Regular reader Barbara Matthews asked me in a comment on a previous post about Israeli nukes. I replied on the comment thread on that post but have decided to flesh out the answer and post it here by way of a primer on Israel’s nuclear weapons since many people do not know much about it. Here goes:
Israel is estimated to have around 100-400 nuclear warheads (more likely closer to the lower figure). The throw weights (explosive power) of these warheads is classified but estimated to be variable but relatively low yield (20-300 kiloton (kt), with 1 kiloton=1000 tons of high explosives), along the lines of US and Russian Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) throw weights but far smaller than the megaton (one million tons of high explosive) + throw weights of US and Russian “heavy” strategic warheads. It is believed that most Israeli nukes are of the “tactical” IRBM type rather than strategic in nature.
Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is believed to have some of its nuclear weapons technology passed on to it by an Israeli spy in the US government (later imprisoned and deported to Israel) who was part of the Lakam nuclear spy ring that operated from the 1950s that helped apartheid South Africa develop a bomb and test it in 1979 over the South Indian Ocean and which supplied nuclear technology to the Argentine military dictatorship in the 1970s, plus a lot of other covert shenanigans. After years of silence and ambiguity and nebulous statements by previous government officials, Netanyahu has implied in public comments that Israel will use nukes on Iran in specific circumstances because it sees Iran as an existential threat. If so it would be the first “first strike” since Hiroshima and Nagasaki and violate the second strike retaliatory premise of modern nuclear deterrence theory.
Israel has a standard delivery system triad of air, sea and land-launched nuclear weapons. The land leg has the “heaviest” warheads that are mounted on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) known as Jericho-1 and Jericho-2s that potentially can reach distant adversaries such as North Korea. I do not know but assume that Israel has MIRV (Multiple Re-Entry Vehicle) technologies in its nuclear fleet, presumably for the heavier warhead-bearing platforms like the Jerichos.
Its main nuclear research and development facilities are at Dimona in the Negev desert, which also serves as a civilian power generating facility that, besides the power generation aspect, produces around 20 kg of Plutonium each year as waste that is directed to the weapons program. 5-6kg of Plutonium is needed for a 20 kiloton warhead, so there are constraints in the Israeli weapons production process, especially for larger-yield warheads. By wy of comparison, the Hiroshima bomb had 15 kilotons of throw weight while the Nagasaki bomb had 20-22 kt of explosive power.
The use of Plutonium is interesting for several reasons. First, its is by-product of nuclear energy production so is not enriched uranium such as those used in both civilian energy (<20–usually 3-5 precent– enriched) production and most advanced nuclear weapons programs (90 percent enriched U235). It is also very unstable and dirty when compared to enriched uranium, which means that besides the risk of accidental chain reactions, the radioactive cloud and plume from a detonation will be far more lethal than those produced by more refined nuclear weapon detonations. That means that detonations in the air at any altitude and on the surface will generate plumes that will then drift hundreds of miles traveling on the prevailing winds, contaminating everything. along the way.
In the case of Iran, Israel would presumably use “bunker-busting” deep penetration missiles to destroy Iran’s nuclear stockpiles and delivery platforms widen deep underground. That might minimise or partially contain the fallout contamination that follows such strikes. But Israel has shown little regard for civilian casualties when levelling Gaza, Lebanese neighbourhoods and parts of the West Bank as well as Iran itself, so we cannot discount the possibility that it might use air- or surface-burst weapons, including against civilian targets (these are known as counter-value strikes) as well as “hardened” military targets (known as counter-force strikes).
In my opinion, there is at least a 50-50 chance that Israel will use nukes against Iran if this conflict does not go the way that Netanyahu’s regime wants it to go, especially of the US–yet again– loses interest and withdraws from the conflict as midterm elections approach and GOP political fortunes turn South as commodity prices continue to rise, etc.
If I were to be charitable I would say that unlike the US, which sees Iran as hostile but containable, sort of like North Korea, Israel views Iran as a threat to its very existence. Why? Not because of nukes but because hardliners in Iran have repeatedly uttered serious anti-semitic as well as anti-Zionist rhetoric towards the Jewish state. The former include grotesque stereotypes and caricatures, betraying a profound and twisted hatred of Jews as a people rather than Israel as a nation-State. In light of that Israel wants to eliminate Iran as a functioning State and partition it into various ethnic nationalities in which Persians are just one of many, albeit a dominant group in whatever demographic mosaic is constructed out of the ashes of the Revolutionary Republic. That removes Iran as a threat to Jewish, not just Israel’s existence.
If I were to not be charitable I would say that Bibi and co. just want to degrade but not destroy Iran so as to keep it as a convenient scapegoat and enduring threat that helps them justify their rogue actions and avoid having to account for their own crimes and atrocities. In that perspective, it is the tail that wags the imbecile dog that is the MAGA administration, but that dog is about to turn tail for domestic political reasons in the US and at that point the spectre of Israeli nukes against Iran becomes real.
