[Developer]

Israel equipped its submarines with nuclear weapons (SPIEGEL).
I guess this will function as further incentive for Israel's neighbors as Iran to advance their nuclear weapons program.

[boots]

Yeah, this definately complicates things. If the argument against Iran havin nuclear weapons is the desire for a nuclear-free region, this pretty much negates the argument. Not that we didn't know isreal had them, but it was one of those things that no-one confirmed or acknowledged. Not the cat's out of the bag, so to speak.

[macvillage.net]

I know I can safely bet that within 5 years, Israel will threaten to use them.

Within 10, I'm very sure 1 will be used.

History always repeats itself. The only way it won't happen, is if the world ends (astroid colision perhaps?)

The question is who? They don't have that many... they can't take everyone out... Syria looks a bit to close, fallout could be an issue. And they have Chem/Bio's they could use on Syria with.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by Developer:
Israel equipped its submarines with nuclear weapons (SPIEGEL).
I guess this will function as further incentive for Israel's neighbors as Iran to advance their nuclear weapons program.

For all I know you could be pulling our legs.

Link us to an English site, please

[macvillage.net]

This has been covered over and over as this story comes back into the news again and again:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...917273119.html

There's a link with a few.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by boots:
Yeah, this definately complicates things. If the argument against Iran havin nuclear weapons is the desire for a nuclear-free region, this pretty much negates the argument. Not that we didn't know isreal had them, but it was one of those things that no-one confirmed or acknowledged. Not the cat's out of the bag, so to speak.

the argument isn't for a nuke-free region. That is the ultimate goal, yes, but nonproliferation is a constant pursuit. Additionally, folks just don't want the Ayatollah to have a few hundred kilotons to lob at infidel cities.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I know I can safely bet that within 5 years, Israel will threaten to use them.

Within 10, I'm very sure 1 will be used.

robert, Israel has had nukes since the 1960s. It's nothing new. In all the wars since then, they haven't used them. You have no basis to project use in a decade.

The question is who? They don't have that many... they can't take everyone out... Syria looks a bit to close, fallout could be an issue. And they have Chem/Bio's they could use on Syria with.

Insh Allah, you'll get a brain stem for your birthday. Israel's nukes are defensive--they guanrantee the territorial integrity and existence of a nation that had, until recently, been under constant threat of annihilation by its neighbours. And you have no idea how many they have. It could be 5, it could be 50.

[Developer]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
For all I know you could be pulling our legs.

Link us to an English site, please

There is no English site with this story. You know how to use Babelfish.

[einmakom]

Oh come on.

Basic research, my friends.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/348773.html

And that's just the article that appeared in Israel. This is an LA Times story, saying that the Israelis have modified a US-made submarine missile in two ways:

One, so that it can fire at land targets as well as sea-bound ones, and two, that it may be armed with nuclear warhead instead of conventional.

There is still no Israeli acknowledgement of Israeli Nuclear capability, just what the LA Times would like to hint at.

So, there's nothing to do with anything German other than this being the story linked to- the Subs are not German. The missiles are US-made.

Second, don't tell me there's no English version of the story available, when I found the one published in Israel itself, and it was generated by the LA Times first, an American newspaper published in English.

See Here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...s12oct12.story

Research, my friends, is a wonderful thing.

[theolein]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Oh come on.

Basic research, my friends.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/348773.html

And that's just the article that appeared in Israel. This is an LA Times story, saying that the Israelis have modified a US-made submarine missile in two ways:

One, so that it can fire at land targets as well as sea-bound ones, and two, that it may be armed with nuclear warhead instead of conventional.

There is still no Israeli acknowledgement of Israeli Nuclear capability, just what the LA Times would like to hint at.

So, there's nothing to do with anything German other than this being the story linked to- the Subs are not German. The missiles are US-made.

Second, don't tell me there's no English version of the story available, when I found the one published in Israel itself, and it was generated by the LA Times first, an American newspaper published in English.

