Israel Deploys Nukes In Subs!

[RedOnce]

Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines

Guardian Unlimited - October 12, 2003

Israeli and American officials have admitted collaborating to deploy US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.

The unprecedented disclosure came as Israel announced that states 'harbouring terrorists' are legitimate targets, responding to Syria's declaration of its right to self-defence should Israel bomb its territory again. According to Israeli and Bush administration officials interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, the sea-launch capability gives Israel the ability to target Iran more easily should the Iranians develop their own nuclear weapons.

Although it has been long suspected that Israel bought three German diesel-electric submarines with the specific aim of arming them with nuclear cruise missiles, the admission that the two countries had collaborated in arming the fleet with a nuclear-capable weapons system is significant at a time of growing crisis between Israel and its neighbours.

According to the paper, the disclosure by two US officials is designed to discourage Israel's enemies from against launching an attack amid rapidly escalating tensions in the region following a raid by Israeli jets on an alleged terrorist training camp near the Syrian capital, Damascus. In a clear echo of the Bush doctrine of pre-emption, the Foreign Ministry's senior spokesman, Gideon Meir, insisted: 'Israel views every state that is harbouring terrorist organisations and the leaders of those terrorist organisations who are attacking innocent citizens of the state of Israel as legitimate targets out of self defence.'

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

[gizmo1979]

1. I did'nt know Israel had subs.

That's how much I know of this subject.

[RedOnce]

5. Yes, since the late 90's...

From the same article:

It acquired the three Dolphin class submarines, which can remain at sea for a month, in the late Nineties. They are equipped with six torpedo tubes suitable for the 21-inch torpedoes that are normally used on most submarines.

Israel's seaborne nuclear doctrine is designed to place one submarine in the Persian Gulf, the other in the Mediterranean, with a third on standby. Secret test launches of the cruise missile systems were understood to have been undertaken in May 2000 when Israel carried out tests in the Indian Ocean.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. diesel-electric, extremely quiet, almost impossible to detect

I knew that had cruise capability, I did not know that we provided them with the means to put nuke warheads on them. I wonder if Israel is ready for total global condemnation should they ever shoot one of them things off. I suspect not. They have fallen in lust with the policy that is destroying the US military and has destroyed the Bush Administration. They just don't realize it fully, yet.

Pre-emption is a sickening and destructive doctrine. Much like the carpenter doing his taxes in his workshop, every problem looks like a nail in search of a hammer. If the hammer doesn't work, get a bigger hammer.

Bushista supporters are almost on the verge of figuring out that this pre-emption stuff is ultimately self-defeating. It has to be, by definition. The more that GOP leaders recognize that the invasion of Iraq has been, is and will be a total failure, the more they will come to recognize that simply wanting something to be, saying that something is, does NOT make it so.

I suspect that even Arab nations still support the idea (not the execution) of our Afghan invasion. They feared the Taliban and AQ as much as anyone else. The problem is Iraq. Everyone knew (except for our MSM and their White house Cheerlessleaders banging the invasion drum) that Iraq would be a problem and not worth it. State knew it and wrote about it. CIA knew it, DIA knew it, even the generals that were pushed out and "retired" knew it. So did the Arab nations, Russia, the entire Euro continent except Italy and UK, and Poland.

So, applied to the US, why is Bush's pre-emption doctrine self-defeating?
Once you put such a strategy in place, several problems occur. First, it is impossible to eradicate an enemy in this manner. Let's say that you attack Afghan camps which train AQ. You cannot find each and every person, and worse, the collateral damage will result in discontent and anger, even rage, leading to more people joining in. Next, if you demolish homes, buildings, businesses, and lives, you leave those survivors with nothing to lose. You'd figure that Israel would have learned from its unbelievably flawed and immoral palestinian programs.
If an enemy exists, either they choose to change, or they choose to grow. Making change possible wins far more often than using a larger hammer. Conventional means almost never win against unconventional opponents. Pre-emption, in summary, creates more enemies than you started with.

Second, self-interest will always raise its ugly head. Once you create a pre-emption based infrastructure, you have entire armies of leaders and commanders assigned, funded and working on one goal - to find the next enemy, to search for clues faster than the enemy can "hide" them. That means that intel, infrastructure, supplies, armed and trained troops, the civil suppliers, the civilian leaders, the military leaders, even the administrative leaders all have a vested interest in "finding signs of the enemy threat". Who hear can imagine any CIA or NSA person today saying, "There is no Al Qaida threat, because there is no wish for them to attack US targets." The idea is insane, even if it is true. (and it probably is to some extent.) How dare any Intel weenie tell the truth when he risks cutting his own funding? Same for all civilian suppliers, and military leaders.

