Book World Live

Michael Karpin, "The Bomb in the Basement: How Israel Went Nuclear and What That Means for the World."

Michael Karpin was online Tuesday, Feb. 21, at 3 p.m. ET to discuss his book, "The Bomb in the Basement: How Israel Went Nuclear and What That Means for the World."

Read the Review (Book World, Feb. 19)

Join Book World Live each Tuesday at 3 p.m. ET for a discussion based on a story or review in each Sunday's Book World section.

____________________

Michael Karpin: Hallow to everyone. It is my pleasure to be the WP forum's guest. It is 10 pm now in Tel Aviv; the sky are clear, the weather is mild (around 60 degrees) and the bomb is still at the basement.

Let me make a short introduction and tell you that in Israel, all publications on atomic matters must be passed by the Israeli Military Censor and while answering your questions, as an Israeli citizen I am bound by some censorship restrictions. In practice, I am not able to tell you everything that I know, only that part of my knowledge that was approved and appear in the book. Nevertheless, still inside the boundaries of the censorship restrictions it is possible to say quite a lot - and the more of 400 hundred pages of the book are the proof. Now to the first question

_______________________

Bangkok, Thailand: Mr. Karpin:

I have read Samson Option, which makes the point that Ben Gurion went ahead with the creation of the Dimona atomic facility in the Negev desert, explicitly against the wishes of the U.S. Can you explain how Israel was able to get aware with this dangerous act of duplicity and still depend on U.S. support for its nation state?

Michael Karpin: Yes, that is the essence of the whole story. Israel succeeded where many other states have failed, firstly because until the end of 1960, Ben Gurion managed to hide from the world, and most importantly from the United States, the decisive stages in the development of Israel's nuclear capability. When the United States finally grasped what was under way at Dimona, Israel's nuclear option was already a fait accompli.

Secondly, Ben-Gurion had succeeded in initiating and fulfilling the program in an era before strict international oversight had been instituted.

Thirdly, at an advanced stage in the nuclear program, Israel preferred to coordinate its development with the United States. And fourthly, Israel benefited from the fact that under Nixon and Kissinger, the United States changed its criteria regarding nuclear initiatives of friendly states, ceased demanding that they open their nuclear facilities to international inspection, and allowed them to refrain from joining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Fifthly, and perhaps most essentially, Israel always was careful to meet the conditions set by the United States: It made the purpose of its nuclear capability purely defensive, presenting the world with a display of nuclear ambiguity, and never, even in days of dire emergency, when its leaders feared the country was in existential danger, resorted to warning its enemies that it possessed nuclear weapons; and principally, Israel abstained from carrying out nuclear tests.

_______________________

Istanbul: The proliferation of nuclear weapons is indeed a threat to the security of non-nuclear states. But the already nuclear statesmay also be a threat to others. Would it not be better to think of eliminating all existing nuclear weapons instead of trying to prevent their proliferation, which in the past has proved to be ineffective in so many instances?Thank you

Michael Karpin: Yes, I agree, and in my book I present the Israeli plan for regional disarmament. If you you are ready to spare a few minutes I'll try to describe the subject.

When Israel's first PM, David Ben-Gurion first unveiled the reactor that Israel had built at Dimona, on December 21 1960, in the emotional speech he made from the Knesset podium, he uttered only one sentence that referred to Israel's neighbors. For a durable peace he offered them a "comprehensive and absolute disarmament in Israel and the neighboring Arab countries, with mutual supervision."

At that time, the construction of the reactor in Dimona had not been completed and the nuclear option was a distant dream. And nevertheless, the understanding that "absolute disarmament" was necessary was a fundamental principle of Israeli policy. This has not changed in 45 years that have gone by since then, although it is possible that in view of Iran's efforts to achieve nuclear capability, the fulfillment of this principle will be the toughest nut to crack in the peace process; tougher even than the hardest issues between Israel and the Palestinians: the right of return for the refugees and the sovereignty over Jerusalem.

Israel will come to with a set doctrine composed of three principles:

First, Israel opposes the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as it has from the very beginning. Its own acquisition of nuclear capability was a defensive imperative that will fall away when peace is achieved. The meaning is willingness to achieve disaramament.

Secondly, Israel will give up its nuclear option only when it is proven beyond doubt that peace is an absolute and established fact and it is clear that Israel no longer needs the ultimate deterrent.

Thirdly, the nuclear demilitarization of the Middle East will be implemented through a regional pact to be reached through negotiations between Israel and each one of the states in the region, and not through joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

_______________________

Bend, Ore.: Hi, How does your book compare to Seymour Hersh's book, "The Samson Option" (Random House 1991)on the same subject? Do you break any new ground on Israeli nuclear weapons?

