Israeli Sub Fleet Chief - We can hit targets overseas.

[RedOnce]

"Submarines may be used for hitting strategic targets outside Israel's territory, chief commander of the IDF's submarine fleet, Colonel Yoni, stated. "The submarine task force is preparing for any scenario the State of Israel has defined as plausible for the army," he added.

In an interview with Ynet, Colonel Yoni revealed some of the capabilities of the Israeli army's most hi-tech and secret war machine, and hinted to the possible role of subs in future military disputes.

Nuclear capabilities?
While Colonel Yoni's statements are shrouded in mystery, publications in the foreign press have already hinted Israel's Dolphin submarines have the ability to carry and launch nuclear weapons, a capability that will be put to use should the country's nuclear ground bases are hit in a surprise attack."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3221853,00.html

[IsItJustMe]

1. Something else may be going on

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=+CH20060103&articleId=1714

Wonder if there is a link?

[RedOnce]

2. It sure seems like a logical connection.

[acmejack]

3. edit; that is a most interesting link.

Totally changed what I wanted to talk about. I am really quite concerned about these bozos willingness to employ tactical nukes. I am fairly sure any preemptive strike against Iran would include their use.

[IsItJustMe]

4. Yeah, I thought so too

[JohnyCanuck]

5. I am quite sure the engineers, weapons developers

and Dr. Strangelove's in the merchants of death "defense" industries would like nothing better than for the US and/or Israel to let loose with their new tactical nuke-toys against Iran to test how big a bang they make, how big a hole in the ground they leave, and how many they can kill in a live operation environment.

Normally I'd add the Pentagon war planners and generals to that list above as well. However, assuming they've learnt some recent lessons about unintended consequences of precipitous military actions from the neo-con inspired recent Iraq adventure, I do have to wonder if the Pentagon brass would be enthusiastically onboard for a nuclear strike on Iran, even if it would give them the chance to try out their new and latest war toys in a live operation environment, something I understand they are usually keen to do.

I understand the war gaming scenarios on attacking Iran didn't play out all that well.

Opinions differ widely over how long it would take Iran to produce a deliverable nuclear warhead, and some analysts believe that Iranian scientists have encountered serious technical difficulties.

"The Israelis believe that by 2007, the Iranians could enrich enough uranium for a bomb. Some of us believe it could be the end of this decade," said David Albright, a nuclear weapons expert at the Institute for Science and International Security. A recent war-game carried out by retired military officers, intelligence officials and diplomats for the Atlantic Monthly, came to the conclusion that there were no feasible military options and if negotiations and the threat of sanctions fail, the US might have to accept Iran as a nuclear power.

However, Sam Gardiner, a retired air force colonel who led the war-game, acknowledged that the Bush administration might not come to the same conclusion.

"Everything you hear about the planning for Iraq suggests logic may not be the basis for the decision," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1392750,00.html


The Iran crisis is more immediate in the eyes of the Bush administration, in part because Iran is among the president's "Axis of Evil." Israel, which has long regarded Iran as a more dire threat than Iraq, is making thinly veiled threats of a unilateral pre-emptive attack, like its 1981 airstrike against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. "If the state decides that a military solution is required, then the military has to provide a solution," said Israel's new Air Force chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Elyezer Shkedy, in a newspaper interview last week. "For obvious reasons," he added, "we aren't going to speak of specifics." U.S. defense experts doubt that Israel can pull it off. Iran's facilities (which it insists are for peaceful purposes) are at the far edge of combat range for Israel's aircraft; They're also widely dispersed and, in many cases, deep underground.

But America certainly could do it—and has given the idea some serious thought. "The U.S. capability to make a mess of Iran's nuclear infrastructure is formidable," says veteran Mideast analyst Geoffrey Kemp. "The question is, what then?" NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/

[Wordie]

6. Weird...who do they think will hit them? Iran doesn't have nukes.

And Iraq has been taken out by the US. So, who is this aimed at?

And it's just sort of amusing to note that the "secret" Israeli nuclear capacity is for some reason frequently discussed in the press. :)

My guess: the Israeli public. Israeli elections take place early this month. Does Yoni support Netanyahu, by any chance? Because Netanyahu's the candidate who is likely to benefit from any increased fear on the part of the Israelis. And this mention of a possible strike by another country might have that effect.

On the other hand, it may be based on some threat that Israel perceives, and so is threatening back by revealing nuke capabilities previously unknown. Would they provoke a pre-emptive strike against them, in order to justify a war against Iran?

The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, December 2005).

[RedOnce]

7. Good question! It seems offensive. Thanks for bringing up...

these possibilities.