed that the very existence of this agreement... shall be secret and shall not be disclosed by either party".

The agreement also said that neither party could unilaterally renounce it.

The existence of Israel's nuclear weapons programme was revealed by Mordechai Vanunu to the Sunday Times in 1986. He provided photographs taken inside the Dimona nuclear site and gave detailed descriptions of the processes involved in producing part of the nuclear material but provided no written documentation.

Documents seized by Iranian students from the US embassy in Tehran after the 1979 revolution revealed the Shah expressed an interest to Israel in developing nuclear arms. But the South African documents offer confirmation Israel was in a position to arm Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads.

Israel pressured the present South African government not to declassify documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky. "The Israeli defence ministry tried to block my access to the Secment agreement on the grounds it was sensitive material, especially the signature and the date," he said. "The South Africans didn't seem to care; they blacked out a few lines and handed it over to me. The ANC government is not so worried about protecting the dirty laundry of the apartheid regime's old allies."
Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons | World news | The Guardian

One rule for one..
 

Stretch

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
10,225
Location
Is he normal?
Nothing surprises me there. Also, you're talking about the 70's here mate. That was 30 years ago. Political situations internationally were very different. It was acceptable for nations to have nuclear warheads then unlike today where everyone's getting each other to disarm. I'm proud of the SA Government for getting rid of theirs.
 

Raees

Pythagoras in Boots
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
29,479
The point is that Israel and the west hold themselves out as responsible powers and claim the likes of Iran and N.Korea are not.. and shouldn't be allowed to hold nuclear weapons.

This is also the first official documentation stating that Israel holds nuclear weapons and thus it provides the Arabs an excuse to press ahead with their own nuclear development.
 

Mister Jeebus

Full Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
3,193
Location
Melbourne
Credit where it's due. To the best of my knowledge South Africa are the only state to ever acquire/build nuclear weapons and then decommission those weapons.
 

utdalltheway

Sexy Beast
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
20,589
Location
SoCal, USA
The point is that Israel and the west hold themselves out as responsible powers and claim the likes of Iran and N.Korea are not.. and shouldn't be allowed to hold nuclear weapons.

This is also the first official documentation stating that Israel holds nuclear weapons and thus it provides the Arabs an excuse to press ahead with their own nuclear development.
to me that's the major point here too.
but the SAs are like us so it's ok, right? ;)
 

WeasteDevil

New Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Messages
109,016
Location
Salford in Castellón de la Plana
The point is that Israel and the west hold themselves out as responsible powers and claim the likes of Iran and N.Korea are not.. and shouldn't be allowed to hold nuclear weapons.

This is also the first official documentation stating that Israel holds nuclear weapons and thus it provides the Arabs an excuse to press ahead with their own nuclear development.
It has been well known for decades that Israel holds some form of nuclear deterrent, official documentation on the matter I don't think changes that. As for South Africa, I always understood they they had it and then gave it up. You can't stop countries that already have them having them without international agreement, however, incentivising others not to develop them is a good thing. The trouble is that in cases such as North Korea, that has not long ago sunk a South Korean ship under stealth and without warning, you have a dangerous situation.
 

Stretch

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
10,225
Location
Is he normal?
The point is that Israel and the west hold themselves out as responsible powers and claim the likes of Iran and N.Korea are not.. and shouldn't be allowed to hold nuclear weapons.

This is also the first official documentation stating that Israel holds nuclear weapons and thus it provides the Arabs an excuse to press ahead with their own nuclear development.
Note the date of this document. A lot has changed in international politics so to say that the USA etc are preaching one thing and doing another is putting it a bit out of context. As it is, there was no drive during that time to disarm but rather to arm yourself. Today nobody is too keen on other nations arming themselves, they rather prefer they disarm themselves. This is the exact reason that South Africa was praised at a recent meet between world powers regarding nuclear weapons. It is in the world's interest to disarm.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,976
Location
Hollywood CA
A potentially embarrassing story for the Israelis at a time when the IAEA may consider examining their current program.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
98,044
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
They will also undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.
How? They haven't used them yet, unless I missed something.
 

Avatar

Full Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
3,667
Location
Egypt
Supports
Barcelona
I like how some people here are completely ignoring the point that the so called responsible, civilized , only-democracy-in the -middle east- was cooperating with an Apartheid state and offering nuclear feckin weapons!!!


Excuse me, but isn't this hypocrisy?..from you that is not Israel
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
So while alot of the world refused to deal with Apartheid South Africa and would not even import there grapes or sell them any cars, Israel was happily arming them up with Nukes, just in case any other country decided that their race politics was unacceptable.

Hmmm, nice. What a lovely bunch of people.
 

Kaos

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
32,061
Location
Ginseng Strip
As the OP mentioned, people here are missing the point. It's pointing out the hyopcrisy of the west where a nation (Iran) is not allowed to develop nuclear weapon whereas a regional ally (Israel) who happens to be a regional enemy to Iran not only evidently possesses nukes, but has also now be known to be supplying them to apartheid states.

Doesn't do any favours for the west's self-proclaimed moral highground position.
 