One other factor must be considered in Israel’s strategic equation to launch such strikes: who will retaliate against Israel in the event that it does engage in the first use of nuclear weapons against Iran, much less retaliate in kind with a nuclear counter-strike? Quite frankly, I do not see anyone being capable or willing to do so.
The “Doomsday Clock” run by the Association of Atomic Scientists already sits at 85 seconds before midnight, the closest it has ever been to nuclear armageddon day, and that was set before the US and Israel launched their war against Iran.
The moment of deadly truth may be fast approaching.
I caught a nasty bug doing the rounds, so I am catching up on reading. The circumstances under which a valid comparison can be made between casualties from conventional fighting and those from deploying nuclear weapons in a tactical role are limited.
Gullible people and the usual media suspects reported Hamas propaganda/casualty figures as fact. They never reported how Hamas fighters mingled among the population or their predictable refusal to surrender.
However, it is possible that Netanyahu is inept (also, insane) enough to use nukes against Iran. Employing a nuclear first strike for tactical gains would serve as a massive self-inflicted strategic blunder. The Gulf States that Iran has alienated would turn against Israel. (The broader international community would do the same).
The relatively limited damage caused by precision weapons slips under the radar. (The U.S. military rightfully keeps related details under wraps, and outside of WW3, developing new weapons to address that issue is uneconomical.)
Using nuclear weapons to overcome the limitations of conventional weapons is ironically a German-type approach to that problem. The broader strategic implications are missing from the calculation. (Israel’s unhinged critics focus on fictional genocide, and not strategic failures from the war in Gaza.)
During the world wars, the German way of war was tactical and operational success, but skipping strategy, gross moral failings and ignoring logistics. However, my comparison remains with the strategic equation and not the remaining elements.
(There are moral issues around employing nuclear weapons, but delving into those issues would take me off topic and make this comment overly long.)
If the U.S. and Israel use nukes against Iran, it will most likely be a failed attempt to end the war and impose regime change. However, the consequences would be worse than what I outlined above.
Netanyahu is facing not only global pariah status, but even discontent within Israel. He’ll probably evade the Hague’s warrant on him, but Ayalon Prison is still a decent consolation prize.
If he’s thrown out of office later this year, would the nuclear option be still on the table? And even if the big red button gets pushed and Tehran is flattened, what if Iran just becomes a bigger Iraq, Libya or Syria where sectarian warlordism spills outside Iran’s borders?
This is a sideline – but interesting. I do not know much about the history of Israel as a nation-state, but given recent (and long term) events I picked up a new book from our library here, entitled ‘A Short History of the Gaza Strip’, by Anne Irfan. Unintentionally (by the title) it of course also contains within it the history of the Israeli state – and it appears to be not so good.
I morally cannot reconcile my love for things Jewish, teachings, etc. with the current nation state. It is depressing and I cannot see a way forward for as long as they (seem) to have designs of even more imperialistic advances towards their neighbours.
I mention this just as an interesting but vital sideline.
Kind regards.
Barbara:
One can embrace Jews as a people and culture without having to be Zionist and pro-Israel. That is my approach, which has been reaffirmed over the years by my progressive Jewish friends who are neither of those two things. The Zionist excesses endorsed and carried out by the Netanyahu regime will cause its downfall sooner or later, albeit with much more pain to come in that process.
Yes, Pablo, I know that (the downfall …) but in the meantime what will happen to the lands purloined by Israel ? Will they be given back ? Their modus operandi forever and even now seems to be to acquire as much territory as they can or that the world will tolerate (are we tolerating it? Why are we tolerating it?). And what about the millions of Palestinians, displaced; squashed into the Gaza Strip.
I spent some long hours at our local hospital A & E at the beginning of last year, when the horrors of the Israeli offensive on Gaza was at its height. I started a brief conversation with the security guard (as one does lol). He was obv foreign – I asked where he was from. He said ‘Gaza’. And frankly, I just didn’t know what to say. He had such a kindly face. Spoke good English. A lot of refugees are settled in PN. But I was speechless with the sorrow I felt – for that whole nation and their culture.
Barbara:
The Israelis may overstep their expansionist capabilities and have regional neighbours react if for no other reason then that they do not want the Palestinian refugee flows into their land (as one can see in Egypt today). So forcing yet another redrawing the map ore in accordance with the 1967 ceasefire agreement could be plausible. Or the Palestinians become the new Kurds–stateless, homeless in their own lands, but always a simmering hot spring of violence ready to well up against the usurpers, whoever they may be. And when things boil over, it could be catastrophic for the latter or they could defacto recognise the impossibility of their long-term position and settle for something akin to what the Kurds have now in parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey–autonomy without independence.