Israeli submarines have cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in the Gulf near Iran!

[Better Believe It]

Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran
By Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv
The Sunday Times
May 30, 2010

Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.

The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including air bases and missile launchers.

The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.

The flotilla’s commander, identified only as “Colonel O”, told an Israeli newspaper: “We are an underwater assault force. We’re operating deep and far, very far, from our borders.”

Each of the submarines has a crew of 35 to 50, commanded by a colonel capable of launching a nuclear cruise missile.

The vessels can remain at sea for about 50 days and stay submerged up to 1,150ft below the surface for at least a week. Some of the cruise missiles are equipped with the most advanced nuclear warheads in the Israeli arsenal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7140282.ece

I knew that Israel was armed to the teeth with WMD's including chemical, biological and chemical weapons. But, I didn't know they also was submarines that could launch nuclear armed ballistic missiles until I read the above article today.

And the Obama administration is worried about Iran?

BBI

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. ZeroHedge posted about that this morning. The USS Truman is on Iran's coast now too

Along with 10 other US and 1 Israeli ship that went through the Suez last week.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/uss-carrier-harry-truman-now-officially-just-iran-israel-allegedly-plotting-imminent-tehran-

Note the cautious nature of the source though...

[IndianaGreen]

2. Did anyone miss the irony of 'German built' subs for Israel Navy?

Israel Buys 2 Nuclear-Capable Submarines

By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI
The Associated Press
Friday, August 25, 2006; 1:26 AM

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401050.html

The London Times is now saying that Israel will strike Iran with nukes even though Iran did not attack Israel. This would be considered an act of aggression and genocide for "first use" of nukes.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Any sub with a standard torpedo tube is "nuclear capable"

Nothing in the article that states which missile would be used and that it has been tested.

[shaayecanaan]

10. Standard torpedo tube?

Jesus.

Notwithstanding that you probably know all about these things and were there during the sinking of the Royal Oak, maybe you'd like to have a bit of a read here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_missile

BTW, the submarines in question are Dolphin submarines, and are widely believed to have been armed with modified Jericho missiles. And no, they don't put them in "standard torpedo tubes".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. My point was that there are weapons that are nuclear capabale that launch from torpedo tubes

so any sub is "nuclear capable". Its if they have them available and aboard, neither of which the article covered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_missile

[sailor65]

19. Absolutely

Both the Harpoon and the Gabriel have been launched that way.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. FAS and others are listing the Popeye Turbo cruise missiles, not Jericho

Not nearly the payload capacity

[sailor65]

17. Since you decided to insult the other poster,

I don't have any qualms about telling you you're full of shit. The Jericho is a ballistic missile, not a cruise missile. The missiles most likely at play here are modified nuclear-tipped Harpoons (Or one of the Israeli variants), which can be launched from....let your brain catch up....."Standard" 533mm torpedo tubes (But not exclusively). And in case you're on the ball enough to point out the 650mm alternative configuration, Harpoons have been successfully launched from those as well.

So, as the poster to whom you responded pointed out, any submarine with a "Standard" torpedo tube is a candidate for nuclear cruise missile launch.

[shaayecanaan]

23. You are correct and I apologise...

this was a case of playing the man and not the ball. The poster in question is a notorious blowhard who frequently makes tenuous claims on far-flung topics (eg "the Japanese are an extremely racist people") behind a thin veneer of attempted faux-intellectual erudition.

I had presumed that references to the Dolphin submarine being nuclear capable in the past meant it was SLBM-capable. That is obviously wrong, and I apologise.

[sailor65]

32. Yikes....

I wasn't expecting that response; now I feel a little silly for calling you out. I don't know much about any posters' history around here, so I didn't divine the motivation. Sounds like I played the man instead of the ball myself. My bad.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. Don't you mean Tomahawk missiles?

The Harpoon has a short range of about 60 miles. A nuclear Tomahawk can go about a thousand miles. Modern ones may have longer ranges.