See Here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...s12oct12.story

Research, my friends, is a wonderful thing.

I have to correct you. From your LATimes article:

"Israel ordered three specially designed submarines from Germany in the mid-1990s and they were delivered in 1999 and 2000. The diesel-powered vessels have a range of several thousand miles and can remain at sea for up to a month.

The attempt to arm them with nuclear missiles was first disclosed in a book published in June 2002 by the Carnegie Endowment. The Washington Post published an article about the effort a few days later."

[Spliffdaddy]

[einmakom]

German subs with American missiles, altered by Israelis, is it?

The Times made that connection, I haven't read the original report to confirm it.

So the point still stands: research pays off- I'll go and look up the 2002 report now.

EDIT:

and here it is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...002Jun14?.html

According to which, Israel did purchase three diesel subs from Germany, and as a separate note, may or may not have armed some diesel subs for nuclear capability, unknown whether those so-armed diesels are the same ones as purchased from Germany.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
robert, Israel has had nukes since the 1960s. It's nothing new. In all the wars since then, they haven't used them. You have no basis to project use in a decade. Insh Allah, you'll get a brain stem for your birthday. Israel's nukes are defensive--they guanrantee the territorial integrity and existence of a nation that had, until recently, been under constant threat of annihilation by its neighbours. And you have no idea how many they have. It could be 5, it could be 50. [/B]

Israel couldn't use them on all the wars so far because the battlefield is land they wanted to aquire as a buffer. You don't drop a nuke on your own land. We wouldn't bomb the canadian border.

Israel has declaired many enemy (mainly muslim) nations further away (in Africa, Asia, and Pacific Islands, mainly Indonesia).

They had them, but no method of using them without suffering the effects themselves. Remember the caveat of nuclear weapons. The lucky ones are at ground 0. They die instantly. The ones who get punished are further away, and suffer from radiation and fallout.

Israel couldn't use their arsonal in the past, because their direct enemies were to close. No matter what they did, they would suffer the worst of their weapon. Their victim's would get the easy part (imediate death).

Not to mention, Washington would be more pissed than anything, as Moscow wouldn't believe the US had nothing to do with a Nuke going off on their half of the world.

Israel had the weapon, but no real substantial method of use in the past.


Off the nuke topic..

BTW: Sometime in the next two weeks:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1008596981749

At least, that's what one of those papers was reporting earlier.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Israel couldn't use them on all the wars so far because the battlefield is land they wanted to aquire as a buffer. You don't drop a nuke on your own land. We wouldn't bomb the canadian border.

that's moronic. If Israel really wanted to eliminate Arab nations, they would have nuked Egypt and Syria years ago. Not doing so shows no desire to use nuclear weapons except as a last-ditch self-defense, self-preservation effort. Thankfully that day has not come.

Israel has declaired many enemy (mainly muslim) nations further away (in Africa, Asia, and Pacific Islands, mainly Indonesia).

This is absolutely unintelligible.

They had them, but no method of using them without suffering the effects themselves. Israel couldn't use their arsonal in the past, because their direct enemies were to close. No matter what they did, they would suffer the worst of their weapon.

A worthless and untrue statement. Israel has had the capability to deliver them by plane. Given their air superiority in past wars and general superiority in peacetime, they could have delivered them at any time with no effects on Israel proper.

Moscow wouldn't believe the US had nothing to do with a Nuke going off on their half of the world.

The Middle East has never been the United States' part of the world. Your analysis continues to be severely lacking in depth and perspective.

Israel had the weapon, but no real substantial method of use in the past.

I've already shot this down. See above.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
that's moronic. If Israel really wanted to eliminate Arab nations, they would have nuked Egypt and Syria years ago. Not doing so shows no desire to use nuclear weapons except as a last-ditch self-defense, self-preservation effort. Thankfully that day has not come.[/b]This is absolutely unintelligible. [/b]A worthless and untrue statement. Israel has had the capability to deliver them by plane. Given their air superiority in past wars and general superiority in peacetime, they could have delivered them at any time with no effects on Israel proper. [/b]The Middle East has never been the United States' part of the world. Your analysis continues to be severely lacking in depth and perspective. [/b]I've already shot this down. See above. [/B]

1. A nuke on Syria or Egypt would have consequences on Israel's health. To close for no side effects. Cancer rates in Russia are linked to the Atomic bombs dropped by the US in WWII. Israel wouldn't harm their own property.

