QUAD; The Concert of Democracies for Trade, Security & Diplomacy

not so dravidian

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
1,523
Likes
8,062
Country flag
@ezsasa ji which is the right thread to discuss about havana syndrome QUAD or IND-CHI ??

i have a similar experiance to share
 

nWo 4 Life

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 16, 2021
Messages
2,225
Likes
11,317
Country flag
Are nuclear subs without nuclear weapons an attack strategy?

Without primary or secondary strike capability, aren’t they just a long range naval reconnaissance platform.
True, but it is concerning as an attack strategy in a more subtle way.

You see, nuclear-submarine programs often can provide and have provided excuses for acquiring national enrichment plants – or, for a country that already has an enrichment plant, an excuse to produce highly enriched uranium (HEU, uranium enriched to 20% or more U-235). Brazil’s enrichment program, which was launched while the country was ruled by a military junta (1964–85), is still controlled by Brazil’s navy. Brazil has two enrichment plants: one that produces uranium enriched up to 20% uranium-235 for a prototype naval reactor and for research reactors, and a “commercial” plant that enriches uranium up to about 4% for Brazil’s power reactors.

As of the end of 2016, although it had been three decades since Brazil mastered centrifuge technology, Brazil’s civilian enrichment plant had only enough capacity to produce about 40% of the annual enrichment requirements for its first power reactor, the 34-year-old, 600-megawatt electric (MWe) Angra-1 (INB 2016, 11). This is not a significant amount of civilian capacity, but it is a proliferation concern because, if reconfigured to produce weapon-grade (90%-enriched) uranium, it could produce enough material for a nuclear bomb in about a month.

Recall that the Obama administration’s requirement for the Iran nuclear deal was that Iran’s enrichment capacity and stock of potential low-enriched uranium (LEU) feed be reduced to the point where it would take Iran at least a year to produce enough HEU for a bomb.

To prevent use of the submarine loophole to acquire HEU for a nuclear weapon, the IAEA would have to determine whether a country was truly pursuing a naval nuclear program or not.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
The US and China have been engaged in a pissing contest since the start of Obama's presidency. There's some provocation from one side, then the other side responds and the cycle continues. Vice President Harris and US diplomats have fanned out over Asia trying to seduce countries into a new Cold War block against China while for its part, Taiwan has become the stage for diplomatic and, occasionally, military provocations of China.

But helping Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines is probably the biggest provocation thus far by the US because of two reasons.

Firstly, for the purpose of defending your maritime property against invading navies, a modern conventional submarine is adequate. Keep in mind that Australia canceled a $66 billion contract with France for twelve conventional submarines and switched to American nuclear submarines. The explanation provided by the Australian Prime Minister is that there were “very real issues about whether a conventional submarine capability” would address the "changes in the regional situation."

But the only change in the regional situation that would justify the change from conventional to nuclear submarines is the change from a defensive strategy to an attack strategy. Less than five years ago, Australia rejected nuclear submarines in favor of conventionally powered ones. This therefore is very provocative.

Also to bear in mind, US submarines are powered by very highly enriched 93.5% weapons grade uranium; Chinese submarines are powered by low enriched uranium. The enriched uranium used to power nuclear submarines is the second reason the US announcement is so provocative. It is provocative because of the US willingness to push the borders of the nuclear non-proliferation agreement (NPT), which it violates anyway by catering slavishly to Israel.

This agreement skirts around the borders of Article 4.1, which guarantees non-nuclear weapons states like Australia the use of "nuclear energy for peaceful purposes" and Article 4.2, which permits exchange of nuclear equipment "for the peaceful use of nuclear energy." As we saw earlier, nuclear-powered submarines are not defensive, but for attacking, which is not a "peaceful purpose."

This deal is especially concerning because US and UK submarines are fueled with weapon-grade uranium rather than the low-enriched uranium used by France and China.

The US announcement further shits on the NPT because the treaty discourages other countries from providing enriched uranium for non-peaceful activities. The US, however, supplies the UK with highly enriched uranium. Most likely the US would also supply the enriched uranium to Australia.

Both because the US-UK-Australia agreement transforms Australia’s submarine fleet from one that can defend against Chinese vessels to one that can attack Chinese vessels and because of the extraordinary US willingness to undermine the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, this new agreement brings American provocation of China to a threatening new level, one that might probably escalate to an islands war.

Attack submarines whether conventional or nuclear powered are primarily defensive, albeit, powerful defensive weapons. They are like very smart land mines (for the oceans) that can relocate with so much stealth and firepower. 1 single pop of heavy torpedo is enough to sink an aircraft carrier. But most likely nuclear attack subs are designed primarily to hunt down the enemy's SSBNs.

