Israel Buys Upgraded Subs To Counter Iran Threat: Report

[sabra]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2053869&C=mideast

Israel Buys Upgraded Subs To Counter Iran Threat: Report

In a bid to boost its military arsenal against a perceived threat from archfoe Iran, Israel has signed a contract with Germany to buy two submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapons, a newspaper report said Aug. 23.

Under the contract signed in July, the two Dolphin-class submarines, called U212s, will be assembled in Germany and fitted with a propulsion system allowing them to remain underwater for far longer than submarines already in use by the Israel navy, the Jerusalem Post said.

The state-of-the-art submarines, manufactured by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG, will be bought by Israel for $1.27 billion, a third of which will be financed by the German government, the English-language daily said.

Israel’s defense ministry said it was unable either to confirm or deny the report.

[bahrbearian]

1. Were they bought or subsidized?

[leesa]

2. Of course THIS is not an agressive act like Iran possibly, maybe,

someday getting a nuke. Heaven forbid any country should be able to defend themselves from the US and Israel.

[bigluckyfeet]

25. How is It

Israel can buy subs that can carry nuclear payloads,but Iran cannot have the bomb?...cut off the US supply of weapons and money and see how long Israel will be "our friends".

[heliarc]

3. Oh, the irony... n/t

[Poll_Blind]

4. Coming to a coast-line near you! n/t

PB

[Sherman A1]

5. 2 subs do not a blockade make...

New toys for the Israeli Navy, who like the rest of the military structure didn't really have too good of a showing recently...

[jpak]

21. These subs will carry nuclear armed cruise missiles

The Israelis modified US-supplied Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles into land attack cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.

They allegedly have a range of several hundred miles.

They are meant for blockades, they are the third leg of Israel's nuclear triad.

[acmejack]

28. Harpoons or Tomahawks?

[LivingInTheBubble]

6. I hope there are protests in Germany

over sending arms to this terrorist country when they clearly use them to kill and opress civilians.

[INDIA]

19. When was the last time an Israeli submarine killed anyone?

???????????????????????????????????????????

[mom cat]

22. When is the last time an Iranian sub killed anyone?

[INDIA]

23. You missed the point

The post I was responding to said, "...over sending arms to this terrorist country when they clearly use them to kill and opress civilians" A submarine sold to Israel will be very unlikely to EVER kill anyone, as opposed to fighter jets, tanks, artillery etc. And oppress? Not by a submarine.

Sorry, I'm right on this one.

[bigluckyfeet]

24. There are Enough Weapons

in the Middle East,this needs to be stopped,will the US be blackmailed one day with the subs,and I hear Israel already has some.

[Pavulon]

30. The Us

has a no warning first strike and 2nd strike capable of killing a continent. SD alone is the 3rd largest nuclear power in the world. No need to fret over this from the US standpoint..

[Spazito]

7. So, if Israel can buy two submarines capable of carrying nuclear

warheads, I can assume Iran and Syria can as well? On the other hand, if there is an outcry that Iran and Syria cannot, indeed, buy such military equipment, there will be an equal outcry about Israel doing this?


I suspect the answer is no to both my questions.

[cali]

8. no and no

of course, and frankly I think these comparisons are pointless

[Spazito]

9. I am not surprised you find these comparisons pointless...

not to mention inconvenient as well.

[cali]

13. Love your insinuations

Considering that I've hardly been in Israel's corner, regarding the attack on Lebanon or the Occupation, your insinuation that I'm acting as some sort of apologist for Israel's action, is incorrect.

[Spazito]

15. I was merely pointing out that finding my comparisons pointless

to the extent of commenting on it seems to lead to the comparison also being inconvenient given there was no debate on why the comparison was "pointless" never mind wrong in it's context. I was not surprised to read your response, you may interpret that however you must, it was a simple statement.