Third, it takes away resources that would have, under better circumstances, worked better to locate and stop potential threats. USAID was a great program which took the brightest from many questionable countries, taught them, and returned them to their countries with a much better understanding of the west. They LEARNED how our system can work, and that is the best lesson that anyone could hope for. Prevention works. unfortunately, when fighting a pre-emptive war, you cancel those programs (as Bush did) you turn it into a propoganda system (ditto) and you make it worse than counterproductive. (ditto again)

Israel will cut its own throat should it use even one nuke against any country. It may take some time, but that will be the result. pre-emption does NOT work.

[RedOnce]

11. Excellent points! Well stated.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Not quite the Israelis

are into something completely different... Project Guideon. If the State is about to fall, it is best defined as MAD.... I see this as just another step in ensuring that... and trust me Iran will have fleet subs with Nukes on them soon... so MAD takes on a new face regionally.

Oh and by the way, who do you want to blame for this lunacy? Can you say US Foreign Policy?

[megatherium]

21. Can you blame the Israelis for wanting a modern nuclear strategic

deterrent after the horrors of the Holocaust?

[okieinpain]

2. isreal has lost it's f****** mind. if they hit any state in that area

with a nuke they will never have another day of peace.

[megatherium]

22. I would expect them to never use these weapons unless they

suffer a nuclear attack first. This is the point of a submarine fleet: it makes it clear that any aggressor nation will not succeed with a first-strike against Israel. If it was Israel's intent to first-strike anyone, why bother with that enormously expensive weapons system?

[Sensitivity]

24. I think the destrution in Lebanon was equv nuclear strike. BUT Hezbollah

resistance is view as terrorism and they remain under the thumb of the U.S. and
Israel.

Don't think Israel is in any danger. History shows they can kill Arabs without
any consequences.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. .

:eyes:

Hiz'ballah is "under the thumb of the U.S. and Israel." :eyes: They are terrorists!

"History shows they can kill Arabs without any consequences." What a load of bullshit!

[Sensitivity]

29. Sorry, but most analysts believe that Israel's military power makes them

invulnerable to any combination of threats from the Arab world.

[Tom Joad]

34. True, there have been consequences.

The threat of terror. but as far as international sanctions against Israel for its long train of abuses and violations of international law, there has never been much response, Israel has never been held accountable.

If it were really held accountable, then there would probably be no terror, more justice, and the world would be a better place.

Support divestment. End aid to apartheid, nuclearized, Israel.

[dogday]

3. Terrorist is the word du jour

Let's you invade just about anyone you want to....

[oneighty]

4. I always wondered

how Israel could come up with sophisticated nuclear weapons and launch vehicles without massive testing.

And I alway suspected that we Americans were actually supplying nukes to Israel.

Looks like my suspicions were correct.

We are hypocrites one and all.

180

[BrotherBuzz]

19. Israel may have tested a nuclear weapon in South Africa in 1979

Your suspicion that we Americans were actually supplying nukes to Israel is very correct. Back in its day, it was a 'double super secret background' that we preposition US ADM platoons in Israel for that little event called The October War (also called Ramadan War, or theYom Kippur War) back in Oct 1973. The significant difference between then and now is that WE controlled the nukes. It now appears they have total control of the devices.

We've come a long way, baby - NOT!

[entanglement]

6. kick

[still_one]

7. I find the story hard to believe

why would they even admit such a thing?

If true, then this is back to the cold war days. It also implies that if the UN hits Iran on the NPT then they should hit India, the US, and Israel on violations, which this would surely include

[Behind the Aegis]

18. The bigger question...

Why is a two-and-a-half year story now cropping up here? Especially, considering there is a new Israeli Foreign Minister and lead spokesmen. This story doesn't give us insight into what is currently happening, just what came before.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Boy, don't we feel "safer" now?

Don't you just love our "transparant government" making secret deals to arm the world with nukes?

Where the hell is congress? Where the hell are the investigations? Where the hell is the outrcry from "our leaders"?

[Hardrada]

10. Why does this not surprise me?

We are an Israeli vassal so our arms are pretty much theirs.

[rockymountaindem]

35. I really, really don't see how anybody can say

that Israel controls the US and not the other way around. I just don't.

[xchrom]

12. k & r

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. Subs with nukes...

...are the last word in stabilizing a nuclear-armed standoff.

Why were they so popular with both the USSR and US? Because they make a pre-emptive strike on land-based missiles pointless.

There is a 100% survivable counterstrike force waiting...

A nuclear-free zone is the most preferable scenario.

Absent that, peace equals deterrence.

Not a happy state of affairs, but it works.

[RedOnce]

17. Well, maybe. Would you feel the same way if they were Iranian subs?

If not, maybe not.

[Rex]

14. There are terrorists and then there are mega-terrorists.

Our love of the atom will get us all killed and pretty soon if we don't stop this insanity! :(

[Ufomammut]

15. WW3 By Design

Certainly does appear that the pawns are being shifted into place.
Think of it as the evangelical's pseudo Armageddon.

[megatherium]

23. The Israelis are surrounded by nations that would not hesitate to destroy

them given the opportunity. Many Israelis or their parents/grandparents are survivors of the Holocaust. I can't blame them for wanting a deterrent nuclear force. (And nobody in Israel is going to be a party to any religious morons' apocalypse: the Israeli leadership is secular, and they humor the American evangelicals because they mistakenly think this is a net political winner for them in the States.)

[Tom Joad]

31. Israel is surrounded by nations it will not hesitate to destroy.

It did that to Lebanon using conventional weapons (seculars in charge at the time, no consolation at all!). It is destroying the people of Palestine.

There are parties in Israel who want to "transfer", that is, ethnically cleanse, the indiginous people out of their homeland. If you don't think Israel is just as much a danger to world peace as the United States, think again.

[megatherium]

37. Said parties are a minority in Israel. The mainstream in Israel

now understands fully that annexing the territories is a non-starter: the population of the West Bank and Gaza are now similar to that of Israel. There's little chance of this kind of territorial cleansing, and every chance of a cold peace buttressed by nuclear deterrents on both sides. (Israel has already abandoned Gaza. Expect the same in the West Bank.)

Lebanon was destroyed by Syria; Israel withdrew from that nation quite some time ago. Fortunately, Lebanon is recovering and regaining its independence (again, not from Israel, from Syria).

I should mention at this point that I do not believe that Israel is innocent in these matters, not by any means. Their crimes are well-known, as are ours, as are the other players in the region; we should not hesitate to criticize Israel when they do harm. But the implicit proposition that Israel should be dismantled, that the Jews do not deserve a defendable homeland, I disagree with. Zionism is Jewish nationalism, and to equate Zionism with imperialism or racism borders on antisemitism.

[mogster]

20. You should edit the title to say the year '2003'

The title makes the impression the deployment is of more recent origin.

;-)

[RedOnce]

27. The title of the article is: Israel deploys nuclear arms in submarines

As you imply, this has been suspected for a some time.

I think that the current issue is that "Israeli and American officials have admitted..." And it begs the question; Why? Or, why now?

[gordianot]

26. I would not be surprised if there are other area nations were given weapon

Ever wonder why Egypt made peace with Israel and did not make a big deal about Israel's nuclear program? There were many questions about this in the mid 1980's, along with rumors of what the Soviet's provided and left in the October 73 war. Nixon took us to DEFCON 3, ever wonder why? Egypt does feel threatened by this

Today's problem with Iran is that they do not have these weapons and no one can provide them. As crazy as MAD sounds it worked during the cold war.

[Comadreja]

28. What good is radioactive oil?

Good only for intimidation.

[mom cat]

30. Isn't the American collaboration in giving nuclear weapons to Israel

in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? Isn't Iraq a signatory to the NPT? They are now being threatened with massive attacks, perhaps even nuclear attacks because of a "suspicion" that they might someday want a bomb. All the while the Israelis have been given nuclear weapons bu the US.Our hypocricy as a nation knows no bounds.

[Tom Joad]

32. Sure is MomCat. Ain't one congressperson gonna say a damn thing, though.

[leveymg]

33. The Israelis have a doctrine of preemptive nuclear war.

They also claim to have a mandate for this from the International Court at the Hague. You really should read Beres' articles on this in The Jewish Press, as he lays out what has become the prevailing thinking among Israeli elites. (On edit - They also believe that their Arrow 2 ABM system would be effective in stopping any Iranian missile attack - GOOGLE "Daniel Program Israel ABM" - in other words, they aren't contrained by an assumption of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) that kept the US and USSR from destroying each other during the Cold War.) See, http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/8621/What_If_It_Should_Really_Happen%3F_How_Nuclear_War_Could_Begin_In_A_Very_Bad_Neighborhood_%28Conclusion%29.html

What If It Should Really Happen? How Nuclear War Could Begin In A Very Bad Neighborhood (Conclusion)
By: Louis Rene Beres
Wednesday, March 8, 2006

It is exceedingly unlikely, but not entirely inconceivable, that Israel would ever decide to preempt enemy state aggression with a nuclear defensive strike. While circumstances could surely arise where such a defensive strike would be completely rational, it is enormously improbable that Israel would ever permit itself to reach such dire circumstances. To wit, and following Project Daniel, Israel will assuredly not allow Iran to proceed to the stage of an assembled nuclear weapons capacity.