So if Australia will have 9 nuke subs, most likely there will be 4 nuke subs to help shadow Chinese SSBNs (which by 2030 it will have around 17) all the time, on top of the American, British and French nuke subs. That will negate China's planned SSBNs. No wonder China is so furious with AUKUS as it will essentially negate the effectiveness of its upcoming SSBN force.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
True, but it is concerning as an attack strategy in a more subtle way.

You see, nuclear-submarine programs often can provide and have provided excuses for acquiring national enrichment plants – or, for a country that already has an enrichment plant, an excuse to produce highly enriched uranium (HEU, uranium enriched to 20% or more U-235). Brazil’s enrichment program, which was launched while the country was ruled by a military junta (1964–85), is still controlled by Brazil’s navy. Brazil has two enrichment plants: one that produces uranium enriched up to 20% uranium-235 for a prototype naval reactor and for research reactors, and a “commercial” plant that enriches uranium up to about 4% for Brazil’s power reactors.

As of the end of 2016, although it had been three decades since Brazil mastered centrifuge technology, Brazil’s civilian enrichment plant had only enough capacity to produce about 40% of the annual enrichment requirements for its first power reactor, the 34-year-old, 600-megawatt electric (MWe) Angra-1 (INB 2016, 11). This is not a significant amount of civilian capacity, but it is a proliferation concern because, if reconfigured to produce weapon-grade (90%-enriched) uranium, it could produce enough material for a nuclear bomb in about a month.

Recall that the Obama administration’s requirement for the Iran nuclear deal was that Iran’s enrichment capacity and stock of potential low-enriched uranium (LEU) feed be reduced to the point where it would take Iran at least a year to produce enough HEU for a bomb.

To prevent use of the submarine loophole to acquire HEU for a nuclear weapon, the IAEA would have to determine whether a country was truly pursuing a naval nuclear program or not.

Uranium fuel cannot be immediately converted into nuclear warheads. There are a lot of technological requirements for this to happen. Besides, the US has no history of secretly arming other countries of nuclear weapons. The US only once make a blind eye to another country independently developing nuclear weapon.

The true value of Australian SSN fleet is the nullification (in concert with AUKUS countries) of China's nuclear submarine attack (SSBN) fleet.
 

HitmanBlood

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2021
Messages
1,459
Likes
12,175
Country flag
Are nuclear subs without nuclear weapons an attack strategy?

Without primary or secondary strike capability, aren’t they just a long range naval reconnaissance platform.
Here is my speculation

In this sale first question we should ask is why AUKUS agreement was needed for sale of N subs to an already treaty ally like Aus? Why include UK in this?

First why AUKUS agreement

Such international agreements are made for strategic & geopolitical reasons. What is in that agreement we don't know and we may never know. Only Aus, UK and US knows. There maybe many things hidden in that agreement that they, (US UK) may not be comfortable to share with "others". If this is a simple N sub sale, why not include France in it. This gives an impression that matter is so sensitive that no country outside Anglo Sphere can be trusted.

Why include UK

There is no real need to include UK in a basically a bilateral sale between US and Aus. So why they are there? UK is very important for USA's interests after WW2. UK is the only country with which US (officially) shared "sensitive" technology. So when it comes time to share similar technology to another Anglo-Saxon country, getting UK onboard helps to keep lot of things secret. Also it keeps UK in confidence. Another reason is to make this deal international rather than bilateral.

Larger picture of N Sub deal

Australia is an interesting case. They have vast amounts of Uranium reserves but no reactors. They don't have even civil reactors forget about military ones. There is a law in Australia that prevents them for for building nuclear reactors for various reasons including electricity generation. Also there should be noted that Australian population doesn't see nuclear reactors favorably.

However special case reactors are allowed. Therefore they have one such reactor for medical reasearch purpose. Another special case can be made for operating N subs which needs weapons grade uranium. This will lead Australia to develop an infrastructure for weapons grade uranium. This will also give Australia steady supply of weapons grade uranium without violating any non-proliferation treaty.

So is Australia gonna start testing nukes like N.Korea one day? Most likely not. Australia is more likely to adopt policy of "Strategic Ambiguity" same as Israel. They may have it or not but all pieces will be there for anyone's guesswork.

So why this Need of nuclear?

Well China is great powers in Asia. A small country like Australia can't defeat them or even seriously threaten them conventionally. If Australia wants to be on the table with big boys they need some disruptive technology. Such as nuclear. A Strategically Ambiguous Australia will completely change game in Indo-Pacific while maintaining non-proliferation stance for public consumption.


As per my speculation many technologies will come in next few decades to Australia under AUKUS treaty.
 
Last edited:

HitmanBlood

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2021
Messages
1,459
Likes
12,175
Country flag
Uranium fuel cannot be immediately converted into nuclear warheads. There are a lot of technological requirements for this to happen. Besides, the US has no history of secretly arming other countries of nuclear weapons. The US only once make a blind eye to another country independently developing nuclear weapon.