[cali]

16. I would have thought

the argument obvious to anyone with a grasp on reality: You can't unring a bell. Israel has nukes. Pakistan has nukes. India has nukes. In a panglossian world, no country would. But that's not the world we live in. That doesn't mean that endorsing the development of nukes in other countries is a good idea. It's a lousy one. Discussing what should be, in an ideal world, is good fun, but it's not realistic.

[Spazito]

17. LOL, I have a good grasp of reality and yet still see my comparisons

as having value, go figure. It is interesting, however, that you state, in essence, as long as a country can achieve it's goal for nuclear capability, no matter if done "illegally", they will achieve legitimacy. You are not the only one that believes that, I suspect Iran does as well and you are both right.

As long as only some countries have nuclear capability and others want it, more and more countries will achieve it, that is reality.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. LOL

[HongKonger]

10. Is Israel

Is Israel a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

How is there relationship with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)?

Oh...

[MrPrax]

11. Good point...

There is no legal impediment to these countries arming themselves and the NPT is voluntary...countries are allowed to pursue their national interests as they see fit...enrichment can lead to nuclear weapons, but will lead to energy independence to which Iran or any other country is not dependent on a western country supplying them the material in order to run the nuclear plant in the first place.

The problem of this dependency is the same problems that the Third World has complained about for decades; the west can and does sanction supplies of vital goods (military, food, etc) from time to time in order to exact compliance to their global economic regime that largely benefits First World White people and rarely provides any immediate benefit to the citizens of the countries being 'leveraged'.

It's ironic that this restriction is based purely on a racist set of values that suggest that the Arab and Muslim is capable of being taught 'democracy' and 'western values', which includes the concept of mutually assured destruction, but their so-called tiny brains, culture and religion are incapable of recognizing this, but our equally pernicious 'value system' can.

Of course, a nuclear Iran equalizes the playing field and the US, Israel and their western allies, who previously ruled the region as colonies, want to continue the regional advantage they have enjoyed and profited from over the last few centuries. Mixed into this racism, is a clear motivation on the part of the west to continue to view the ME through the eyes of a Crusader out to save the souls of Infidels, which of course, is more than enough reason for any Muslim country to resist...as they should.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Is Israel planning to send her subs into the Persian Gulf?

Isn't that kinda out of the way for an Israeli ship or boat?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BadGimp]

26. how ironic

Isreal buying high powered killing machines from Germany...

Is it just me or is there a weird kind of irony to this?

[HereSince1628]

27. Adding to their fleet of missle capable subs? From years ago..

Israel Has Sub-Based Atomic Arms Capability

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 15, 2002; Page A01

Israel has acquired three diesel submarines that it is arming with newly designed cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, according to former Pentagon and State Department officials, potentially giving Israel a triad of land-, sea- and air-based nuclear weapons for the first time.

The U.S. Navy monitored Israeli testing of a new cruise missile from a submarine two years ago off Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean, according to former Pentagon officials.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54225-2002Jun14?language=printer

[Pavulon]

29. Not a ssbn launched yet

we have a fleet capable of killing a nation 100 times over. Not a shot fired. We haven;t threatened to use the thousands of megatons spinning to wipe anyone off the map yet either..

[ConcernedCanuk]

31. True, but I bet my wee Canuk butt that them PNACers WANT to

.
.
.

HIroshima and Nagasaki were purposely left out of the regular bombing sorties

WAITING for the atom bomb to be declared "workable"

Neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki were military bases/strongholds

They were just 2 of the largest cities in Japan

And the USA wanted to kill as many CIVILIANS as possible to scare the shit out of the Japanese -

and the rest of the world to boot

It worked . . .

The rest of the World watched and believed

"Mess with the USA and we will slaughter your people indiscriminately"

Haven't changed much, eh?

[Az_lefty]

32. U-boats???

:shrug:

[HuffleClaw]

33. a CAR is 'capable of carrying a nuclear weapon'

'to counter iran threat' my ass. a cheap and meaningless 'justification' for a military expense.

[Megahurtz]

34. Amazing.

While Iran sits and basically minds it's own business.