Posted on 05/30/2010 10:28:48 AM PDT by Nachum
'Sunday Times': Submarines with nuclear missiles in Persian Gulf
Israel is planning to permanently station a submarine carrying nuclear cruise missiles in the Persian Gulf, the Sunday Times reported on Sunday. Israeli submarines have visited the Gulf before, but the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
Israel=the only nation in the world with the guts to do anything against Iran.
Our media......making the intelligence gathering easy for the enemy......
good for them. Stick a finger in the keynan’s eye.
Ahhhhhh yes but they have no idea where they are. You gotta love submariners.
Hey,,,,,,you could include Destroyer Sailors along with my last.
This sounds like a leak with a point.
Officially, the Israeli government cannot announce that they have posted nuclear-armed subs in the Gulf. It would create an uproar.
Unofficially, however, they want Ahmadinejad to know -- for damn sure -- that there are nuclear-armed subs in the Gulf.
It's called "deterrance".
Very smart move. Israel is such a tiny piece of land which makes it appear very vulnerable to the muzzies. Give’em something else to think about.
Iran must have their nuke, it appears.
And there simply may be NO Israeli subs in the area. No way to know; for sure that it is.
That's another legitimate option.
We would probably know, due to ongoing ASW efforts in the Gulf, but the Iranians would have no way of knowing.
Holy crap. This is huge. The arms race just kicked into a higher gear. When every muslim country retaliates with their own nuclear armed subs, our SDI efforts arent’ gonna be worth squat. I think our current gargantuan military advantage is going to be eroded away to a mild or minute advantage in about 20 years.
The only reasonable thing that Israel can do at this point to assure their survival is figure out when the crackpot Iranian leader is at parliament, check which way the wind is blowing, and then simply nuke that part of Tehran, along with nuking other sites. Then see what the world thinks of them.
Given the world intransigence (Bush included), any other approach simply means waiting for Iran to incinerate them.
At this point, they have nothing to lose.
Oh please. They can’t get their subs through the suez undetected. They can’t get any supply ships through the suez undetected. Everyone will have a pretty good idea where it is every time is goes through the suez.
20 years is irrationally optimistic. Try five years, ‘cause NK and Russia and China are feeding technology and hardware to the Syrians and Iranians. The crisis in the Gulf shows and the ‘accident’ in the refinery tanks proved our total weakness. With the affiramtive action bastard sitting int he Oval Office, the time for the islamomurderers is fast approaching critical timing. Before Januaryt 2013, our metal will be tested in an horrific way.
It did? You mean that when Iran developed an ICBM that could reach Israel and Europe with all their new nukes that didn't kick it into high gear?
And this information is coming out within a few days of the decision by Netanyahu to not attend Obama’s nuclear summit. Seems Egypt and other Muslim nations planned to make an issue of Israel’s ‘possible’ possession of nuclear weapons.
Theoretically, they could make the journey around the African continent with support ships then base it our of the port of Elat, thereby making it possible to avoid the Suez.
What if they didn't use the Suez?
What if they went the long way, around Africa? Once they are there, they can use the supply bases of their military ally, India.
Not in this case, for two reasons... First, the existence of Israel's unacknowledged submarine-based nukes is common knowledge, as is the recent deployment of at least one of their "mini-boomer" Dolphins to the Red Sea base at Eilat (from the Submarine Flotilla's regular Mediterranean base at Haifa). Second, Israel wants Teheran to ponder this reality as Iran considers its future.
Check the map. Israel has a port on the Red Sea (Eilat). A submarine flotilla based at Eilat would have immediate access to the Arabian Sea and, thence, the Persian Gulf.
In addition, I seem to recall a story around a month-or-so ago about an Israeli sub transiting the Suez Canal -- bound for Eilat. Which surprised me, too.
Given the time, the money to buy anything needed, the materials, the plans, and the personnel, it is almost impossible that they do not have one, and have it ready.
It would make me feel better if 'we' didn't.
Operation Samson ?shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
In 300 foot waters? Probably not.
Charpy or Izod?
Good works do not carry a man to heaven ... but bad works will ferry him to Hell.
okie,
No surprise there because of the following:
Bound with International Laws, Egypt can't prevent any vessels from going through the Suez Canal as long as the dues are paid. The only way that Egypt will not allow vessels to go through is, if Egypt is at war with the owner country, as was the case with Israel before the peace.
We also heard that certain ME regimes don't want to see or live with a nuclear Iran. There was some talk about a Saudi permission to Israel to fly through the Saudi airspace to attack Iran.
I don't think that Mubarak will object to Israeli military movements against Iran.
Just sayin'
Why does the term “Israel Navy” sound strange to me?
Sounds like a good idea to me = A sub (with nuke-tipped cruise missiles) lets Israel put one (or more) weapons into Iran WITHOUT needing Obama’s permission to fly across Iraqi airspace under US radar knowledge.
Nuke-tipped BM sub is much, much more difficult and expensive than a cruise missile sub. But it is easier to make a BM-tipped nuke than a smaller cruise missile sized nuke.
So much for stealth, thanks for telling everyone, what no map link with “x” marks the spot? Israel is truly on its own. Pray for Israel.
Stop talking Use them
Most likely a contributing factor when the outbound USS Hartford (SSN 688I) dinged the USS New Orleans in the Straights last year.
Commonly referred to as the "Tin Can Navy."
If any country needs subs with Nukes it’s Israel. Only thing they need more is for Jeshua Hammeshiah to arrive with fire and brimstone and hundred pound hailstones raining down from heaven.
bookmark
That's the way I saw it, too.
There isn't a country in the Middle East -- save, perhaps, Syria -- that wants to see Iran get the bomb.
It would endanger and threaten them all.
Consequently, they would actively help Israel neutralize the threat -- unofficially, of course.
Our mettle too.
Have to disagree. You simply don't do not bluff with a nation like Iran, they are crazy enough to call your bluff. You better believe the Israel sub is there and it is surely loaded with enough nukes to defend Israel.
I didn’t know that the Israeli’s had this capability. So much for worries about fly over permissions and air-to-air refueling. The Iranians are on borrowed time.
I seriously doubt the Israeli Navy would consider stationing a submarine in the Persian Gulf for many reasons.
1. the average deapth of the Gulf is less than 160ft or 50 meters, subs like at least four times that depth to hide in.
2. the Gulf is littered with oil wells, both inuse and abandoned, every one is a hazard, esp to a sub.
3. the Gulf has hundreds of islands, shoals and reefs. Like oil wells everyone is a hazard.
4. there is only one way in/out of the Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz, a 20-25 miles wide passage that is bordered on 3 sides by Iran.
5. what Gulf Nation would allow an Israeli Sub to use its port?
Israel would probably station a submarine in the North Arabian Sea to the south of Iran, that sub could, if ordered enter the Gulf and launch an attack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.