Thanks!

Michael Karpin: Instead of making comparisons between Mr. Hersh's book and mine let me present you with one of my book revelations. It is being told at chapter 13. Here is the essence of the story:

It was Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, who was the source for the CIA when, early in 1968, it drew up a situation assessment in which it concluded for the first time that Israel had begun to produce nuclear weapons. The information was imparted exclusively to president Johnson.

Teller's involvement in the creation of Israel's nuclear capability is significant and I think that the story that I present about him in my book is interesting.

_______________________

Cary, N.C.: It means, quite simply, that we will have to babysit Israel into infinity in much the same way we must keep an eye on any country with upstart nuclear capabilities. However, we may feel more responsibility for Israel because without our help, historically, it wouldn't exist. Further, Israel's anti-Arab positions, even their reasonable determination to hold on to most of their land creates a more volatile situation than, say, the nuclear empowerment of North Korea.

Some may disagree and say that North Korea is more of a threat, but North Korea's enemies are stable, mature countries, not likely to start spats. The same cannot be said for Israel and its enemies.

Michael Karpin: No question that North Korea is a bigeer threat. Look, Israel abstained from carrying out nuclear tests and always - even during security deep crisis, like the Egyptian and Syrian attack in October 1993 - always avoided the temptation to warn its enemies that it possessed a nuclear option. I would say that by operating smartly, Israel achieved effective deterrence without making the rest of the world nervous, while North Korea and Iran failed to do so.

_______________________

Ground Zero: Our current global self-interest is obvious, but if Cuba had nuclear weapons before us, we would think we had every right to acquire our own. What is the basis of our trying to deny Iran, N. Korea, whoever, the same opportunity? If we claim they have crazy, unstable leadership, will they be permitted nuclear weapons if they change leaders? Thanks.

Michael Karpin: Practically you ask me why Israel is permitted to have what Iran is forbidden. The main difference between the two is that Iran's nuclear program makes headline news, while Israel's nuclear capability remains hidden in the shadows. The Israeli nuclear capability lies in the Basement. It is intended to be a weapon of last resort, the silent guarantor of the country's existence in the face of hostile neighbors. Another important difference is that Israel is not a party to the Non-proliferation treaty, while Iran is. And of course, Israel is not threatening to wipe out of the map another country. Iran does.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: Are we moving toward life in a nuclear-armed crowd, as Albert Wohlstetter first asked some thirty years ago, and if so, has Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons given any impetus to this process? By condoning Israel's acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability has the U.S. (in fact if not by design) given a "wink and a nod" to India's acquisition of such a capability? And by accepting India's acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability is the U.S. inadvertently encouraging Iran to do so?

Michael Karpin: It should be emphasized that without the approval of the American administrations Israel could not achieve its nuclear capability. The controversy between the United States and Israel on the future of the Israeli nuclear project was the main issue in relations between the two countries for more then two decades. The Kennedy Administration opposed Israel's nuclear project and President Lyndon Johnson approved it only tacitly. Significant change took place when the Nixon - Kissinger administration adopted a new strategy: Israel that possessed the nuclear option was a more valuable asset to the defense of the Western interests in the Middle East then Israel without such an option. The indications of that policy were two: President Nixon ceased to press Israel to join the NPT and dropped the surveillance of Dimona. In exchange, Israel committed itself to maintain an official ambiguity about the program. That policy remains in place until today.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: I understand why the Iranians want the bomb -- they're afraid of us and their neighbors who already have the bomb, and am not afraid of them having it, as everyone who has the bomb has guarded it well and carefully. The main thing I don't like is the way with every country that gets the bomb, the chance of nuclear war increases

I believe we are at a stage where we need to take the lead in nuclear disarmament, or soon enough everyone will have the bomb.

Michael Karpin: You are absolutely right, the question is only who would take the lead in order to achieve nuclear disarmament? And let me leave a big question mark

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: On the topic of Iran's nuclear weapons program, almost every report or commentary in the mass media has avoided the issue of Israel's ample arsenal of nuclear weapons, which is like ignoring an 800-pound gorilla in your room. What do you make of this omission?

Michael Karpin: One may say that Israel managed to convince everyone that it has at its disposal an amorphous entity known as "nuclear capability" and that it intends to use it only to achieve effective deterrence on the other hand, Iran succeeded in making the rest of the world nervous about its nuclear project.

