A step toward war

[Monte_RCMS]

from the Wiki reference by Saburo:

The Israeli Navy operates modern German-built Dolphin-class submarines.[129]

First three Dolphins were delivered to Israel in 1999 and replaced the aging Gal class submarines, which had served in the Israeli navy since the late-1970s.[130]

**Various reports[111] indicate that these submarines are equipped with Popeye Turbo cruise missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads with extremely high accuracy. The proven effectiveness of cruise missiles of its own production may have been behind Israel’s recent acquisition of these submarines which are equipped with torpedo tubes suitable for launching long-range (1500–2400 km) nuclear-capable cruise missiles[131][132] that would offer Israel a second strike capability.[133] **

Israel is reported to possess a 200 kg nuclear warhead, containing 6 kg of plutonium, that could be mounted on cruise missiles.[134] The missiles were reportedly test launched in the Indian Ocean near Sri Lanka in June 2000, and are reported to have hit their target at a range of 1500 km.In June 2002, former State Department and Pentagon officials confirmed that the U.S. Navy observed Israeli missile tests in the Indian Ocean in 2000, and that the Dolphin-class vessels have been fitted with nuclear-capable cruise missiles of a new design.It is believed by some to be a version of Rafael Armament Development Authority’s Popeye turbo cruise missile while some believe that the missile may be a version of the Gabriel 4LR that is produced by Israel Aircraft Industries. However, others claim that such a range implies an entirely new type of missile.[135][136][137]

During the second half of the 1990s, Israel asked the United States to sell it 50 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles to enhance its deep-strike capabilities. Washington rejected Israel’s request in March 1998, since such a sale would have violated the Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines, which prohibit the transfer of missiles with a range exceeding 300 km. Shortly after the rejection, an Israeli official told Defense News, “History has taught us that we cannot wait indefinitely for Washington to satisfy our military requirements. If this weapon system is denied to us, we will have little choice but to activate our own defense industry in pursuit of this needed capability.” In July 1998, the Air Intelligence Center warned the U.S. Congress that Israel was developing a cruise missile of new type.[138]

According to Israeli defence sources, in June 2009 Israeli Dolphin-class submarine sailed from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea via Suez Canal during a drill that showed that Israel can access the Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf, far more easily than before.[139] IDF sources said the decision to allow navy vessels to sail through the canal was made recently and was a definite “change of policy” within the service. Israeli officials said the sub passed through the canal above water. In the event of a conflict with Iran, and if Israel decided to involve its Dolphin-class submarines, the quickest route would be to send them through the Suez Canal.[140]

The Israeli fleet was expanded after Israel signed 1.3 billion euro contract to purchase two additional submarines from ThyssenKrupp’s subsidiary HDW in 2006. These two U212s are to be delivered to the Israeli sea corps in 2011 and are “Dolphin II” class submarines.[141] The submarines are believed to be capable of launching cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads, despite statements by the German government in 2006, in confirming the sale of the two vessels, that they were not equipped to carry nuclear weapons.[142]

The two new boats are an upgraded version of the old Dolphins, and equipped with an Air-independent propulsion system, that allow them to remain submerged for longer periods of time than the three nuclear arms-capable submarines that have been in Israel’s fleet since 1999.[105][143] In October 2009 it was reported that the Israeli navy sought to buy a sixth Dolphin class submarine.[144]

 

[gilliam]

Subs won’t stop anyone from nuking Tel Aviv. Nuclear bomb forensics is primitive at best.

 

[gilliam]

colmywaykurtz,

Jericho II missiles won’t make it to Iran’s nuclear sites. Their range is 1500 km
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_(missile)#Jericho_II

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The Jericho III entered service in 2008 and has a much larger range and better accuracy.

 

[gilliam]

‘Missile shields no match for Iran’s arsenal’
Senior military advisor to Khamenei says all of Israel is within reach of Tehran’s current missiles.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

colmywaykurtz,

Jericho II missiles won’t make it to Iran’s nuclear sites. Their range is 1500 km
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_(missile)#Jericho_II

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_n7RltmTdk...qfW39eyefs/s1600/Jericho+II+missile+range.jpg

The Jericho III entered service in 2008 and has a much larger range and better accuracy.

Wikipedia suggests you may be wrong, sir. Didn’t you read the article I linked to?

 

[colmywaykurtz]

“In the mid 1980s the Jericho II medium-range missile, which is believed to have a range of 2800–5000 km, entered service.[108][109][110]”

 

[donsnow]

Good morning, Dale,

I appreciate your informative post about Israeli submarines. I’m glad they have them, and their own cruise missiles, too. I think it’s so sad that Israel can’t rely on us as well as we can rely on them.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Dale_M]

I don’t see where it stops the US government from engaging in diplomacy, note we already don’t have diplomatic relations with Iran.