An Israeli nuclear preemption could be expected only if: (1) Israel’s state enemies had unexpectedly acquired nuclear or other unconventional weapons presumed capable of destroying the Jewish State; (2) these enemy states had made explicit that their intentions paralleled their capabilities; (3) these states were authoritatively believed ready to begin a countdown-to-launch; and (4) Israel believed that non-nuclear preemptions could not possibly achieve the minimum needed levels of damage-limitation – that is, levels consistent with its national survival.

Although strongly opposed by Project Daniel, an Israeli nuclear preemption would not necessarily be in violation of authoritative international law. On July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice at The Hague handed down its Advisory Opinion on The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. The final paragraph of the Opinion concludes:

The threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.

[Colorado Blue]

38. WHAT?????

Even under near-catastrophic assault in 1973, the Israelis DID NOT employ nukes.

What is this, bash Israel day?

[leveymg]

42. This isn't 1973. By the way, Beres reflects Israeli strategic thinking.

I didn't make this up. This isn't Israel-bashing. This is all-too-real.

[rockymountaindem]

36. Just because a country has nuclear subs doesn't mean they'll use them

The US and Soviet Union had them throughout the Cold War, and we didn't use them. If anything, they added to stability (as was mentioned upthread) because they made a first strike (which was considered at one point by both sides) suicidal.

And besides, this is old news. When I read the title of the thread, I thought, "yeah, what else is new?"

[Colorado Blue]

39. Good point.

I think the author is merely trying to stir up a panic about those sneaky Israelis, slithering under the sea.

[leveymg]

41. No. This is news that the US gave Israel the nuclear version of Harpoon

I don't think people appreciate how dangerous this situation has become. Please read my post above and Beres article. Then tell me that this is just paranoia.

On edit: Israel received its first Harpoon missiles in the 1990s. See below. It was not acknowledged at the time, however, that these missiles would be mounted with nuclear warheads. That was always assumed by some, but this seems to be confirmation of that fact.


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun1998/m06231998_m106-98.html
MEMORANDUM FOR CORRESPONDENTS June 23, 1998


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department of Defense announced today the possible sale to the Government of Israel of 16 HARPOON missiles, containers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, supply support, publications, training, contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $26 million.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country which has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

Israel will use these HARPOON missiles to augment their current HARPOON missile inventory as well as use them with their SAAR 4 and 5 patrol boats. Israel, which already has HARPOON missiles in its inventory, will have no difficulty absorbing these additional missiles.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractor will be Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo. Under this sale, the contractor will incur offset obligations under an existing industrial cooperation agreement.

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government personnel to Israel. However, it is estimated one or two contractor representatives will be required for up to two years on an interim basis.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

[leveymg]

40. MAD worked because both sides had nukes. Iran doesn't.

So that stabilizing calculus doesn't apply. Literally, the only thing stopping Israel is the U.S., and the fact that Iran would likely be able to deliver some chem/bio warheads on targets inside Israel, and that the whole Arab and Islamic world would rise up if Tehran were nuked.

That folks, would lead to the sort of forever war of retaliatory attacks with dirty bombs and terrorist strikes on America that would turn this country into a police state with half a dozen ruined cities. We still haven't started to rebuild lower Manhattan or even New Orleans.

It's in America's interest to everything in its power to deter Israel. Everything.

[rockymountaindem]

43. Well, there you go.

The "bio/chem, massive uprising" attack is similar to a nuclear attack as far as Israel is concerned. So, if that ever does happen first, Israel will be able to strike back with nukes. That why they have the subs. If there are no attacks in the first place, the Israelis won't need to use the nukes.

My point is that the Arabs and Iran have an overwhelming strike capability, even though it isn't nuclear. Thus, there is balance between that and the Israeli submarines.

I think another thing that plays into the submarine force that people don't talk about is the sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat by Egyptian missle boats during the 1973 war. The Egyptian ships never even had to leave Alexandria and they sunk one of the most powerful ships in the Israeli navy and caused the worst loss that branch of the IDF has ever suffered. The submarines will make sure things like that never happen again, although that doesn't speak to their nuclear capability.

[Moderator]

44. Locking....

This article is 3 years old and
is not news. If you have a more
recent source, please feel free
to repost.