The true value of Australian SSN fleet is the nullification (in concert with AUKUS countries) of China's nuclear submarine attack (SSBN) fleet.

 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
31,729
Likes
147,035
Country flag
Here is my speculation

In this sale first question we should ask is why AUKUS agreement was needed for sale of N subs to an already treaty ally like Aus? Why include UK in this?

First why AUKUS agreement

Such international agreements are made for strategic & geopolitical reasons. What is in that agreement we don't know and we may never know. Only Aus, UK and US knows. There maybe many things hidden in that agreement that they US UK may not be comfortable to share with "others". If this a simple N sub sale, why not include France in it. This gives an impression that matter is so sensitive that no country outside Anglo Sphere can be trusted.

Why include UK

There is no real need to include UK in a basically a bilateral sale between US and Aus. So why they are there? UK is very important for USA's interests after WW2. UK is the only country with which US (officially) shared "sensitive" technology. So when it comes time to share similar technology to another Anglo-Saxon country, getting UK onboard helps to keep lot of things secret. Also it keeps UK in confidence. Another reason is to make this deal make international rather than bilateral.

Larger picture of N Sub deal

Australia is an interesting case. They have vast amounts of Uranium reserves but no reactors. They don't have even civil reactors forget about military ones. There is law in Australia that prevents them for for building nuclear reactors for various reasons including electricity generation. Also there should be noted that Australian population doesn't see nuclear reactors favorably.

However special case reactors are allowed. Therefore they have one such reactor for medical reasearch purpose. Another special case can be made for operating N subs which needs weapons grade uranium. This will lead Australia to develop an infrastructure for weapons grade uranium. This will also give Australia steady supply of weapons grade uranium without violating any non-proliferation treaty.

So is Australia gonna start testing nukes like N.Korea one day? Most likely not. Australia is more likely to adopt policy of "Strategic Ambiguity" same as Israel. They may have it or not but all pieces will be there for anyone's guesswork.

So why this Need of nuclear?

Well China is great powers in Asia. A small country like Australia can't defeat them or even seriously threaten them conventionally. If Australia wants to be on the table with big boys they need some disruptive technology. Such as nuclear. A Strategically Ambiguous Australia will completely change game in Indo-Pacific while maintaining non-proliferation stance for public consumption.


As per my speculation many technologies will come in next few decades to Australia under AUKUS treaty.
One of the first thoughts that occurred to be when we heard this news is that australia is being prepped as a backstop for worst case scenario.

If a military confrontation does happen with China, within QUAD first to be impacted would be Japan next India. given the border proximity with China, behaviour of India Japan would always be cautious, so a backstop would be required which is not engulfed in first and second waves of military conflict with China.

so strategically creating a backstop playing the rearguard makes sense for US in long term. Even if say there is an eventuality of India and Japan loosing their ability to influence outcomes related to China, muricans can still play a few games using Aussies.
 

nWo 4 Life

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 16, 2021
Messages
2,225
Likes
11,317
Country flag
Uranium fuel cannot be immediately converted into nuclear warheads. There are a lot of technological requirements for this to happen. Besides, the US has no history of secretly arming other countries of nuclear weapons. The US only once make a blind eye to another country independently developing nuclear weapon.

The true value of Australian SSN fleet is the nullification (in concert with AUKUS countries) of China's nuclear submarine attack (SSBN) fleet.
Wrong. According to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, if reconfigured to produce weapon-grade (90%-enriched) uranium, Brazil can produce enough material for a nuclear bomb in about a month. One of the main requirements in the Iran nuclear deal was that they reduce their stock of potential low-enriched uranium (LEU) feed to the point where it would take Iran at least a year to produce enough HEU for a bomb.

Wouldn't take a LOT of time, by any means.

That the US hasn't ever armed other countries with nuclear weapons is also false. In addition to what @HitmanBlood has posted above, approximately 100 U.S. nuclear weapons had been based in South Korea as of 1991.

The biggest example of course, is Israel, whom the USA did its best to provide nuclear arms with, including allowing the theft of ITS OWN nuclear materials, as well as breaking its own laws.
 
Last edited:

nWo 4 Life

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 16, 2021
Messages
2,225
Likes
11,317
Country flag
Attack submarines whether conventional or nuclear powered are primarily defensive, albeit, powerful defensive weapons.
Nope.

The principal mission of attack submarines is to ATTACK other countries’ ships and submarines. For most countries however, the mission is local – to defend a country’s home waters against foreign navies, which is the reason Australia is giving.

But for this purpose, a modern conventional submarine is adequate. If the intention is to track ballistic-missile submarines at all times modern conventional submarines that Australia already has in its fleet could do as well or better. Also, smaller nonnuclear submarines can be more maneuverable than large nuclear submarines.