Tomahawks can be launched from standard torpedo tubes as well.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Tomahawks could be launched if Israel had them and the required support equipment

However, they are not listed as a Tomahawk user. FAS and others list the Popeye Turbo as the most likely candidate.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/popeye-t.htm

[GreenStormCloud]

31. Interesting. It has been a few years since I have kept us with this stuff. N/T

[sailor65]

33. You're right about the Tomahawk

although I did mean Harpoon. The original platform modifications were to the Harpoon, and there has been a lot of speculation about how much range the Israelis/US has been able to get out of the later variants. I recal the Harpoon being the easier of the two to encapsulate for the tube. In any case though, the Tomahawk is a good example of an effective tube launch as well.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. It is called Mutually Assured Destruction. Israel is nothing to worry about.

Israel has had nukes for decades. Israel is a rational state and is unlikely to use them unless they are faced with destruction, then they will use them to destroy their destroyer.

Iran does not appear to be a rational state. They are led by Islamic extremists who have publicly stated that they would be willing to sacrifice Iran to wipe out Israel. Their leadership is not elected, but are mullahs to whom the elected leaders must gain approval. Iran is a far more likely to actually use their nukes than any other nation, except possibly North Korea.

It is very doubtful that Israel has biological weapons. They are very difficult to control. Once you release a life-form you can't predict with certainty what it will do, or how it will mutate. It could keep on going, reproducing, spread globally, and infect your own nation. That makes them militarily unreliable, and militaries don't like unreliable weapons.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. when did Iran publicly state that they would be willing to sacrifice Iran to wipe out Israel?

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Actually, it was Amadinejad that said it. Aug 26, 2006.

However, he said that he would be willing to sacrifice half of Iran to wipe out Israel. So I do stand a bit corrected. Half of Iran instead of all of Iran. Amadinejad only speaks with prior approval of the mullahs, so anything he said is backed by the mullahs. Basically, he is their mouthpiece.

He has also stated that the loss of Iran would be a small sacrifice among the world's billion Muslims.

Those here who are ready to leap to his defense may do will to remember that he is also a Holocaust denier.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. this is all I can find from August 26, 2006

Iran: Atomic project is peaceful

Saturday, August 26, 2006 Posted: 1157 GMT (1957 HKT)

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his country's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and the new heavy-water production plant he inaugurated Saturday would serve medical, agricultural and scientific needs.

He said Iran would spare no effort to reach its peaceful nuclear objectives and that his country is no threat to any other country.

"No one can deprive a nation of its rights based on its capabilities," Ahmadinejad said in his speech to inaugurate the project, according to Reuters.

"Iran is not a threat to anybody, not even to the Zionist regime," Ahmadinejad said, using Iran's term for its arch-enemy Israel, which the Islamic Republic does not recognize.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/26/iran.nuclear/index.html

[GreenStormCloud]

21. It was Khomeini who actually said it. Sorry for the mistake.

However, Ahmadinejad is extremely loyal to Khomenini, even though he is dead.

http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/articles/20759/Iran%5C'sObsessionwiththeJews-byMatthiasK%C3%BCntzel

However, It is precisely this suicidal outlook that distinguishes the Iranian nuclear weapons program from those of all other countries and makes it uniquely dangerous. As long ago as 1980, Khomeini put it this way: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_7

October 26, 2005
"Israel must be wiped off the map … The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world . . . The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land."

(In an address to 4,000 students at a program titled, 'The World Without Zionism')


December 8, 2005
"Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces.... Although we don't accept this claim,..."

December 14, 2005
"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust..."

January 5, 2006
"No Muslim nation would put up with this entity in Islamic lands, not for one moment …"

April 24, 2006
"We say that this fake regime (Israel) cannot not logically continue to live. Open the doors (of Europe) and let the Jews go back to their own countries."

August 4, 2006
"A new Middle East will prevail without the existence of Israel."

November 13, 2006
"Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear"

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2007/09/23/2007-09-23_irans_ahmadinejad_issues_new_threats_aga.html
On the eve of his trip to New York City, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood before a banner blaring "Death to America," showed off his military might and declared his extremist regime will not bow to Western pressure.

It is amazing that on a progressive site one finds supporters of a holocaust denier.