_______________________

Chapel Hill, N.C.: Do you believe the "rumors" that Israel readied nuclear weapons for use at least once? Have these rumors been deliberately encouraged as a not-so subtle warning to the Arab world?Thanks!

Michael Karpin: In my book I bring the story about the rumors and I analyze it very carefully. The result is negative. The rumors are not correct. Israel didn't carry out a nuclear test.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How did you come up with the title, "Bomb in the Basement"?

Michael Karpin: It started with a documentary - the first one on this subject that was screened in Israel ever (much of the research of the book was done in connection with the documentary). The documentary was named: A Bomb in the Basement. Then I decided to enlarge the research and to write a book together with the publisher we decided to maintain the same title.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Do you think Isreal's arsenal is the main reason some Arab nations are creating their own nulcear programs?

Michael Karpin: I am not sure that today, any Arab country is developing a nuclear weapon for sure I can tell you that the fact that Israel has a nuclear capability succeeded to deter at least two Arab leaders - President Sadat of Egypt in 1973 and Iraq's leader Saddam Hussin in 1981 - to make an effort to annihilate the state of Israel.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: One of the mysteries surrounding the apartheid South African government was the abandonment of their nuclear program. You mention in your book the possible atmospheric test on Sept. 22, 1979, which according to Seymour Hersh's sources was a joint test with South African and Israeli scientists. Can you comment further on this? And is it true that the government abandoned its program because they figured Nelson Mandela would come to power and take over the program?

Michael Karpin: For the story about the Israeli-South African test, Mr. Hersh in his book quotes unnamed sources. I couldn't get any validation for this theory.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Are you being censored right now? Are Israeli authorities hovering over your shoulder or are they monitoring what you say in this discussion from some other location?

Michael Karpin: It is a good question. I hope that no body is monitoring me now. In principle I am not currently censored but I know the rules and I am trying not to break them.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Democracies are not a nuclear danger to anyone. Israel still faces the threat of destruction from its neighbors -- by any means available to them. If Israel does indeed have strategic options, doesn't it make sense to retain these means until all its enemies renounce both their intentions and capabilities to put the region's only real democracy at risk?

Michael Karpin: Please see my previous answer about disarmament of nuclear weapons as part of the Middle East's peace negotiations.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: Are we now moving toward life in a nuclear armed crowd, as Albert Wohstetter asked some thirty years ago, and if so, has Israel's acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability given any impetus to this process? Has U.S. acceptance of Israel's nuclear capability encouraged India to seek its own capability? And has U.S. acceptance of India's nuclear capability inadvertently encouraged Iran to seek its own nuclear option?

Michael Karpin: I try to share with you my expertise with the Israeli nuclear option. It is a little bit difficult for me to give you precise answers about the future and good answers about the Indian nuclear weapon. I know for sure that India had started its nuclear project before Israel. India received nuclear installations and heavy water from the US before the IAEA was established and before the world restricted the proliferation of Nuclear Know how. I think that the fact that India and Pakistan succeeded to develop a nuclear option encouraged Iran to do the same.

_______________________

Annandale, Va.: What about India, Pakistan?

Michael Karpin: What do you mean? What is the question?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Your book indicates that the United States, rather than Norway, supplied one of the key elements in creating a nuclear weapon-heavy water, to both India and Israel. Yet, the U.S. government was surprised when India and Israel successfully produced the bomb. What gives?

Michael Karpin: No. The US did not supply heavy water to Israel. Norway did it. The US was indeed surprised when India succeeded to construct a nuclear bomb in spite the fact that it supplied her with heavy water.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: In the Middle East, is Israel considered a less volatile country than its neighbors and therefore does not warrant nearly the concern that the other countries do?

Michael Karpin: Yes. Israel was always eager not to make its Arab neighbors nervous with the nuclear subject.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: During the last flare-up between India and Pakistan, even friends and acquaintances from South Asia expressed their concern that these governments aren't as likely to avoid nuclear escalation as Western nations (too hot headed). These days, most people feel the same way about Iran, and Ahmadinejad's infamous rhetoric regarding Israel hasn't helped quell this concern.

My impression is that Israel is essentially an island of Western mentality within the chaos known as the Mid-East. What are your thoughts on Israel compared to Iran regarding the question of responsibility of a nuclear arsenal?

Michael Karpin: The idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of a dangerous enemy like Iran is completely unacceptable to nearly all Israelis. In my eyes, there is no chance that Israel will reconcile itself to leaving with nuclear threats from the Ayatollahs.

_______________________

Michael Karpin: Many thanks to all the particpants and our host. It was my pleasure to be your guest for this week's online discussion. Good night from Tel Aviv.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.