Nuclear attack submarines are superior for travel to distant deployment areas and are very effective as an ATTACK STRATEGY, not for tracking a country's submarine in nearby waters. For that purpose, a conventional submarine is quite adequate.

I don't particularly care whether AUKUS comes out on the upper hand or China, because both sides are hegemonic powers with imperialistic tendencies. What is undeniable however, is that this acquisition of nuclear submarines by Australia is the biggest provocation till date and will likely lead to some skirmishes over islands in a few years.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Nope.

The principal mission of attack submarines is to ATTACK other countries’ ships and submarines. For most countries however, the mission is local – to defend a country’s home waters against foreign navies, which is the reason Australia is giving.

But for this purpose, a modern conventional submarine is adequate. If the intention is to track ballistic-missile submarines at all times modern conventional submarines that Australia already has in its fleet could do as well or better. Also, smaller nonnuclear submarines can be more maneuverable than large nuclear submarines.

Nuclear attack submarines are superior for travel to distant deployment areas and are very effective as an ATTACK STRATEGY, not for tracking a country's submarine in nearby waters. For that purpose, a conventional submarine is quite adequate.

I don't particularly care whether AUKUS comes out on the upper hand or China, because both sides are hegemonic powers with imperialistic tendencies. What is undeniable however, is that this acquisition of nuclear submarines by Australia is the biggest provocation till date and will likely lead to some skirmishes over islands in a few years.

I think the main aim of AUKUS is to negate China's upcoming SSBN force. US , UK and Australia agree to cooperate like a wolf pack to shadow each of these upcoming PLAN SSBNs. This explains the time horizon of Australia in acquiring nuke submarines, which most likely coincide with PLAN getting most its planned SSBN.

I think France was not willing to openly take part in this plan (France will do what France wants), so the trio was forced to take it out of the equation.
 

nWo 4 Life

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 16, 2021
Messages
2,225
Likes
11,317
Country flag
I think the main aim of AUKUS is to negate China's upcoming SSBN force. US , UK and Australia agree to cooperate like a wolf pack to shadow each of these upcoming PLAN SSBNs. This explains the time horizon of Australia in acquiring nuke submarines, which most likely coincide with PLAN getting most its planned SSBN.

I think France was not willing to openly take part in this plan (France will do what France wants), so the trio was forced to take it out of the equation.
Well, according to France, they weren't even told anything about this "plan", if it even exists. They claim that their contracts were just stolen out of the blue without telling them anything.

They really don't have any position to complain though. They did the same thing to Russia regarding the Mistral aircraft carriers on USA's insistence.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Wrong. According to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, if reconfigured to produce weapon-grade (90%-enriched) uranium, Brazil can produce enough material for a nuclear bomb in about a month. One of the main requirements in the Iran nuclear deal was that they reduce their stock of potential low-enriched uranium (LEU) feed to the point where it would take Iran at least a year to produce enough HEU for a bomb.

Wouldn't take a LOT of time, by any means.

That the US hasn't ever armed other countries with nuclear weapons is also false. In addition to what @HitmanBlood has posted above, approximately 100 U.S. nuclear weapons had been based in South Korea as of 1991.

The biggest example of course, is Israel, whom the USA did its best to provide nuclear arms with, including allowing the theft of ITS OWN nuclear materials, as well as breaking its own laws.

US nukes in SoKor like in some NATO countries are fully under US control. This is US main strategy to satisfy the urge of its well-to-do allies from trying to acquire nukes. So basing US nuke bombs in some of US bases in some allied countries is actually a very effective non-proliferation strategy.

Israel's nukes on the other hand is a different matter. As I said the Israelis forced the issue and the US simply turned its gaze away from it.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Well, according to France, they weren't even told anything about this "plan", if it even exists. They claim that their contracts were just stolen out of the blue without telling them anything.

They really don't have any position to complain though. They did the same thing to Russia regarding the Mistral aircraft carriers on USA's insistence.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Do you believe that with all of France's intelligence tools and its closeness to US, UK and Australian defense officials that it will not know this kind of seismic shift? I mean AUKUS was formally hammered in Whales where Macron was in the same building. But perhaps France truly or naively believed that Australia was only trying to get better leverage with France in its nuke deal in talking with the Americans and Brits.
 

nWo 4 Life

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 16, 2021
Messages
2,225
Likes
11,317
Country flag
US nukes in SoKor like in some NATO countries are fully under US control. This is US main strategy to satisfy the urge of its well-to-do allies from trying to acquire nukes. So basing US nuke bombs in some of US bases in some allied countries is actually a very effective non-proliferation strategy.

Israel's nukes on the other hand is a different matter. As I said the Israelis forced the issue and the US simply turned its gaze away from it.
No no no. You don't understand. There aren't any US nukes in South Korea ANYMORE. They were all withdrawn in 1991.

Ultimately, the United States did not agree to South Korea acquiring either an enrichment or reprocessing plant in 2015 but left open the possibility for the future. And just a few days back, South Korea has become the world's seventh country with an indigenous submarine-launched ballistic missile.

And the US didn't "gaze away" but actively aided and helped the Israelis acquire nukes.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
No no no. You don't understand. There aren't any US nukes in South Korea ANYMORE. They were all withdrawn in 1991.

Ultimately, the United States did not agree to South Korea acquiring either an enrichment or reprocessing plant in 2015 but left open the possibility for the future. And just a few days back, South Korea has become the world's seventh country with an indigenous submarine-launched ballistic missile.


And the US didn't "gaze away" but actively aided and helped the Israelis acquire nukes.
As far as I know US had no direct assistance to the Israeli nuclear weapons program. It was France under De Gaulle (who split from NATO) that provided the tech to Israel. On the contrary, the US was surprised to discover later on Israel's nuclear weapons program. But by then it was too late. But being the good father to his bastard child, the US since then provided diplomatic cover to Israel.

 

not so dravidian

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
1,523
Likes
8,062
Country flag
Here is my speculation

In this sale first question we should ask is why AUKUS agreement was needed for sale of N subs to an already treaty ally like Aus? Why include UK in this?

First why AUKUS agreement

Such international agreements are made for strategic & geopolitical reasons. What is in that agreement we don't know and we may never know. Only Aus, UK and US knows. There maybe many things hidden in that agreement that they, (US UK) may not be comfortable to share with "others". If this is a simple N sub sale, why not include France in it. This gives an impression that matter is so sensitive that no country outside Anglo Sphere can be trusted.

Why include UK

There is no real need to include UK in a basically a bilateral sale between US and Aus. So why they are there? UK is very important for USA's interests after WW2. UK is the only country with which US (officially) shared "sensitive" technology. So when it comes time to share similar technology to another Anglo-Saxon country, getting UK onboard helps to keep lot of things secret. Also it keeps UK in confidence. Another reason is to make this deal international rather than bilateral.

Larger picture of N Sub deal

Australia is an interesting case. They have vast amounts of Uranium reserves but no reactors. They don't have even civil reactors forget about military ones. There is a law in Australia that prevents them for for building nuclear reactors for various reasons including electricity generation. Also there should be noted that Australian population doesn't see nuclear reactors favorably.

However special case reactors are allowed. Therefore they have one such reactor for medical reasearch purpose. Another special case can be made for operating N subs which needs weapons grade uranium. This will lead Australia to develop an infrastructure for weapons grade uranium. This will also give Australia steady supply of weapons grade uranium without violating any non-proliferation treaty.

So is Australia gonna start testing nukes like N.Korea one day? Most likely not. Australia is more likely to adopt policy of "Strategic Ambiguity" same as Israel. They may have it or not but all pieces will be there for anyone's guesswork.

So why this Need of nuclear?

Well China is great powers in Asia. A small country like Australia can't defeat them or even seriously threaten them conventionally. If Australia wants to be on the table with big boys they need some disruptive technology. Such as nuclear. A Strategically Ambiguous Australia will completely change game in Indo-Pacific while maintaining non-proliferation stance for public consumption.


As per my speculation many technologies will come in next few decades to Australia under AUKUS treaty.
As always, a pleasure to read ur pov
Let me add my 2 cents
Why include UK
Anglo-Saxon is a definitive

Looking from another POV, why can't we think this as a token of help from US to UK.
UK voted out of EU, thereby it's defence-MIC had crumbled. Eg: DRDO-RR deal they r very desperate for money

This will lead Australia to develop an infrastructure for weapons grade uranium. This will also give Australia steady supply of weapons grade uranium without violating any non-proliferation treaty.
Only time will answer this question
Astute class sub uses HEU and I wonder how this shall affect NPT treaty

So is Australia gonna start testing nukes like N.Korea one day? Most likely not. Australia is more likely to adopt policy of "Strategic Ambiguity" same as Israel. They may have it or not but all pieces will be there for anyone's guesswork.
I don't think it's possible. This deal will definitely test the seriousness of NPT. An overwatch will be established due to international pressure.

However with a big "if", lan based ballistic missile can be possible It will be interesting to see which varient of submarine is to be accquired.

Earlier Astute class sub do not have vls
 

nWo 4 Life

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 16, 2021
Messages
2,225
Likes
11,317
Country flag
As far as I know US had no direct assistance to the Israeli nuclear weapons program. It was France under De Gaulle (who split from NATO) that provided the tech to Israel. On the contrary, the US was surprised to discover later on Israel's nuclear weapons program. But by then it was too late. But being the good father to his bastard child, the US since then provided diplomatic cover to Israel.

Wrong again.

According to formerly top-secret and secret Central Intelligence Agency files (PDF) released in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, it was revealed that the CIA stopped two FBI investigations into the 1960s diversion of weapons-grade uranium from a Pennsylvania-based government contractor into the Israeli nuclear weapons program.

The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) was a nuclear fuel processing company founded by legendary chemist Zalman Mordecai Shapiro and financed by entrepreneur David Luzer Lowenthal. According to the Department of Energy, during Shapiro’s reign at NUMEC, the company lost more weapons-grade uranium – 337 kilograms after accounting for losses – much of a particularly unique and high enrichment level than any other U.S. facility. Losses only returned to industry norms after Shapiro, who later unsuccessfully tried to get a job working on advanced hydrogen bomb designs, was forced out of NUMEC.

In the 1950’s Shapiro developed vital breakthroughs for US Navy nuclear propulsion systems. In the 1940s Lowenthal fought in Israel’s War of Independence, serving as a smuggler who developed close contacts with high Israeli intelligence officials. An ardent supporter of Israel, Shapiro was Pittsburgh Chapter President of the Zionist Organization of America. According to the Jerusalem Post, Shapiro later joined the board of governors of the Israeli Intelligence Heritage Center, an organization that honors spies who secretly took action to advance Israel. NUMEC holding company Apollo Industries President Morton Chatkin also held a ZOA leadership role while Apollo Executive Vice President Ivan J. Novick went on to become ZOA’s national president. David Lowenthal, who raised capital for acquiring NUMEC’s facilities (an old steel mill in the center of the village) served as Apollo’s treasurer.

In 1968 CIA Director Richard Helms sent an urgent request for an investigation to Attorney General Ramsey Clark stating "You are well aware of the great concern which exists at the highest levels of this Government with regard to the proliferation of nuclear weapons…It is critical for us to establish whether or not the Israelis now have the capability of fabricating nuclear weapons which might be employed in the Near East…I urge that the Federal Bureau of Investigation be called upon to initiate a discreet intelligence investigation of all source nature of Dr. Shapiro in order to establish the nature and extent of his relationship with the Government of Israel."

The FBI investigation documented Shapiro’s many meetings with top Israeli nuclear weapons development officials such as Avraham Hermoni and wiretapped a conversation representative of the overall lack of concern over worker safety and the environment by Shapiro and Lowenthal. The FBI discovered that NUMEC had formed a joint venture with the Israel Atomic Energy Commission called Isorad to supply food irradiators to Israel. The now-defunct Atomic Energy Agency questioned Zalman Shapiro in 1969 – never asking if he had diverted materialover his many meetings with Israelis known to the FBI to be intelligence operatives. After the AEC defended Shapiro and his continued holding of security clearances, the FBI terminated its intelligence investigation.

In 1976 the Ford administration reopened the NUMEC investigation in order to determine if a diversion had occurred and whether a government cover-up had ensued. The 130-page release is replete with formal CIA denials to Congressional Committee investigators, the GAO and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission inquiries about whether the CIA had participated in any illegal diversions, or whether it was aware of any presidential finding authorizing such an operation. Arizona Democrat Morris Udall asked bluntly on August 23, 1977 “Is it possible that President Johnson, who was known to be a friend of Israel, could have encouraged the flow of nuclear materials to the Israelis?” Citing CIA’s role in alerting the attorney general to the problem as evidence that it was not involved, the agency also repeatedly emphasized “we in CIA are not and have not been concerned with the law enforcement aspects of this problem. Indeed, Dick Helms turned the matter over to the FBI in order to avoid such involvement.” Rather, exploring the NUMEC-Israel link was part of CIA’s intelligence function to substantiate why its National Intelligence Estimate concluded Israel had a nuclear arsenal.

FBI special agents soon lost morale over being sent unprepared into a second investigation. The CIA, for its part, continued withholding critical information that could have provided both motivation and a tool for confronting hostile interviewees. This was according to the newly released CIA files “information…of obvious importance in reaching an intelligence decision on the probability of diversion, it is not of any legal pertinence to the FBI’s criminal investigation of NUMEC. In our discussions with the FBI we have alluded to this information but we have not made the details available to special agents from the Washington Field Office of the FBI who are working on the case. While Mr. Bush’s [then-CIA Director George H.W. Bush] conversations are not known to us, we have had no substantive discussions with officials at FBI Headquarters on this matter.” It was this sensitive CIA information, made available only to the president, cabinet, and a limited number of top agency officials that led one National Security Council staffer to conclude, “I do not think that the President has plausible deniability.”

On June 6, 1977 Associate Deputy Director for Operations Theodore Shackley briefed the FBI agents in charge of the NUMEC investigation. They grumbled that since they had not established that the diversion took place, they could not begin to address the second question about a cover-up. They then pleaded for “new information” from the CIA, blithely ignorant that their reasoning was completely backward – it was old information they required, and it was the CIA’s withholding of it that was the true cover-up. The FBI also thought it needed a NUMEC insider willing to blow the whistle in order to finally break the case open.