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. so in other words no one actually said any such thing at all, right? not even Khomenei

They said plenty of other terrible things including holocaust denial, granted and making an apocalyptic religious prediction that the state of Israel would at some point in the future come to an end, granted. But they never in any way, shape or form said that they were planning to attack Israel. In fact Ahmadinejad said quite the opposite:

" Iran is not a threat to anybody, not even to the Zionist regime," Ahmadinejad said, using Iran's term for its arch-enemy Israel, which the Islamic Republic does not recognize.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/26/iran.nuclear/index.html

I don't know of anyone on this forum, who is an Ahmadinejad supporter. I think he sounds enough like a dangerous lunatic as it is without putting words in his mouth that he never said. Denying the holocaust is bad enough. Predicting that the state of Israel would cease to be at some time and point in the future is certainly enough to have people concerned. But the Iranian leadership never said anything about how they were going to attack Iran or wipe Iran off the map. What they did say was disconcerting enough without hyperbole.

I would frankly suggest that supporters of the State of Israel should be particularly opposed to a war with Iran. Because war with Iran will almost certainly bring such utter devastation and destruction in the heart of the world's oil producing region that it will almost certainly cause a global economic collapse such as the Western world has not seen since prior to World War II - not to mention all the loss of human life. The political price Israel would pay for launching such a catastrophe would be immeasurable. I would hope that even Mr. Netanyahu is not that self-destructive.

[GreenStormCloud]

28. Attacking Iran would be stupid.

They successfully struck Saddam's nuke plant before it could actually make nukes. But Saddam made the mistake of putting all the plant in one place, above ground. It was an easy target. I believe that it was the smart thing for Israel to stop Saddam's nuclear ambitions.

Iran has disbursted their production facilities, and put them deep underground. Putting them underground also means that while you may know were the enterance is, you don't know exactly where the facility is. So no country in the world, even us, has the ability to take out their nuke production, once they start making nukes. Since you can't reliably hit a target, then starting a war over that same target is stupid.

Israel is a stable state, and isn't stupid. Their government is mostly secular.

Iran's leadership is Islamic extremist, which to me means they are greater nutcases than most American fundamentalists. Did you see the part that I bolded?

I do not believe Ahmadinejad whan he says that Iran is not a threat to Israel. When he talks about Israel being wiped off the map he isn't talking about something that he, by religious faith, thinks that Allah will do someday. He is talking about what he plans to do. Israel is a tiny nation and only a few nukes would wipe it out.

If Israel has nuke missiles at sea, they are only doing what the U.S. did back in the early 1960s. Submarine missiles will survive a first strike and will be able to make the agressor pay. The hope is that Mutually Assured Destruction will prevent atomic war. The problem is that both the Soviets and the Americans were rational actors. But the mullahs think they and all the men in the country will get 72 virgins if they die as warriors for Allah. They aren't rational, by our standards of rationality.

[bemildred]

5. The Persian Gulf is kind of shallow, isn't it? Not very deep? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

8. They could launch from the Indian Ocean.

Cruise missiles have very long ranges, and Iran has an Indian Ocean coastline.

[bemildred]

16. Yabut it says "the gulf", that's why see? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Yes, it does say that.

I think that may be a reporter's error. However, the shallow waters could be a plus as it would enable to submarine to sit on the bottom and be lost in the sonar's bottom bounce.
That kind of sub has to come to snorkel depth every few days to run the engine to recharge the batteries and refresh the air, so they don't really operate that deep anyway.

[bemildred]

24. It hasn't been my impression that submarines like to be in shallow water much.

But I suppose opinions might differ about that.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. I have the same opinion too.

I know that nuke subs like the deep blue to hide in. But they only need to come to periscope depth to fire weapons or contact satellites.

I was trying to find some advantage for shallow water for a diesel-electric boat.

[bemildred]

26. Eh, OK.

I think the OP is propaganda. There is no problem about how to attack Iran, assuming one has concluded one must attack Iran. I have no doubt that Israel or lots of other players could attack Iran if they wanted to. I was just pointing out that the notion of stationing subs, that don't have to be there to do their jobs, in "the gulf" to attack Iran appears stupid. What you said supports that, so I'm OK with it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. I don't recollect any approval for the US to be there?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Is any required?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. I would have thought so?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Not if they are in international waters

[ColesCountyDem]

34. We don't need it, if we're in international waters. n/t

[proteus_lives]

18. DU doomsayers have been predicting an Israeli/US attack on Iran since 2005.

:eyes: