Options
Israel adds 2 nuclear-capable submarines
MrBrian
Posts: 2,673
JERUSALEM - With the purchase of two more German-made Dolphin submarines capable of carrying nuclear warheads, military experts say Israel is sending a clear message to Iran that it can strike back if attacked by nuclear weapons.
The new submarines, built at a cost of $1.3 billion with Germany footing one-third of the bill, have propulsion systems that allow them to remain submerged for longer periods of time than the three nuclear-capable submarines already in Israel's fleet, the Jerusalem Post reported.
The Iranians would be very foolish if they attacked Israel," Beaver said.
Israel, operating on a policy of nuclear ambiguity, has never confirmed or denied whether it has nuclear weapons. It is believed, however, to have the world's sixth-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, including hundreds of warheads.
In Germany, members of two opposition parties criticized the deal. Winfried Nachtwei, national security spokesman for the Greens, said the decision was wrong because Germany had obtained no guarantee the submarines would not be used to carry nuclear weapons.
This red line should not be crossed," Nachtwei was quoted as saying by the taz newspaper. "Otherwise it is a complete renunciation of Germany's policy of non-proliferation."
The new submarines, built at a cost of $1.3 billion with Germany footing one-third of the bill, have propulsion systems that allow them to remain submerged for longer periods of time than the three nuclear-capable submarines already in Israel's fleet, the Jerusalem Post reported.
The Iranians would be very foolish if they attacked Israel," Beaver said.
Israel, operating on a policy of nuclear ambiguity, has never confirmed or denied whether it has nuclear weapons. It is believed, however, to have the world's sixth-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, including hundreds of warheads.
In Germany, members of two opposition parties criticized the deal. Winfried Nachtwei, national security spokesman for the Greens, said the decision was wrong because Germany had obtained no guarantee the submarines would not be used to carry nuclear weapons.
This red line should not be crossed," Nachtwei was quoted as saying by the taz newspaper. "Otherwise it is a complete renunciation of Germany's policy of non-proliferation."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
So much for a safer world I suppose.
please provide some information on Ahmadinejad saying that he want's to nuke israel.
Safa Haeri, "Iran on Course for a Showdown," Asia Times Online, October 28,2005
It has also been reported by the Washington times and Aljazeera that Ahmadinejad was identified as one of the 1979 US Embassy captors.
we're not talking about a man with good ambitions, Ahmadinejad is a major threat to the US and Israel.
He's calling for an end to zionism and the occupation, You said that ahmadinejad said that he's going to attack israel with a nuke,"incase Iran does attack them with a nuke like Irans prez has already stated he would do", firstly, how silly would that be? If you look on a map, a nuke over israel would not just kill israelis, so as crazy as he may be, I don't think he's stupid enough to nuke israel. What's stupid is people thinking that would happen.
also zionism must end, so should americas current foreign policy. I have no problems with that. Infact I myself believe that those accomplishments are both possible and feasible. Israel and america thinking that it can continue it's ways of aggression is what I find to be amusing.
be one hell of a bbq.
could someone bring the salad please.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Waiter, there's a grape leaf in my salad.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
your right it does sound foolish but i dont think a country that wants to wipe Israel off the map and vision a world without Israel and America should have nukes. it seems like more of a risk to allow a radical Islamic state like Iran to have nukes where they could use it against Israel or find its way into the hands of terrorists.
and what about a country that has used nukes (america) and a country/state that threatens to use them (israel). should they have them?
The obvious answer is no. But If you feel otherwise, please, let me know.
and again, it's more about Iran wanting to wipe american policy and israeli aggression off the map, perhaps in the same way america goes country to country trying to wipe other leaders and countries off the map to fit what/how they want things.
should I list the amount of times this has happened? where america or israel by proxy has done this? But I don't this this site has enough bandwidth? for it.
Right ... Hiroshima somehow gets spun into Israel not having nuclear weapons.
No bro, don't mix it up, we are talking about countries that already have nukes and are aggressive and threaten other countries, I simply pointed out that america has used them, what right to do they have lecturing Iran on nukes? also Israel has made it's own bed, Israeli nukes won't stop countries from hating israel, israel stopping it's aggression towards the palestinians may.
Israel can buy every weapon in the world, what good will it do? not much really.
Similarly, though, what good is Iran's posturing going to do? What, you think they are simply sticking up for Palestinians? That's just as bad as arguing that the U.S. is simply looking out for the best interests of Iraqis by building a democracy over there. Iran wants to become the top regional power in the Middle East. To do so, they need some nukes to back up the bluster. Palestine is just their most recent excuse. Historically, Persians and Arabs loathe one another. Only now, Iran needs some kind of flashpoint issue in order to flex its muscle. Supplying terrorists in Lebanon with weapons, giving lip service to the Palestinian "cause" ... It is all politics. I am not sure why it is OK to be completely cynical about American motives but actually buy into Iran's assertion that it is some kind of altruistic state. Right ... So altruistic that they think the Nazis were on the right track.
Believe me, I don't think for a second that iran cares that much about the palestinian cause, nevertheless I do also think iran is a problem, just like israel and america.