Unknown to the FBI, every CIA director was complicit in withholding a key clandestine operational finding from investigators. According to a May 11, 1977 report by Shackley, the “CIA has not furnished to the FBI sensitive agent reporting…since the decision was made by Directors Helms, Colby and Bush that this information would not further the investigation of NUMEC but would compromise sources and methods.”

Though carefully redacted from the CIA release, the omitted fact was likely that highly enriched uranium of a signature unique to NUMEC had been detected in Israel, a country that did not have facilities to enrich uranium. This sensitive information was delivered to former Atomic Energy Commissioner Glen Seaborg by two Department of Energy investigators sifting for more facts about NUMEC in June of 1978. It was powerful enough evidence that the retired Seaborg subsequently refused to be interviewed by less informed FBI investigators.

The CIA noted FBI investigators “indicated that even if they came up with a case, it was extremely unlikely that Justice and State would allow it to come to trial…they feel that they have been given a job to do with none of the tools necessary to do it.” Although in 1981 special agents finally identified a former NUMEC employee who had personally witnessed the means of the diversion – Zalman Shapiro and other NUMEC officials stuffing HEU canisters into irradiators sealed and rushed to Israel – lacking the missing CIA puzzle piece the FBI investigation went dormant as the statute of limitations for Atomic Energy Act violations – punishable by death – finally expired.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Wrong again.

According to formerly top-secret and secret Central Intelligence Agency files (PDF) released in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, it was revealed that the CIA stopped two FBI investigations into the 1960s diversion of weapons-grade uranium from a Pennsylvania-based government contractor into the Israeli nuclear weapons program.

The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) was a nuclear fuel processing company founded by legendary chemist Zalman Mordecai Shapiro and financed by entrepreneur David Luzer Lowenthal. According to the Department of Energy, during Shapiro’s reign at NUMEC, the company lost more weapons-grade uranium – 337 kilograms after accounting for losses – much of a particularly unique and high enrichment level than any other U.S. facility. Losses only returned to industry norms after Shapiro, who later unsuccessfully tried to get a job working on advanced hydrogen bomb designs, was forced out of NUMEC.

In the 1950’s Shapiro developed vital breakthroughs for US Navy nuclear propulsion systems. In the 1940s Lowenthal fought in Israel’s War of Independence, serving as a smuggler who developed close contacts with high Israeli intelligence officials. An ardent supporter of Israel, Shapiro was Pittsburgh Chapter President of the Zionist Organization of America. According to the Jerusalem Post, Shapiro later joined the board of governors of the Israeli Intelligence Heritage Center, an organization that honors spies who secretly took action to advance Israel. NUMEC holding company Apollo Industries President Morton Chatkin also held a ZOA leadership role while Apollo Executive Vice President Ivan J. Novick went on to become ZOA’s national president. David Lowenthal, who raised capital for acquiring NUMEC’s facilities (an old steel mill in the center of the village) served as Apollo’s treasurer.

In 1968 CIA Director Richard Helms sent an urgent request for an investigation to Attorney General Ramsey Clark stating "You are well aware of the great concern which exists at the highest levels of this Government with regard to the proliferation of nuclear weapons…It is critical for us to establish whether or not the Israelis now have the capability of fabricating nuclear weapons which might be employed in the Near East…I urge that the Federal Bureau of Investigation be called upon to initiate a discreet intelligence investigation of all source nature of Dr. Shapiro in order to establish the nature and extent of his relationship with the Government of Israel."

The FBI investigation documented Shapiro’s many meetings with top Israeli nuclear weapons development officials such as Avraham Hermoni and wiretapped a conversation representative of the overall lack of concern over worker safety and the environment by Shapiro and Lowenthal. The FBI discovered that NUMEC had formed a joint venture with the Israel Atomic Energy Commission called Isorad to supply food irradiators to Israel. The now-defunct Atomic Energy Agency questioned Zalman Shapiro in 1969 – never asking if he had diverted materialover his many meetings with Israelis known to the FBI to be intelligence operatives. After the AEC defended Shapiro and his continued holding of security clearances, the FBI terminated its intelligence investigation.

In 1976 the Ford administration reopened the NUMEC investigation in order to determine if a diversion had occurred and whether a government cover-up had ensued. The 130-page release is replete with formal CIA denials to Congressional Committee investigators, the GAO and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission inquiries about whether the CIA had participated in any illegal diversions, or whether it was aware of any presidential finding authorizing such an operation. Arizona Democrat Morris Udall asked bluntly on August 23, 1977 “Is it possible that President Johnson, who was known to be a friend of Israel, could have encouraged the flow of nuclear materials to the Israelis?” Citing CIA’s role in alerting the attorney general to the problem as evidence that it was not involved, the agency also repeatedly emphasized “we in CIA are not and have not been concerned with the law enforcement aspects of this problem. Indeed, Dick Helms turned the matter over to the FBI in order to avoid such involvement.” Rather, exploring the NUMEC-Israel link was part of CIA’s intelligence function to substantiate why its National Intelligence Estimate concluded Israel had a nuclear arsenal.

