Israel Buys 2 Nuclear-Capable Submarines

In this image released by the Israeli Defense Force the crew of Israel's Dolphin submarine, stand on deck during a ceremony Sunday, July 25, 1999 between Crete and Cyprus in the Mediterranean Sea, commemorating the 69 crew members of the Israeli submarine Dakar which sank here in 1968. With the purchase of two more German-made Dolphin submarines, Israel is sending a clear message to Iran that it can strike back if attacked by nuclear weapons, military experts said Thursday, Aug. 24, 2006.(AP Photo/IDF)
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (63)
i wonder what the people would say if iran was the purchacer of these subs.
not trying to be anti isreal, just interesting different emotions simular news makes.
- 4 votes
It's complete BS that some countries are "allowed" to have nuclear weapons and protect themselves and others are not. If the threat of using them is the deciding factor, then the US shouldn't be allowed to have them, being the only nation to have used them (and against civilians, no less).
- 15 votes
Seriously! Its only a matter of time until one detonates, whether it is fired or accidental. Its absurd that they are even legal anywhere in the world. I hear the US is creating new nukes as well... I sure hope we dont have to face nuclear war. But i guess its not up to us, its up to the arrogant bastards with the missiles.
SIGH.
- 4 votes
It's complete BS that some countries are "allowed" to have nuclear weapons and protect themselves and others are not.
It's more history and circumstance. In any case, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Israel didn't. (Just for the record, it was France that helped and encouraged the Israeli program, and the US that insisted on Israel keeping it an open secret.)
- 7 votes
Enigma - spot on. I support Iran's right to defend itself. And Jordon's, Egypt's, etc. etc. Someone holds a gun to my head, I'm getting a gun.
- 3 votes
I don't think you guys understand.. some countries, like Israel, are allowed the weapons because they are trusted to only use them in self-defense - while other countries, like Iran, are not allowed nukes because they threaten to destroy countries they don't like and what better way to do that than with nukes. If these rogue nations don't have nukes and the victim of the threats do, then they are able to hide behind the nukes like a fence.
There is no country under more constant threat of destruction than Israel. So they gain support internationally in order to defend themselves.
- 13 votes
Wow, you've turned the Iranian's into boogeymen. Are you racist?
- 1 vote
Maybe Iran just doesn't have a democratically elected government that can be easily influence by the United States. That is why we don't trust them.
Race has nothing to do with it. Not to mention, Moshe Katsav, the President of Israel is Iranian.
- 8 votes
Assman:
some countries, like Israel, are allowed the weapons because they are trusted to only use them in self-defense
I think this latest war in Lebanon shows just how much restraint Israel really has. Unless you're naive enough to call that a war of self-defense. Yeah, F-16s against hand-held rocket launchers -- the model of reasonable and responsible self-defense.
- 2 votes
"Responsible" self defense? If they are under attack does it make sense to dumb down their excellent defense force in order to match Hezbollah's more erratic attacks? That doesn't make any sense. Of course they used disproportionate force - it's called beating the enemy at their game.
And did they use atomic weapons? No.
- 6 votes
And did they use atomic weapons? No.
Well thank God we have such an exacting metric for the reasonable behavior of sovereign states. I can see President Bush addressing the nation now
"Well we were having problems, see, with the insurgo-facists in Baghdad so I asked Peter over here... wave Pete.... Pete is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs... so I asked Pete to just go ahead a carpet bomb Baghdad. Man you oughtta see it our pilots can barrel that thing in so low, oh it's a sight to see. You wouldn't expect it with a big ol' plane like a '52, but varrrooom! The jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!
Well the point is at least we didn't use nukes"
- 3 votes
Compare the number of civilian deaths in Lebanon with those in any other current conflict, like Darfur, Chechnya, or Iraq.
- 2 votes
Uh.... Darfur is a genocide. Do you really want to compare Lebanon to Darfur?
- 2 votes
A lot of people have actually called the war in Lebanon an attempt at ethnic cleansing, so it might be useful to point out how stupid that idea is. Chechnya and Iraq are much closer examples. Go ahead and look up the death rates in each, then compare with Lebanon.
- 2 votes
What is it with the AP putting up stories that match my previous seeds? That's the second time today I've seen an AP story on a seed I put up earlier this week!
It's OK with me, considering Websense WebNONsense blocks Killfile's column, but no other part of newsvine...
- 1 vote
The purchases come at a time when Iran is refusing to bow to growing Western demands to halt its nuclear program, and after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
"They (Iran) have a belligerent leadership and that's why Israel is prudent in ensuring that it has that deterrent capability," Beaver said. "What they (the submarines) are is a very good insurance policy."
Good.
When a country publicly says they want to wipe another country off the map, that other country is right to have an "insurance policy" available.
I hope they never have to use it.
- 9 votes
Bad. What's the point of continuing this cycle of escalation and proliferation? All this is going to lead to is a big radioactive accident.
I think you need to ask Iran that question.
They are the ones threatening annihalation for Israel.
and even though people disagree, Israel does have the right to defend herself.
- 8 votes
Of course Israel has the right to defend itself, as well as Iran and any other sovereign country. The US needs to it's best to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. At the same time, the US and the world powers need to proceed with nuclear disarmament as well.
Let's not engage in hypocrisy. If we don't want Iran to get nukes, we shouldn't be complicit with Israel (who hasn't joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) from obtaining them.
