Captain Abe Ariel's Book and some more review
Someone removed the below editing by stating it is a book promotion, well it is not, it is some more information about the story and postulations led to a story/book. The book is so old so there is no promotion, rather it history review about this location that was possibly if one can assist to upgrade it to be less promotive I'll appreciate the kind help
The incident was the basis for the novel “The Last War” written by Israeli author Captain Abe Ariel [43], then a resident of Australia. Ariel, a retired Master Mariner, obviously could not have published the novel in Israel, hence he wrote it in English and published it in Australia. He never translated it into Hebrew. Ariel determined it was a neutron blast and pin-pointed its location to Truls Island, an elusive rock, situated in the center of the “area in which possible nuclear explosion occurred”, as was reported by Newsweek Magazine . The incident was the basis for the novel The Last War, [44] written by Israeli author Captain Abe Ariel, then a resident of Australia. Ariel, a retired Master Mariner, obviously could not have published the novel in Israel, hence he wrote it in English and published it in Australia. He never translated it into Hebrew. Ariel determined it was a neutron blast and pin-pointed its location to Truls Island, an elusive rock, situated in the center of the “area in which possible nuclear explosion occurred”, as was reported by Newsweek Magazine [45]. Truls Island was discovered by Captain Hanriksen, the master of the Norwegian ship Truls, while en route from South Africa to South Georgia in late 1929 [46]. According to the Hydrographer of the Royal Navy, the 150 feet tall island’s (or rather the rock’s) position is “about lat. 56º 07’ South, long. 23º 39’ East, and existence is doubtful.” [47] Times Atlas of the World has printed it with the notation ED – Existence Doubtful. [48]). The official attitude of the British Admiralty was that Truls Island remained unconfirmed [49]. All these made it an excellent location for clandestine nuclear tests.
Kind Regards
Pokhran-II Official Respond to India's Nuclear Test
Hi. I'm not scientist. It's just one info I've found inside other wikipedia article.
"However, other nations, such as Israel, France and Russia, did not condemn India's tests. Israel issued a statement praising India's tests and declaring that India's reasons for carrying out nuclear tests were the same as Israel's.[9]" ^ Air vice-chief in Israel to clinch deal. Statesman (India) April 03, 2001
I haven't read this statement, Maybe some of you guys did it. But if they officially issued a statement supporting Pokhran-II test -> And they said "were the same as Israel's" -> isn't it admitting there WAS a test? Doesn't need to be Vela Incident, but I guess there aren't many other possibilities? If you think so, maybe this should be included in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.30.32 (talk) 15:15, February 12, 2012
why does it say vela hotel
Seems like a bad auto correct Cdiesh (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
From strong suspicion to fact?
I notice that the edit made on 9 March by Doeze substantially increases the strength of the claim made in the first paragraph: from "Most independent researchers conclude that this, and accompanying physical phenomena, were caused by a nuclear explosion" to "The Vela incident was an atmospheric nuclear explosion". If there is some level of uncertainty, as indicated by the earlier edit, then that original phrasing is safer. — StefanVanDerWalt (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- It's a funny one insofar as the level of consensus is extremely strong - not just among independent researchers but also academics, governments, and their intelligence agencies - and no one can imagine what else it might have been. But ultimately there is no definitive proof, until someone finds documentation from the Israeli or South African archives or a witness comes forward.
- So I agree that just saying "it was a nuclear explosion" in wikivoice is inappropriate, but we could probably replace it with a wording that is a little more emphatic than the previous. AntiDionysius (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Doeze, perhaps you'd like to weigh in. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- thx for the ping. I agree with your assessment of the consensus. But I don't see how it is that different to stating any standard monitoring nuclear test was a nuclear explosion. The multitude of sensor types confirms it in that case as in this case. The way I see it this article is, for our purposes, about an objective nuclear explosion, including its physical traces and political effects. Doeze (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Doeze, perhaps you'd like to weigh in. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)