Hacker News Reader

Comment by photochemsyn | Hacker News Reader

Hey have you ever thought about the role Henry Kissenger played in the development of the Israeli nuclear weapons program? It's not inconsequential:

> "Kissinger then defines what the U.S. wants overall, agreed broadly in the group: Israel’s secret nuclear arsenal is dangerous, but public knowledge is also dangerous, given that it could lead to a Soviet-Arab nuclear guarantee. Thus, at a minimum, the U.S. should keep it secret."

Sounds nuts, right? Reputable source I guess:

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/blog/israeli-nuclear-pro...

Kissenger was a remarkable character, his legacy is worth examining with a fine-tooth comb... isn't it?

View on HN

>"Israel’s secret nuclear arsenal is dangerous, but public knowledge is also dangerous, given that it could lead to a Soviet-Arab nuclear guarantee. Thus, at a minimum, the U.S. should keep it secret."

explain what is nuts about that in the middle of the cold war. The US has intelligence that Israel has the bomb, and Kissinger thinks we shouldn't broadcast it?

>the role Henry Kissenger played in the development of the Israeli nuclear weapons program? It's not inconsequential

what role is that in the development of Israel's weapon? (If there is one weapon you aren't going to keep the Jewish state from developing, I'd think it would be one based on 20th century physics...)

Other than "oooh Kissinger bad", I don't get what you are saying.

(*fine-toothed comb)

The fact that nuclear weapons are about deterrence means you don't want them to be secret. A secret nuclear weapon's primary use would be a revenge weapon. Or to blow up a city in a surprise attack. Neither of which is particularly "defensive".

There's a reason why we have arms treaties and try to be transparent about our nuclear capabilities. I know it's a movie but Dr. Strangelove is a great example of the thinking behind this.

I get that the point is to keep the balance of power in the favor of the US, but the practical outcome was letting Israel secretly develop a revenge/offensive nuclear bomb. If it got used potentially millions would die, and you can't even make the argument that it acts as a stabilizer via MAD.

the issue cited is that the Soviet Union would need to respond. The face-saving open secret could easily be the better option.

I mean, we can only speculate. But "nuclear non-proliferation for thee, secret nukes for me" hasn't really worked out great in the middle east so far.

It's obvious that "realpolitik" makes some nations winners and others losers-- while the lives of real human beings hang in the balance. I think anyone who thinks they should determine the winners and losers needs to be heavily criticized. Regardless of which side they are on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com