While it is true that the US does not have formal diplomatic relations with Iran, we have been engaging in diplomatic negotiations with them. These negotiations are often portrayed as the alternative to war with Iran.

The objections to this bill that I have seen mentioned repeatedly is in reference to section 601, subsection c and d

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. – No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that – (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER. – The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.

However, those subsections do not presently appear in the bill.
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112VNpUwo:e96944:

Is it possible the provisions which were so controversial have been amended out?

 

[Dale_M]

Wikipedia suggests you may be wrong, sir. Didn’t you read the article I linked to?

“In the mid 1980s the Jericho II medium-range missile, which is believed to have a range of 2800–5000 km, entered service.[108][109][110]”

Wikipedia is only as reliable as its sources. None of the sources which are cited support the claim that the Jericho II has such a long range.

Citation 108 says: “The Jericho 2 is credited with a range of 2000 to 2800 kilometers”

Citation 109 says: “These missiles were tested to a range of 1300 km (800
miles”

Citation 110 doesn’t mention a range at all.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel#Missiles

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Samson Option
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the 1991 book by Seymour Hersh, see The Samson Option (book).

The Samson Option is a term used to describe Israel’s alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well.[1] Israel refuses to admit it has nuclear weapons or to describe how it would use them, an official policy of nuclear ambiguity, also known as “nuclear opacity.” This has made it difficult for anyone outside the Israeli government to definitively describe its true nuclear policy, while still allowing Israel to influence the perceptions, strategies and actions of other governments.[2]

As early as 1976, the CIA believed that Israel possessed 10 to 20 nuclear weapons.[3] By 2002 it was estimated that the number had increased to between 75 and 200 thermonuclear weapons, each in the multiple-megaton range.[4] Kenneth S. Brower has estimated as many as 400 nuclear weapons.[5] These can be launched from land, sea and air.[6] This gives Israel a second strike option even if much of the country is destroyed.[7]
The term “Samson Option” has also been used more generally in reference to Israel’s nuclear program.[8] Commentators have also employed the term in reference to situations where non-nuclear, non-Israeli actors, such as Saddam Hussein,[9] Yassir Arafat[10] and Hezbollah[11] have threatened conventional weapons retaliation—and even regarding former United States President George W. Bush’s foreign policy.[12]

The original conception of the Samson Option was only as deterrence. According to US journalist Seymour Hersh and Israeli historian Avner Cohen, Israeli leaders like David Ben-Gurion, Shimon Peres, Levi Eshkol and Moshe Dayan coined the phrase in the mid-1960s. They named it after the biblical figure Samson, who pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and thousands of Philistines who had gathered to see him humiliated. They contrasted it with ancient siege of Masada where 936 Jewish Sicarii committed mass suicide rather than be defeated and enslaved by the Romans.[13]

Although nuclear weapons were viewed as the ultimate guarantor of Israeli security, as early as the 1960s the country avoided building its military around them, instead pursuing absolute conventional superiority so as to forestall a last resort nuclear engagement.[14]
Seymour Hersh writes that the “surprising victory of Menachem Begin’s Likud Party in the May 1977 national elections…brought to power a government that was even more committed than Labor to the Samson Option and the necessity of an Israeli nuclear arsenal.”[15]

Louis René Beres, a professor of Political Science at Purdue University, chaired Project Daniel, a group advising Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, argues in that paper and elsewhere that the effective deterrence of the Samson Option would be increased by ending the policy of nuclear ambiguity.[16] In a 2004 article he recommends Israel use the Samson Option threat to “support conventional preemptions” against enemy nuclear and non-nuclear assets because “without such weapons, Israel, having to rely entirely upon non-nuclear forces, might not be able to deter enemy retaliations for the Israeli preemptive strike.”[17]

In 2002, the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter in which he wrote: "Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow — it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens?

For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away–unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans–have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?"[18]

In 2003, Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at Israel’s Hebrew University, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel’s existence.[19] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst’s “The Gun and the Olive Branch” (2003) as saying:
"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’ I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.[20]
[edit]

 

[gilliam]

However, those subsections do not presently appear in the bill.
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112VNpUwo:e96944:

Is it possible the provisions which were so controversial have been amended out?

Possibly, or weren’t there to begin with.

 

[OneSheep]

Thank you for the information. Was there anything in your link that supported your claim that AIPAC was #2 “after AARP”.

And I still stand behind that statement, as the wiki article points out, there are few conspiracies regarding “undue influence” or “control of the US government” regarding AARP or the NRA.

I did find it interesting that the issue was brought up during last nights debate. Even Rep Ron Paul stated, as far as a US strike against Iran, it is NOT going to happen.

Here is the link to the #2 position:

money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/12/08/234897/index.htm

As far as “undue influence”, I obviously disagree with that opinion. When our congress stands up and applauds virtually everything Israel does, including the cluster bombing of Lebanon, which was totally unnecessary, and takes the unprecedented step of stifling diplomacy with Iran, and continues to give billions of dollars in aid to a country (Israel) that needs it far less than we do, I think the actions speak for themselves. The West Bank Real Estate lobby is arguably the most influential force on U.S. foreign policy in the history of our nation.

