Iran 'designing nuclear submarine'

[bananas]

Source: Telegraph

Iran has begun to design its first nuclear submarine, according to a report in the country's semiofficial Fars news agency.

"Initial steps to design and build nuclear submarine propulsion systems have begun," Admiral Abbas Zamini, the technical deputy navy chief, told the agency.

"All countries have the right to use peaceful nuclear technology, including for the propulsion system of its vessels," he said.

Iran's navy "needs the (nuclear-powered) propulsion system to succeed in realising very long-distance operations."

<snip>

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9326126/Iran-designing-nuclear-submarine.html

---

The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons.

While the rest of the world has been trying to reduce and eliminate the threat of nuclear war, Iran is going in the wrong direction.

Iran is provoking other countries into starting or increasing their own nuclear weapons programs, which will make nuclear war much more likely.

[jpbollma]

1. Just what we need, more religious nuts with nukes

[bhikkhu]

10. Because nuclear submarines are so scary?

If you look into the technology involved, its the sort of project that occupies decades and would sink the economies of most smaller countries. On the other hand, the technology for submarine hunting and elimination is pretty well mature in the countries of the developed world.

It sounds more like some of nutjob-in-charge stuff from the Nazi era - when someone wants to pour resources into pretty shiny stuff that ultimately won't work, you let him.

[frylock]

18. then get your ass down to the recruiter..

and with a john lennon avatar no less. fucking unreal.

[coalition_unwilling]

23. We do live in upside-down land. - n/t

[bluedigger]

3. Sounds like an Iranian jobs program.

And a good way to rally national pride.

I'll worry about them building an actual effective nuclear sub sometime around 2030...maybe...

[grantcart]

4. Who says that the Iranians don't have a sense of humor

Putting aside completely the idea of putting the engineering together that would take nuclear off land and onto a vessel, a much greater challenge than simply making a nuclear bomb, there is the entire submarine technology challenge.

If they started today it would take decades for the Iranians to build all of the integrtrated industries necessary to support a submarine manufacturing industry.

Then you would actually have to have a submarine manufacturing dry dock, all of which would be easily visible and even more easy to destroy with a simple missile.

And then on top of this is that submarines are now becoming redundant in that just like flying predators we have a whole fleet of robotic buoys making ocean surveillance by submarine expensive and obsolete.

You don't build an entire industry to manufacture a single submarine.

Not a serious effort by Iran but if you put enough red herrings on the table then it gives you more things to take off in a negotiation.

[Ian David]

7. I was wondering if they could modify one of their existing, conventional submarines. n/t

[grantcart]

16. You mean the Kilo Class

Seems like that would be like putting a jet engine on a biplane.

And these little guys are never going to get to launch ICBMs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo_class_submarine

In any case the Russians would have to do it for them.

edited to add I think we can take the 'midgets' off the table, lol

The Iranian navy has 23 submarines, including three Russian Kilo-class attack vessels, according to the International Institute for Strategic Study’s 2012 Military Balance publication. It also has 12 midget submarines, the publication says.

[pinto]

27. Agree that much of Iran's public saber rattling seems more bluster than substance. PR tools.

I would assume Iran's more concrete and disruptive (to all parties) goal is some sort of blockade of the Hormuz Strait

Interesting to see at least one country (forget which one specifically) is planning a pipeline / port beyond the Hormuz. If doable, would seem a good, if limited, workaround.



(ed to change is -> seems)

[CanSocDem]

5. You're wrong, of course.

"The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons."

This sounds like the hysterical nonsense written by the MIC knowing that fear will provoke reasonably intelligent people to get behind their weapons programs.

And you know where this leads, don't you....???? That's right, more war. Is that what you are promoting here????

The USA is the only religious "nut case" on the planet with nuclear weapons.

.

[RC]

6. Finally, someone said it!

The USA is the only religious "nut case" on the planet with nuclear weapons.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. I'd add Pakistan

There are people with significant amounts of power in Pakistan who are also religious nutcases. Hence, for instance, the laws with the death penalty for blasphemy:

Last year, two prominent Pakistani political figures who spoke out against the blasphemy laws were killed in attacks that raised concerns about the rise of religious extremism in Pakistan.

Liberal politician Salman Taseer was shot and killed by one of his own guards in January 2011, and in March 2011, militants gunned down Shahbaz Bhatti, the only Christian minister in Pakistan's Cabinet.

Qadri confessed to killing Punjab Governor Salman Taseer on Tuesday because of Taseer's opposition to Pakistan's controversial anti-blasphemy law. He was a member of Taseer's security team.

Pakistani officials say an investigation is underway to determine whether Qadri acted alone or was part of a wider conspiracy.

Hundreds of lawyers said they are willing to defend Qadri. In addition, 500 conservative religious scholars issued a proclamation Wednesday praising the assassination and warning that anyone who expresses grief over the killing could suffer the same fate.

http://www.voanews.com/content/disruptions-mark-remand-of-alleged-pakistani-assassin-113016474/133207.html

While not all of the Pakistani authorities are religious nutcases, you can say the same about the USA. The nutcases have more power in Pakistan, though.

[coalition_unwilling]

25. Not disagreeing with you about Pakistan, but the Hindu nationalists in India (also

a nuclear power) are pretty fucking scary too, at least according to what I read from Arundhati Roy.

[cosmicone]

48. There is no comparison between India and Pakistan

India is a constitutional and functioning secular democracy and the Hindu nationalists have never achieved political power. India's secular credentials are impeccable with two Muslim presidents, two Sikh presidents, a Jewish former joint military chief of staff, and several ministers from various religions including 5 Christian denominations. The leader of the ruling party is an Italian born Catholic.

Arundhati Roy is a nutcase and is the laughing stock in India. She only gets traction with (gullible) Westerners.

[EFerrari]

49. Yes, in addition to Pakistan and India and us, add Isreal

where the right wing plays the religious right just like it does here.

[coalition_unwilling]

50. You are the 'nutcase.' Roy won the Booker Prize back in 1957. Do you have

a Nobel under your belt? You probably also dismiss Amartya Sen as a 'kook.'

And when's the last time you spoke at Harvard U.?

Don't bother replying. You're now on Ignore.

[cosmicone]

51. Very mature indeed. n/t

[LanternWaste]

53. There's always one way to get The Last Word in.

There's always one way to get The Last Word in.

[coalition_unwilling]

58. I mean, really, when someone calls the winner of the Booker a 'nut case,' there's

really nowhere productive the discussion can go after that.

[harun]

12. I'd flag the OP but it won't do any good. MIC appeasers would vote to leave it.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. We only hide rude. Rightwing nonsense is fine.

[Blue_Tires]

9. The Pentagon is pissed only because once the winds change,

our people could have SOLD Iran as many subs as they could buy...

[MADem]

14. Naah--we weren't much into selling Iran that kind of stuff.

We sold them their Air Force, though, a veritable TON of helicopters (Bell and Sikorsky) and some small craft and a few decommed surface ships, and of course, a load of appropriate weaponry...but nuke subs? Even in the chummy Shah days, I couldn't see that going down. They don't need them for any kind of homeland defense mission--or even a regional defense in the Gulf.

Nuke subs, when you strip away a lot of the make-work missions they go on, are out there to deliver payback, pure and simple. You nuke our homeland, we will rise up out of the sea and deliver unto thee a Pyrrhic victory! That's their role!

[MADem]

11. Like that super-duper rocket they built, and the new "fighter plane" made out of pieces of old

Shah-era aircraft!

If they had a working brain in their heads, they'd realize that if they're going for littoral defense (and not mastery of the seas--which ain't ever gonna happen given their geographic limitations, for starters) that conventional submarines are quieter, way cheaper and much, much easier to maintain.

This is simply more sabre-rattling horseshit from Iran--they'll buy a leaky sub from the Russkies on the sly--not that I see that as terribly likely, either-- before they'd build anything that works.

[harmonicon]

15. Give me a break.

"Iran is provoking other countries into starting or increasing their own nuclear weapons programs, which will make nuclear war much more likely." Really?!

Two countries on their border have been invaded and decimated by the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in war. I can't blame Iran for wanting the same technology that other countries have.

[Remember]

59. agree

The Neo Conservatives will drag the USA into war whether it be Iran or Syria. Syrian war would make the US military fight against Russia and China, no small task. I am so tired of war it is just totally disturbing.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Drums... drums in the deep...

War drums.


Pretty foul connotation there, bananas. We have 43 attack subs, and 18 boomers. 4 of those boomers have been converted to conventional tomahawk MAC launchers, and do not carry nuclear weapons. So your claim is facially wrong.

[octothorpe]

65. Ennh... I think this is news worthy to an extent...

It's like when the US military makes a big order for equipment. A nuclear submarine is a pretty big undertaking for a country that hasn't done it yet.


I don't really understand the part about it meaning nuclear weapons in some people's minds though. Nor do I understand why anyone should see this as something that has to be stopped because it's soooooooooooooooo bad and Iran is soooooo evil.

Anyway, I'm sure I had a point before I started writing that nonsense.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. They couldn't even build their own commercial reactor

I'm excited to see how they are going to make a naval reactor.

Maybe a diesel electric boomer? Ugh.

[SoutherDem]

19. Is Iran asking to be attacked?

I at this time I do not support an attack because we have seen a real trend of "saber rattling" in this area of the world. We have seen claims which have proven to be nothing more than rallying the troops and controlling the citizens.

Also, our intelligence in this area hasn't always been the best. Remember those pesky WMDs which were to be in Iraq?

That said, I can see taken by those who would like to attack Iran as more "proof" we need to take action soon.

[The Magistrate]

20. Where Did You Get This Idea, Sir?

"The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons."

Nuclear propulsion offers several advantages for submarine operations, most importantly extended range submerged and silent operation. While these are of use to a missile platform, they are also of great utility in attack operations, against surface vessels or other submarines. Since any U.S. engagement with Iran will certainly involve massive naval forces, building attack submarines would be a reasonable resolve for an Iranian government.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. "Iran is going in the wrong direction" - It's OK for the U.S. to

have nuclear subs but not the Iranians?

Sigh

[bananas]

30. It's not ok for either.

As I said in the OP, "While the rest of the world has been trying to reduce and eliminate the threat of nuclear war, Iran is going in the wrong direction."

[coalition_unwilling]

37. The rest of the world HAS NOT been trying to reduce and eliminate

the threat of nuclear war. If anything, the contrary is true. In fact, the U.S. is violating its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to disarm it nuclear weapons.

It is certainly OK for Iran to act in its own self-defense. If Iran had numerous military bases in Canada and Mexico, you don't think we'd be right to act in our own self defense? Check any map of our military installations in Iraq and Afghanistan (or you could just take a look at post #28) and then tell me Iran isn't perfectly justified in pursuing any defense policy it deems within its national security interests.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. We have lots of nuclear submarines and are building more.

Your op is ignorant, confusing nuclear submarines with nuclear weapons, asserting that they are only used for launching nuclear missiles, and ignoring the obvious fact that Iran is and has been under threat of military attack from its neighbors and will do what it can to defend agains those threats. If we want disarmament in the region, in particular nuclear disarmament, we might want to convince our good friend Israel to first declare and then destroy its nuclear weapons, including its ballistic submarine fleet.

[hack89]

32. The US would prefer they had nuclear subs

they are bigger, noisier and therefore easier to detect.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

60. Well, at least until the diesel boats have to snorkel n/t

[hack89]

61. With AIP technology they don't even have to do that. nt

[Xithras]

22. Fearmongering exemplified: "The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons"

The only real difference between a nuclear submarine and a diesel submarine is RANGE...they are both capable of performing the same roles and carrying the same weapon payloads. The difference is that a diesel sub is limited by its onboard fuel and has to cruise with its snorkel up in order to hit its maximum range. A nuclear sub is only limited by the food stores it has onboard.

[hack89]

24. Good - let them piss away a fortune and get nothing for it. nt

[14thColony]

26. So much wrong all in one OP

1. The main advantage of nuclear submarines are a) their very long endurance on patrol and b) they don't have to broach the surface to recharge their batteries like diesel boats, which are then vulnerable to swift detection and attack. The fact that the earliest Soviet nuclear missile subs were diesels and the earliest US nuclear subs were for conventional attack tends to invalidate your position that nuclear propulsion is somehow linked to nuclear armament.

2. As other have said, Iran doesn't even have the ability to build diesel submarines, let alone a nuclear propulsion system to fit into the submarine hull which it also can't make.

3. Add to that, they now have to develop the technology to miniaturize their non-yet-produced nuclear weapons to fit into a non-existent delivery system to go into the hull they can't manufacture powered by the propulsion system they can't build.

This article might as well be titled Iran 'designing Death Star.'

[coalition_unwilling]

39. +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - Well put and definitely

needed saying.

[Prometheus Bound]

42. Well and succinctly put!

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. a little perspective

[yurbud]

34. wait, you mean Iran doesn't have that many bases in Canada & Mexico?

[MADem]

41. Your map is quite out of date.

There are very few troops left in Iraq now.

Also, Iran doesn't have a "mutual aid" defense agreement with any of those black-dotted nations.

It's all quid-pro-quo. Those nations do not give up a parcel of land (or create a joint - use installation) for nothing.

[Throd]

29. I'm designing one too! I also invented helium.

[Kolesar]

31. Damn

I was going to use that joke.

[yurbud]

33. How many nuclear submarines do we have? and how many nuclear weapons?

That should be required info in the second or third paragraph of every scare-mongering article about Iran.

[yurbud]

35. 1 min VIDEO: our nuclear subs and what they can do

[yurbud]

36. charts on nuclear arsenals

[coalition_unwilling]

38. I don't see Iran anywhere on any of your charts. Surely the OP

isn't engaging in a bit of saber-rattling and fear-mongering?

(in case it's needed)

[Nihil]

43. Thank you for putting it in perspective.

It only takes one warhead to really spoil your day ... and the size of the
first few columns in each graph compared to the subsequent ones shows
precisely where the danger of "day spoiling" is likely to come from.

[may3rd]

47. charts on nuclear arsenals looks biased

Israel has the most # of warheads ? Really ?
Who slipped Israel into that wiki graph ?

[yurbud]

54. the one where it looks like Israel has the most is WITHOUT US & Russia

once you add them, it's hard to see any difference with the rest, or it makes it look like someone getting a handful is more or a threat than it is in reality.

[Remmah2]

40. I hope the Prez has the Navy Seals on speed dial. nt

nt

[may3rd]

46. I'm sure Russia can SELL them a previously owned model

That's the shortcut to a nuke boat building program these days

[LanternWaste]

52. Iranian naval engineering reminds me of the standard Soviet braggadocio...

Iranian naval engineering reminds me of the standard Soviet braggadocio from the early seventies-- "Soviet wrist-watches are the fastest in the world!"

[sarisataka]

55. Interesting

like reading about the Chinese air craft carrier.
China is 1 vs 11+ and we have over 60 years of experience in warfare using the platform

Iran 1 vs 50-ish + surface anti-sub platforms. We spent the entire cold war era practicing anti-sub operations against the Soviets...

[dipsydoodle]

56. Will it be yellow

.

[Egalitarian Thug]

57. LOL! So did I...

when I was 12. And the chances of my success were every bit as good as Iran's.

Fear the evil bogeyman! He's coming for you and your children! We must fight them over there so we...

I love pretend news!

[NutmegYankee]

62. "The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons." FALSE

Nuclear Propulsion allows you to travel long distances fully submerged without needing to refuel. With nuclear power you can produce your own air and water and move around completely underwater with only food as a limiter.

[hrmjustin]

63. Just stay away from ny please.

[octothorpe]

64. Nuclear propulsion does not mean the same thing as nuclear weapons.

They want to build one of those for endurance and range, most likely....


Which is their right to build them if they feel it will benefit them.

[jmowreader]

66. The Los Angeles-class and Seawolf-class NUCLEAR submarines aren't armed with nuclear weapons

The main reason to build nuclear submarines is to keep from having to carry diesel.

[Marrah_G]

67. I'm designing a new warp driven space ship!

[Zorro]

68. IRAN SAYS IT SEEKS TO BUILD NUCLEAR-POWERED BIRDHOUSE

From the Borowitz archive.

<snip>

One day after the signing of a controversial deal calling for Russia to deliver nuclear fuel to Iran, Iran’s vice president said that it only sought the fuel because it plans to build the world’s first nuclear-powered birdhouse.

At a press conference in Tehran today, Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh showed reporters extensive plans for the birdhouse, which, if constructed, would be the first of its kind anywhere in the world.

Calling the state-of-the-art birdhouse a potential boon for Iranian tourism, Mr. Aghazadeh said, “We believe that people will come from far and wide to see this awesome birdhouse.”

But shortly after Mr. Aghazadeh’s press conference, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said that the plans for the birdhouse, while “impressive,” were still cause for international concern.

<snip>

More at: http://www.borowitzreport.com/2005/02/28/iran-says-it-seeks-to-build/

[FrodosPet]

69. The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons.

No, the only reason to build nuclear submarines is to stay deployed in deep water for extended periods without surfacing or refueling.

Nukes are only one of the reasons for that. You can also use them as combat vessels and coastal area infiltration.

[yurbud]

72. and like nuclear power in general, having a space program, and a couple of other things...

it's a matter of national pride for a lot of countries, a way of saying we've arrived and deserved to be at the adult table.

[and-justice-for-all]

71. Oh no!!!

How many does the use have???

[porcinaalbastrucaine]

73. Good For Iran!

America needs to stop demonizing other nations for doing exactly what the USA has done or is currently doing.

We should applaud Iran for wanting to accept such a technological challenge.

If Iran is successful and uses their new toy for bad things, I am fully confident in the US Submarine Force sinking the pride of the Iranian Navy.

Now for all you who think Nuclear Reactors and Weapons on submarines are dangerous and bad.

The reactor and the weapons are some of the safest things on board.

The Oxygen Generator, the things that makes oxygen for the people, is far more dangerous then the reactor or weapons.