Lynott

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,372
Sure Israel and S. Africa were the two major armers of the loyalist paramilitaries. No one else would sell to them.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
98,044
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
I think it's the "selling them to seriously dodgy governments" kind of use that's important here.
they're dodgy in your opinion because you didn't agree with their domestic policy.

imo, nuclear status is really only a concern as far as foreign policy goes.
 

Avatar

Full Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
3,667
Location
Egypt
Supports
Barcelona
they're dodgy in your opinion because you didn't agree with their domestic policy.

imo, nuclear status is really only a concern as far as foreign policy goes.
Nuclear countries are expected to be democratic responsible ones. Apartheid states aren't responsible towards their own people and those offering Nukes to them aren't either. It's as simple as that!! I am being soft here, there are worse adjectives to describe such states
 

Stretch

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
10,225
Location
Is he normal?
Nuclear countries are expected to be democratic responsible ones. Apartheid states aren't responsible towards their own people and those offering Nukes to them aren't either. It's as simple as that!! I am being soft here, there are worse adjectives to describe such states
What you're ignoring is the fact that it happened in 1975! Thats 35 years ffs! The political climate has changed since then internationally. Back then it was not just fine for Israel and South Africa to arm themselves, but for most countries this acceptable. Today the world's nations are encouraging each other to disarm. A completely different state of affairs. So to make the comparison between Iran and Israel is fine but make within the context of the international political climate at that time.
 

Mihajlovic

Its Baltic!
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
12,425
Location
DNVR
Nuclear countries are expected to be democratic responsible ones. Apartheid states aren't responsible towards their own people and those offering Nukes to them aren't either. It's as simple as that!! I am being soft here, there are worse adjectives to describe such states
Not really.

As for your 'nuclear countries are expected to be democratic and responsible'. Maybe in wonderland.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
98,044
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
Nuclear countries are expected to be democratic responsible ones. Apartheid states aren't responsible towards their own people and those offering Nukes to them aren't either. It's as simple as that!! I am being soft here, there are worse adjectives to describe such states
Cough, the Soviet Union, cough.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,976
Location
Hollywood CA
Nations, irrespective of size, typically do whatever is necessary to further their national interests, whether it be power, influence, or security.
 

Avatar

Full Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
3,667
Location
Egypt
Supports
Barcelona
Not really.

As for your 'nuclear countries are expected to be democratic and responsible'. Maybe in wonderland.
If that's the logic, then we can't blame Iran..or any other country seeking them !! The current rend of the world seeking to abolish Nukes comes from a sense of responsibility and common benefits for all... that's something you'd expect in wonderland only too, but it's happening and hopefully will continue

Cough, the Soviet Union, cough.
let me add China and North Korea too and that's why these 3 countries specifically are sources of worry. Russia and China are influential with strong economies (relatively) and worldwide international relations, thats why they are more responsible when it comes to Nukes. They have other means to achieve their aims.. but Nk?? well, we all know the answer for that.

What you're ignoring is the fact that it happened in 1975! Thats 35 years ffs! The political climate has changed since then internationally. Back then it was not just fine for Israel and South Africa to arm themselves, but for most countries this acceptable. Today the world's nations are encouraging each other to disarm. A completely different state of affairs. So to make the comparison between Iran and Israel is fine but make within the context of the international political climate at that time.
For you may be, but for countries in the middle east including Iran the political climate is as shit as always if not worse. I bet it's fine for them to arm themselves with Nukes then .
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,976
Location
Hollywood CA
If that's the logic, then we can't blame Iran..or any other country seeking them !! The current rend of the world seeking to abolish Nukes comes from a sense of responsibility and common benefits for all... that's something you'd expect in wonderland only too, but it's happening and hopefully will continue



let me add China and North Korea too and that's why these 3 countries specifically are sources of worry. Russia and China are influential with strong economies (relatively) and worldwide international relations, thats why they are more responsible when it comes to Nukes. They have other means to achieve their aims.. but Nk?? well, we all know the answer for that.



For you may be, but for countries in the middle east including Iran the political climate is as shit as always if not worse. I bet it's fine for them to arm themselves with Nukes then .
I think you'll find that the general global attitude is to decrease the amount of nuclear weapons among nations who already have them, and limit the ability of those who want to obtain them. If the U.S. and Russia can reach an agreement to reduce their levels, then they are obviously also going to strive to prevent nations like Iran from going nuclear.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
98,044
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
let me add China and North Korea too and that's why these 3 countries specifically are sources of worry. Russia and China are influential with strong economies (relatively) and worldwide international relations, thats why they are more responsible when it comes to Nukes. They have other means to achieve their aims.. but Nk?? well, we all know the answer for that.
To be fair your original comment was regarding apartheid states not being democratically responsible. Myself and Mister Jeebus indicated a few nuclear powers, past and present that do not necessarily meet these criteria.

As boorish as it sounds, an apartheid state does have concerns for it people, it unfortunately regards some of its people as lesser beings but this does not necessarily mean they would be reckless with nuclear technology.