As far as Ron Paul goes, he may be our only hope in terms of stopping some aggression from happening, because he may be the only guy willing to stand up to the West Bank Real Estate lobby. Everyone else competes for the lobby’s money; the more hawkish they are on Iran, the more they get.

I wish this thread would veer away from attack strategies and scenarios. War is not the Christian way to solve these problems, prayer and forgiveness (yes, including forgiving Iran for wanting nuclear weapons and supporting Israel’s enemies, and Iran forgiving us for assasinating their president in the 50’s). What else are the reconcilable issues? Maybe we can solve the whole works right here. Iran’s acceptance of other currencies to buy their oil is a big one.

 

[OneSheep]

While it is true that the US does not have formal diplomatic relations with Iran, we have been engaging in diplomatic negotiations with them. These negotiations are often portrayed as the alternative to war with Iran.

The objections to this bill that I have seen mentioned repeatedly is in reference to section 601, subsection c and d

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. – No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that – (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER. – The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.

However, those subsections do not presently appear in the bill.
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112VNpUwo:e96944:

Is it possible the provisions which were so controversial have been amended out?

What is the status of these sections? I hit the link and it didn’t work. Where can I find the latest? Zunes’ article against these sections was just posted on another anti-war site yesterday:

nationofchange.org/iran-threat-reduction-act-actually-enhances-threat-war-1321370133

 

[gilliam]

What is the status of these sections? I hit the link and it didn’t work. Where can I find the latest? Zunes’ article against these sections was just posted on another anti-war site yesterday:

nationofchange.org/iran-threat-reduction-act-actually-enhances-threat-war-1321370133

The text of the bill is here:
govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1905

As you can see, there is no section 601, subsection c and d which are the disputed sections. They either were removed in committee or never existed in the bill’s final form.

Bottom line is that the matter is made mute.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Wikipedia is only as reliable as its sources. None of the sources which are cited support the claim that the Jericho II has such a long range.

Citation 108 says: “The Jericho 2 is credited with a range of 2000 to 2800 kilometers”

Citation 109 says: “These missiles were tested to a range of 1300 km (800
miles”

Citation 110 doesn’t mention a range at all.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel#Missiles

Okay, point taken. But, up to this point, Iran still has had no nuclear weapon to put on a missile. And even before 2008, as I think someone already pointed out, Israel still had the option of launching from close to Iran via SLBM.

Israel has therefore had an unbroken run of undisputed superiority in the nuclear game with Iran—and with every other Islamic nation, with the possible and disputable exception of Pakistan.

 

[gilliam]

Okay, point taken. But, up to this point, Iran still has had no nuclear weapon to put on a missile. And even before 2008, as I think someone already pointed out, Israel still had the option of launching from close to Iran via SLBM.

Israel has therefore had an unbroken run of undisputed superiority in the nuclear game with Iran—and with every other Islamic nation, with the possible and disputable exception of Pakistan.

How many states surrounding Israel and in their close neighborhood want it irradiated and have attacked it previously? Maybe that’s why

 

[colmywaykurtz]

How many states surrounding Israel and in their close neighborhood want it irradiated and have attacked it previously? Maybe that’s why

I think you misunderstand my meaning. I’m not saying Israel shouldn’t be doing that. If I were in their position, I’d probably do the same. For the foreseeable future, they should maintain that posture.

Such a state of affairs should serve to put the Iranian threat in better perspective—that’s what I’m saying.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

As far as HR 1905 goes, I’m opposed to it. I believe that multi-pointed engagement on all levels with both the military and civilian sectors of Iranian society holds the best hope for bringing about a cultural change from within that society that will motivate the Iranians to bring down their current government and develop better relations with Israel and the West.

It’s the same strategy (although unstated and unofficial) that we’re pursuing with Pakistan, and I believe that, inch by inch, it’s working.

I just hope we don’t run out of time, in either case.

 

[gilliam]

I just hope we don’t run out of time, in either case.

Me either and they are now saying we have less than 1 year

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Me either and they are now saying we have less than 1 year

If you read enough, …what worries me is the work going on now in Iran with nuclear weapons. There are right now several hundred North Korean nuclear weapons people helping push the Iranian nuclear weapons program on a crash basis. These, by the way, are the same guys from North Korea who a few years ago pushed the Pakistani nuclear weapons program to completion.

IN ADDITION, a couple of days ago, some high mucketey muck in Iran who is their ICBM development guy was killed during the FINAL TEST of the IRAN ICBM; it was an accident supposedly.

But if they push, they can get a nuclear warhead AND a workable ICBM.

BIG trouble.

Timed for just before the 2012 U.S. elections?