I'm not on the side of iran, I just also don't side with the US.
maybe they're hoping that the job hitler started will finally get finished.
and why does germany have subs anyway?
also, please define race for me. of what race do you speak?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Intersting point of view, given Israel's history of invasion and occupation of Lebanon..while Iran hasn't done much since it freed itself from US hegemony. Seems Israel is the terror state, if you look at facts and numbers and all those annoying little details.
There is no such thing as abstract hypocrisy when it is a matter of nuclear war. It just seems irresponsible for you to promote the idea that Iran has as much right to expand their nuclear program as Israel. I'll give you six good reasons (not my own) why Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, and why it is okay for Israel to have them.
First, the logic of "They did it, so why can't I?" would lead to a nuclearized globe in which our daily multifarious wars, from Darfur to the Middle East, would all assume the potential to go nuclear. In contrast, the fewer the nuclear players, the more likely deterrence can play some role.
Second, it is a fact that full-fledged democracies are less likely to attack one another. Consensual governments are not so ready to fight like kind. In contemporary terms that means that there is no chance whatsoever that an anti-American France and an increasingly anti-French America would, as nuclear democracies, attack each other. Russia, following the fall of Communism, and its partial evolution to democracy, poses less threat to the United States than when it was a totalitarian state.
For example, It would be regrettable should Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, or Germany go nuclear — but not the catastrophe of a nuclear Pakistan that, with impunity de facto, offers sanctuary to bin Laden and the planners of 9/11. The former governments operate under a free press, open elections, and free speech, and thus their war-making is subject to a series of checks and balances. Pakistan is a strongman's heartbeat away from an Islamic theocracy. And while India has volatile relations with its Islamic neighbor, the world is not nearly as worried about its arsenal as it is about autocratic Pakistan's.
Third, there are a number of rogue regimes that belong in a special category: North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Cuba, unfree states whose leaders have sought global attention and stature through sponsoring insurrection and terrorism beyond their borders. If it is scary that Russia, China, and Pakistan are now nuclear, it is terrifying that Kim Jong Il has the bomb, or that President Ahmadinejad might. When such renegade regimes go nuclear they gain the added lunatic edge: "We are either crazy or have nothing to lose or both — but you aren't." In nuclear poker, the appearance of derangement is an apparent advantage.
Fourth, there are all sorts of scary combinations — petrodollars, nukes, terrorism, and fanaticism. But Iran is a uniquely fivefold danger. It has enough cash to buy influence and exemption; nuclear weapons to threaten civilization; oil reserves to blackmail a petroleum hungry world; terrorists to either find sanctuary under a nuclear umbrella or to be armed with dirty bombs.
Fifth, any country that seeks "peaceful" nuclear power and is completely self-sufficient in energy production is de facto suspect. Iran has enough natural gas to meet its clean electrical generation needs for centuries. The only possible rationale for its multi-billion-dollar program of building nuclear reactors, and spending billions more to hide and decentralize them, is to obtain weapons, and thus to gain clout and attention in a manner that otherwise is not warranted by either Iranian conventional forces, cultural influence, or economic achievement.
Sixth, the West is right to take on a certain responsibility to discourage nuclear proliferation. The technology for such weapons grew entirely out of Western science and technology. In fact, the story of nuclear proliferation is exclusively one of espionage, stealthy commerce, or American and European-trained native engineers using their foreign-acquired expertise. Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran have no ability themselves to create such weapons, in the same manner that Russia, China, and India learned or stole a craft established only from the knowledge of European-American physics and industrial engineering. Any country that cannot itself create such weapons is probably not going to ensure the necessary protocols to guard against their misuse or theft.
I'm thinking about the only country to ever use nuclear weapons against their enemy... what form of government did they use?
Of course there are exceptions, but the theory is still solid.
How is the theory solid? We only have one example to study, and it invalidates the theory completely.
I'm not saying that Iran should or shouldn't have the bomb, but why is Israel any more entitled to it than Iran? If we're all about non-proliferation, we should be about non-proliferation for everyone. Israel's nuke program has been hinted at for years, and they've never confirmed or denied it. You know why that is? Because we never forced them to. It's hard to not see some hypocrisy there.
Arg ... Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the Middle East? Completely unconnected. Completely. There is no analogy here.
I wasn't attempting to make an analogy between the two situations, I was pointing out a flawed point in the article/post. Poster claimed that non-democratic nations were more likely to use the bomb, which isn't true.
Sorry ... The a-bomb thing is a real pet peeve of mine. People often evoke that as another way to bash the U.S., completely disregarding how different the political realities were back then.
Not trying to bash here, but we are the only nation ever to use them, and we're pretty vocal when anyone we don't like tries to attain them. We also chose to look the other way as Israel has apprently moved toward nukes.
How are the political realities of today different from those of 60 years ago?
The U.S. use of atomic bombs on Japan actually had the support of the other Allied nations, and the goal was pretty specific ... end the war without the need for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, which would have resulted in far more Japanese (and Allied) deaths than dropping those two bombs did. To me, this usage, while certainly open to criticism, has no real bearing on the likelihood that the U.S. or Israel would use nukes today.
Please go read my post again. I explain exactly why Iran should not be allowed to have a bomb. I give 6 specific reasons.