FBI special agents soon lost morale over being sent unprepared into a second investigation. The CIA, for its part, continued withholding critical information that could have provided both motivation and a tool for confronting hostile interviewees. This was according to the newly released CIA files “information…of obvious importance in reaching an intelligence decision on the probability of diversion, it is not of any legal pertinence to the FBI’s criminal investigation of NUMEC. In our discussions with the FBI we have alluded to this information but we have not made the details available to special agents from the Washington Field Office of the FBI who are working on the case. While Mr. Bush’s [then-CIA Director George H.W. Bush] conversations are not known to us, we have had no substantive discussions with officials at FBI Headquarters on this matter.” It was this sensitive CIA information, made available only to the president, cabinet, and a limited number of top agency officials that led one National Security Council staffer to conclude, “I do not think that the President has plausible deniability.”

On June 6, 1977 Associate Deputy Director for Operations Theodore Shackley briefed the FBI agents in charge of the NUMEC investigation. They grumbled that since they had not established that the diversion took place, they could not begin to address the second question about a cover-up. They then pleaded for “new information” from the CIA, blithely ignorant that their reasoning was completely backward – it was old information they required, and it was the CIA’s withholding of it that was the true cover-up. The FBI also thought it needed a NUMEC insider willing to blow the whistle in order to finally break the case open.

Unknown to the FBI, every CIA director was complicit in withholding a key clandestine operational finding from investigators. According to a May 11, 1977 report by Shackley, the “CIA has not furnished to the FBI sensitive agent reporting…since the decision was made by Directors Helms, Colby and Bush that this information would not further the investigation of NUMEC but would compromise sources and methods.”

Though carefully redacted from the CIA release, the omitted fact was likely that highly enriched uranium of a signature unique to NUMEC had been detected in Israel, a country that did not have facilities to enrich uranium. This sensitive information was delivered to former Atomic Energy Commissioner Glen Seaborg by two Department of Energy investigators sifting for more facts about NUMEC in June of 1978. It was powerful enough evidence that the retired Seaborg subsequently refused to be interviewed by less informed FBI investigators.

The CIA noted FBI investigators “indicated that even if they came up with a case, it was extremely unlikely that Justice and State would allow it to come to trial…they feel that they have been given a job to do with none of the tools necessary to do it.” Although in 1981 special agents finally identified a former NUMEC employee who had personally witnessed the means of the diversion – Zalman Shapiro and other NUMEC officials stuffing HEU canisters into irradiators sealed and rushed to Israel – lacking the missing CIA puzzle piece the FBI investigation went dormant as the statute of limitations for Atomic Energy Act violations – punishable by death – finally expired.
You're in luck. It turned out Haaretz in 2019 made an article based on US-Israel standoff on Israel's nuclear weapons program during the Kennedy years...

How a Standoff With the U.S. Almost Blew Up Israel's Nuclear Program
Kennedy's ultimatum, Ben-Gurion's 'sick' reply and a 'fiasco' nuclear inspection: Newly declassified documents shed light on the diplomatic crisis that some feared may lead to a U.S. raid on Israel's Dimona plant

Throughout the spring and summer of 1963, the leaders of the United States and Israel – President John F. Kennedy and Prime Ministers David Ben-Gurion and Levi Eshkol – were engaged in a high-stakes battle of wills over Israel’s nuclear program. The tensions were invisible to the publics of both countries, and only a few senior officials, on both sides of the ocean, were aware of the severity of the situation.

In Israel, those in the know saw the situation as a real crisis, as a former high-level science adviser, Prof. Yuval Ne’eman, told one of us (Avner Cohen) 25 years ago. Ne’eman recalled that Eshkol, Ben-Gurion’s successor, and his associates saw Kennedy as presenting Israel with a real ultimatum. There was even one senior Israeli official, Ne’eman told me, the former Israel Air Force commander Maj. Gen. (res.) Dan Tolkowsky, who seriously entertained the fear that Kennedy might send U.S. airborne troops to Dimona, the home of Israel’s nuclear complex.

What was at stake was the future of Israel’s nuclear program. Kennedy, with an exceptionally strong commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, was determined to do all he could to prevent Israel from producing nuclear weapons. Ben-Gurion (and later Eshkol) were equally determined to complete the Dimona project. For them, nuclear capability was an indispensable insurance policy against existential threats to Israel. The exchange between the American president and the two prime ministers illustrates both Kennedy’s tenacity and the Israeli leaders’ recalcitrance.

xxx

 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top