U.S. Supplies Nuclear Submarine Missles to Israel

[dfitzsim]

Holy crap! Talk about complicating our already too complicated situation in the middle east.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1061381,00.html

[edzontar]

1. Horrible if true....

And I have no reason to doubt it.

[Saudade]

2. Explanation

This must be one aspect of Bush's campaign to end the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

I can't think of any other explanation.

[mmm]

3. The US just loves pissin' in the wind

[RogueTrooper]

4. This is a good move

I know, I know but hear me out.

This gives Israel a "second strike" option with their nuclear arsenal. During the 1st Gulf War the Israeli's came very close to glassing Iraq. At the time people in Israel were not sure whether Saddam was tipping his SCUD's with part of his bio\chem arsenal.

The second strike option will allow Israel some breathing space before they decide what response to use.

[atreides1]

5. Here's Some Info

The Israelis have the Dolphin submarines, they have to suface in order to fire the cruise missiles, makes them good targets.

The type of missile that they use is the same that we have seen fired at Baghdad and Afghanistan, the only difference is that these have a nuclear warhead.

The Iranians currently have the latest model of the Kilo submarine, they also have at least two different types of ICBM's that can reach Israel.

So play this scenario if you will, Israeli subs launch an attack on Iran. Iran seeing the incoming missiles then launch their ICBM's at Israel. By the time the first Israeli missile hits it's target, a Iranian ICBM is on it's way to Tel Aviv and one to Jerusalem.

What a hot time in the old town it'll be.

[dfitzsim]

6. Didn't we just finish several decades of this?

Mutual Assured Destruction Middle East style.

The point about having a reliable second strike platform is a good one, and probably the reason Israel pursued this strategy and purchased the harpoon missles (I seriously doubt they intend to use it as a first strike weapon). But the U.S. should not have sold the weapons. I'm sure Russia would have gladly sold them the technology for the right price.

This will play so poorly in the Arab/Palestinian "street".

What's more, I'm not sure the game of brinksmanship that we played with the USSR will work in a region where too many people believe they have a direct line to god.

[teryang]

7. Israel is not a threat?

This issue has to be viewed objectively. The creation of strategic nuclear threat in the middle east is a direct threat to us. Israel will be viewed as a proxy for American armed forces by a few powers, right or wrong. It will be part of their operating nuclear doctrine.

For example, much as we treated Cuba during the missile crisis. An attack on Russian security interests by Israeli forces for whatever reason may result in retaliation. The Russians have probably advised dim wit that they will retaliate if Bushehr is attacked, they are building the nuclear power facilities there with their money and they have hundreds of technicians there. They have already stood by and watched Iraq fall. They will draw a line somewhere. If Americans think that Israel can attack Bushehr (which would necessarily involve extensive American cooperation) and then hide behind their small nuclear force against Russia they are wrong. Israel ultimately hides behind the nuclear umbrella of the American Armed Forces when threatening to retaliate against anyone with nuclear missiles. You can't rely on the doctrine of nuclear deterrence with some nations while threatening to pre-emptively nuke others. Objectively, they are a threat to us while we sit in our homes and peck away at our computers. These submarines are extremely destabilizing. Even if disinformation, the whole approach is extremely destabilizing.

Our junta is extremely amateurish while they play their strategic games. What happens when you miscalculate? Will the Russians and the Chinese sit by and do nothing if a nuclear device is detonated in Syria. Bluffing is a very dangerous game. What happens if you lose?

Israel has a problem, one Russian missile could destroy the entire country. The notion that a three submarine force provides a greater deterrent force than their tactical nuclear bombers or short range missiles is illusory. A three submarine force means only one can be deployed at a time on average. The notion that there is a strategic plan to deploy them in three different seas is pure bluster. They can only be in one place one third of the time on average. Then they must reveal their position. Their surge capability is very limited.

All such theater scenarios such as Israel Syrian confrontation and Israel Iranian confrontation ultimately rest on the American strategic nuclear force. Do you want to be the insurer of the madmen in the Levant at the risk of our nation? John Bolton and neo-cons want you to.

In any case any Israeli nuclear attack on Islamic nations will result in the nuclear bomb in a suitcase scenario being played out as threatened nuclear powers use their own proxies to defend themselves while trying to conceal their hands.

[tlb]

8. Editorial disguised as news.

Harpoon missiles have been in the inventory since the early 1970s. They are commonly exported to US allies, amongst them Britain, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, and South Korea. Without looking it up I believe over twenty nations have received this system. A fairer article might have taken the trouble to point out that these missiles are supplied to neighboring friendly Arab states as well as to Israel.

The editoral/news item tries to give the impession the US is supplying nuclear weapons to Israel. << Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads >>. Clealry untrue as Israel supplies its own nuclear weapons, but why let that get in the way.


The story is a legitimate news item but as written tends to misinform the reader. Unless you already have some backround on the subject, you understand less facts and context after reading the story then before. An odd position for a news organization, unless it has an agenda more important then informing the public.