North Korea and Iran on the other hand are two states whose leadership might just be seduced by some mad Wagnerian fantasy and eagerly venture into nuclear conflict because in their isolation they have nothing to lose.
 

Avatar

Full Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
3,667
Location
Egypt
Supports
Barcelona
I think you'll find that the general global attitude is to decrease the amount of nuclear weapons among nations who already have them, and limit the ability of those who want to obtain them. If the U.S. and Russia can reach an agreement to reduce their levels, then they are obviously also going to strive to prevent nations like Iran from going nuclear.
I understand that completely and I am definitely with such attitude, but if we don't draw the lines then any nation will seek WMD. Anyway, thats beside the point of this thread I think.

To be fair your original comment was regarding apartheid states not being democratically responsible. Myself and Mister Jeebus indicated a few nuclear powers, past and present that do not necessarily meet these criteria.

As boorish as it sounds, an apartheid state does have concerns for it people, it unfortunately regards some of its people as lesser beings but this does not necessarily mean they would be reckless with nuclear technology.

North Korea and Iran on the other hand are two states whose leadership might just be seduced by some mad Wagnerian fantasy and eagerly venture into nuclear conflict because in their isolation they have nothing to lose.
I can't trust an idiot who divides his own nation according to race, plus what about sectarian violence when it erupts or some secret terrorist groups forming .An Apartheid state with nuclear weapons is as dangerous in my book.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
98,044
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
I can't trust an idiot who divides his own nation according to race, plus what about sectarian violence when it erupts or some secret terrorist groups forming .An Apartheid state with nuclear weapons is as dangerous in my book.
Sure, that's a common point of view today but the opinions that brought about apartheid are older than 35 years and were quite entrenched.

No state would nuke its own territory unless it was being directly invaded. Even then, it falls under that Wagnerian fantasy category.

I'm not sure where you are but in Canada it's abundantly clear that the accepted solution to disagreeing with the end of apartheid was emmigration.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,976
Location
Hollywood CA
I can't trust an idiot who divides his own nation according to race, plus what about sectarian violence when it erupts or some secret terrorist groups forming .An Apartheid state with nuclear weapons is as dangerous in my book.
You could apply similar logic to states like Iran and North Korea where nuclear weapons might be vulnerable to the whims of the "Velayat al-Fakih" Shi'a Theocrats or the knee-jerk totalitarian eccentricities of Kim Jong-Ill. All states including Israel, Pakistan, and others should be encouraged to reduce their nuclear levels.
 

VidaRed

Unimaginative FC
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
29,612
I think you'll find that the general global attitude is to decrease the amount of nuclear weapons among nations who already have them, and limit the ability of those who want to obtain them. If the U.S. and Russia can reach an agreement to reduce their levels, then they are obviously also going to strive to prevent nations like Iran from going nuclear.
it isn't difficult to do that when you have thousands of nukes....come back when both agree to completely rid themselves of nukes.
 

Avatar

Full Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
3,667
Location
Egypt
Supports
Barcelona
Sure, that's a common point of view today but the opinions that brought about apartheid are older than 35 years and were quite entrenched.

No state would nuke its own territory unless it was being directly invaded. Even then, it falls under that Wagnerian fantasy category.

I'm not sure where you are but in Canada it's abundantly clear that the accepted solution to disagreeing with the end of apartheid was emmigration.
I am in Egypt. My point was that an Apartheid state is an unstable one. It would rank high in foreign Policy Failed States Index, hence the danger of Nukes being available there.

You could apply similar logic to states like Iran and North Korea where nuclear weapons might be vulnerable to the whims of the "Velayat al-Fakih" Shi'a Theocrats or the knee-jerk totalitarian eccentricities of Kim Jong-Ill. All states including Israel, Pakistan, and others should be encouraged to reduce their nuclear levels.

Not sure what's your point Raoul. I want nuclear weapons to vanish. I don't want any state to own them including definitely Iran and North Korea. I was merely replying to some posts that seem to give excuses or explanations for Israel making nuclear deals with South Africa which for me I find inexcusable .
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,976
Location
Hollywood CA
it isn't difficult to do that when you have thousands of nukes....come back when both agree to completely rid themselves of nukes.
If that were the case it would've happened a long time ago. The central point being that the world is getting rid rather than encouraging states to go nuclear.
 

maldini

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
1,110
Location
Canada
I hope someone with a better grasp of history can explain to me which particular neighboring nations did South Africa wish to defense themselves from with nuclear weapons. It seems a tad over the top.
 

Grinner

Not fat gutted. Hirsuteness of shoulders TBD.
Staff
Joined
May 5, 2003
Messages
72,329
Location
I love free dirt and rocks!
Supports
Arsenal
Back in the 1970's Israel couldn't do anything militarily without the approval of the US. I wonder if the US knew of this deal.
 

maldini

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
1,110
Location
Canada
I'm sure there were many members of the US government who were fully aware, and perhaps, endorsed the selling of nuclear weapons to South Africa. I think it was Dick Cheney who actually voted against the imposing of economic sanctions against the country, not to mention his labeling of the ANC as a terrorist organization and being against the release of Nelson Mandela himself.

Of course, that's just Cheney.