2. Israel wouldn't drop by air as most of these countries are landlocked by those who wouldn't give flyover rights. Much less give flyover rights for a nuclear weapon. Would create to much turmoil. Water is the best route as international waters are just that.

3. Israel wouldn't do it during the cold war because it's to close to the USSR. Would have made the US look bad. US is Israel's sugar daddy.


"Thankfully that day has not come".

Thankful for who? The media which makes tons of money off of this BS? Or the civilians that are killed through this BS?

IMHO, I'd think being nuked is a lot less painful than being blown up or runover by a bulldozer.

Sometimes I wonder if suffering is better than death.

Perhaps one day the US (or better yet a UN force) will invade and just take care of it once and for all. Agree to peace, or pay.

That's the only way to deal with it without using the nuke.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
that's moronic. If Israel really wanted to eliminate Arab nations, they would have nuked Egypt and Syria years ago ...[/B]

I don't think even Israel is moronic or fanatical enough to detonate a nuke in a neighbouring country. The effects of Chernobyl could be felt half-way around the world. A nuke in either Syria or Egypt would likely subject as many Jews to serious radiation poisoning as it kills Arabs.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
1. A nuke on Syria or Egypt would have consequences on Israel's health. To close for no side effects. Cancer rates in Russia are linked to the Atomic bombs dropped by the US in WWII. Israel wouldn't harm their own property.

that is absolutely stupid. You obviously know little about physics and fallout.

2. Israel wouldn't drop by air as most of these countries are landlocked by those who wouldn't give flyover rights. Much less give flyover rights for a nuclear weapon. Would create to much turmoil. Water is the best route as international waters are just that.

If Israel was intent on dropping a nuke, you really think they'd give a rats ass about flyover rights? hahahahah! Just use the example of the Entebbe Raid to see how they view 'flyover rights'. hahahah! You look more and more like the infidel fool you are every time you write.

3. Israel wouldn't do it during the cold war because it's to close to the USSR. Would have made the US look bad. US is Israel's sugar daddy.

Israel never used nukes because it didn't have to. Its military superiority, in part provided by the United States, helped guarantee its territorial integrity and security from outside attack.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I don't think even Israel is moronic or fanatical enough to detonate a nuke in a neighbouring country. The effects of Chernobyl could be felt half-way around the world. A nuke in either Syria or Egypt would likely subject as many Jews to serious radiation poisoning as it kills Arabs.

not if used correctly and in the right yield. But as I've said a bunch of times, correcting robert while I'm at it: Israel's intent isn't to use nukes. It has them simply as a guarantee of its existence.

[nvaughan3]

here's to hoping that if they do drop the bomb its right over new jersey.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
that is absolutely stupid. You obviously know little about physics and fallout. [/b]

All known leaks of radiation (intentional or unintentional) have been felt as far as half way around the world.

There is no possible way Israel could use a nuke of any size that's capable of being a "deterent" in a neighboring country without having ill effects on themselves.

If Israel was intent on dropping a nuke, you really think they'd give a rats ass about flyover rights? hahahahah! Just use the example of the Entebbe Raid to see how they view 'flyover rights'. hahahah! You look more and more like the infidel fool you are every time you write.

Israel could irraticate it's target, but it still has to deal with everyone else.

Israel isn't stupid about foreign relations to the rest of the world... it's just stupid about security and it's neighbors.

Any country knows it's neigbors are the frontlines of any possible invasion. Why do you think we cooperate so much with Mexico regardless of public opinion? We aren't stupid. Mexico's security is our security. Making Mexico side with us means we have a giant buffer between the next possible enemy.

Israel did this in part with treaties with Egypt and Jordan... but wasn't smart enough to consider the fact that there are more possible fronts.

Israel never used nukes because it didn't have to. Its military superiority, in part provided by the United States, helped guarantee its territorial integrity and security from outside attack.

9/11. Every terror attack on Israel. Yep. Your right. It does work. The US and Israel got exactly what they wanted (rather what you enjoy).

Nukes really are rather pointless. They never accomplish anything.


Problem is for the first time Israel is capable of using Nukes without dealing with any other nation (flyover). This escelates tensions more than anything else.

They can't use them without reprocussions. Someone is still going to chem/bio them if they use it... so they know they can't.

The problem is that it creates an arms race in a vulnerable part of the world. Why Israel is looking to encourage it's enemies to build up more arms and agression is anyone's guess.


The key to peace, as every nation has learned, is to ease hostilities with it's enemies. How to do that evenly, so no country feels vulnerable is what's hard.

At the very least, mantaining the level of hostility is demanded.

Raising it, is malicious and foolish. Not only does this make Israeli's more vulnerable to stronger weapons in the future, but all it's allies (US included).


Why they insist on intentionally making conditions worse and worse is just astounding. As if it wasn't bad enough before.


I'm for all out war. Why? Because less people will die if they get out the real weapons, and just start killing. It will be over rather quick... and the rest of the world can move on.

Tensions can only build so much before they break.

The US and Europe learned this lesson. The middle east partly has (Israel/Jordan, Israel/Egypt). But not entirely.

Until someone realizes that escalating tensions means more problems... blood shall pour.

here's to hoping that if they do drop the bomb its right over new jersey.

I guess.

Because I know when that happens, I will die quickly, not even knowing what will happen. And you can suffer and die slowly and painfully from cancer.

[Uday's Carcass]

you know, Robert, I can't even be bothered with your tripe anymore. No matter how many times I shoot you down and humiliate you and your positions in front of everyone, you just don't learn. Your analyses are wrong. The premises on which you base your arguments are wrong. Your knowledge of history is more a sad lack thereof.

[Developer]

Israel orders 2 more nuclear launching submarines from Germany (SPIEGEL)

[timmerk]

Germany supplied me with nuclear subs as well.

Ahahaa, it's really late.

[Face Ache]

a) Israel knows a bit about fallout. They were testing in the Indian Ocean to see if the fallout would reach Western Australia. Mother****ers.


b) The Israeli sub story ain't true. Research, my friends, is a wonderful thing.

Writing Sunday in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, diplomatic correspondent Aluf Benn said the Mossad routinely uses foreign journalists in its attempts to head off Iran's alleged attempts to attain nuclear weapons.

"Sometimes the foreign media are used to deliver deterrence-oriented messages about Israel's capabilities and intentions," Benn wrote.

c) "Baaaaaaaaaa!"

[finboy]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I know I can safely bet that within 5 years, Israel will threaten to use them.

Within 10, I'm very sure 1 will be used.

I remember saying that over 20 years ago, when I first learned that Israel had (suspected) nukes. And I remember thinking that those nukes were the only thing keeping them in play. That may still be the case.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
you know, Robert, I can't even be bothered with your tripe anymore. No matter how many times I shoot you down and humiliate you and your positions in front of everyone, you just don't learn. Your analyses are wrong. The premises on which you base your arguments are wrong. Your knowledge of history is more a sad lack thereof.

Actually, it looks like macvillage took you to town.

He brings up valid points, you bring up baseless assertions.

Both interesting, though his have a certain, oh, I don't know... factual basis to them?

[Spliffdaddy]

The day macvillage brings up valid points is the day I vote Democrat.

I can provide linkage to his thoughts on marijuana and the drug war - which are the epitome of spontaneous 'factoid self-generation' and random words forming incohenerent sentences.

Tell us again how most marijuana contains powerful drugs meant to increase its potency.