- 3 votes
Of course Israel has the right to defend itself, as well as Iran and any other sovereign country.
you are putting Israel and Iran on the same level.
And NO WAY is Iran on the same level with Israel.
and you are saying that they are the same, they are just defending themselves.
Exactly who is Iran defending itself from?
I hope you don't say Israel, it wasn't Israel that said they want to wipe Iran off the map.
I see the future...
Iran, or Syria, or hezbol again, attacks Israel...and people here will be saying how evil Israel is for attacking first (these people will conveniently forget that it wasn't Israel that attacked first), Israel is the real terrorists, occupiers...blah, blah, blah...
- 7 votes
you are putting Israel and Iran on the same level. And NO WAY is Iran on the same level with Israel.
True, Iran haven't been invading and occupying other countries for the past half decade.
- 2 votes
true...iran was a country that was already there 60 years ago and had been for a very very long time, whereas 'israel' was created in 1948 by europeans.
i suppose that iran would prefer that the european colony in its region *not* be armed with nuclear weapons, but luckily they have no say in the matter, right?
True, Iran haven't been invading and occupying other countries for the past half decade.
Damn straight, you guys. Ethiopian and Chinese Jews, as well as those who have lived in the area that is now Israel for hundreds of years, are figments of my imagination, and Israel has never been actually attacked.
- 5 votes
True, Iran haven't been invading and occupying other countries for the past half decade.
sorry, I meant half century :S
Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance for almost 30 years, and since 1985 has received about $3 billion in military and economic aid each year - most of that goes back to U.S. arms manufacturers. Looks like the Germans have jumped on the bandwagon.
- 1 vote
"however you look at it, i'd really prefer that the US opt out of all the shenanigans."
That's a fantastic idea! Lets build a big dark house where one room has a nice bit of sand and bury our heads in it until everything is all ice cream and teddy bears. You do realize that we are suppose to be running the government right? Not the government running us. But we keep doing things like looking the other way, paying more attention to the fact that Jessica Simpson said her ex had small equipment instead of asking what our officials are packing and doing behind our backs. And don't give me the tired excuse of what can I do? The answer is get out of the house. Isolation and xenophobia beliefs lead to nothing but totalitarianism.
- 4 votes
thanks to angry dog 1941, I am able to present these facts!
US Foreign Aid in 2002 (per the March 24th, 2003 issue of Newsweek with "Why America Scares the World" on the cover):
Egypt: $2 Billion
Jordan: $227 million
Turkey: $3.3 Billion
Palestine: $387 million
Pakistan: $921 million
Indonesia: $125 million
Afghanistan: $297 million
Uzbekistan: $96 million
America is very generous to Muslim countries, America is not one-sided when it comes to foreign aid, and any demand to stop foreign aid to Israel while openly accepting our money from Muslim countries is total and complete hyprocrisy.
dj & jj, are you annoyed at the moslem countries that get American money as well???
- 7 votes
And how much did the US give to Iran, Syria and the Lebanon in 2002?
- 2 votes
I was just wondering. Doesn't the US have one of the cheapest gas prices in the world? Isn't it able to influence many nations to go it's way? I wonder why?
- 2 votes
I don't know about one of the cheapest, as I think most oil producing countries have prices even lower than we do. Of the oil importing nations, our prices do tend to be lower due to lower taxes on petroleum.
Free trade, I back. Non-interventionism is not possible in this world anymore. Everything is so tightly entwined that when something happen on the third floor of the apartment building, it affects the guy on the fourteenth floor. Giving someone a weapon of mass destruction and then telling them "I've giving this to you, but I don't want to know what you are going to do with it" is utterly moronic. If all we think about is bottom line then we are done for.
I've enjoyed reading all of your comments; both sides have good points.
The thing that strikes me most about Iran vs. Israel having nuclear weapons is the fact that
Iran supports, funds, provides arms to, and harbors terrorists.
I don't know about you, but a country that supports terrorism is the LAST one I'd want to have nuclear weapons. Just something to consider...
- 2 votes
I thought that the Likud (sp?) party were also born of a terrorist organisation... Pretty certain of it in fact.
Also seem to recall reading about how Israel funded Hamas in order to destabilise the PLO's base. This second one could well be wrong, but I have heard it repeated often.
As it stands, Israel is actively terrorising one of it's neighbours populations... Not to mention killing them by the hundreds and displacing them by the tens of thousands. It'll take decades for Lebanon to rebuild after this.
Good comments and links all round. I'm sad with the time difference that I was in bed for the second half of these postings.
Here's an idea, and maybe I'm completely wrong about this so correct me if that is the case, but why do countries that already have nuclear weapons insist on getting more when they should be developing a nuclear defence program or something? I understand that it is kind of off topic, but the time and money would be much better spent if there was a way to prevent a nuclear attack, than just investing more money into a way to strike back if it happens. I guess if I was the leader of a country, I'd be more worried about the lives of my citizens than striking back after a countries attacks.
- 1 vote
Nuclear submarines are a way to prevent a nuclear attack. If you have a gun and I have a gun which ever one of us fires first lives. If we both have guns but we also both have friends with sniper rifles hidden away covering us, even the one that fires first is going to die. Thus, neither of us fires and we back down and go home.
It's deterrence.
Here's an idea, and maybe I'm completely wrong about this so correct me but how about we just give the world leaders a brain or penile transplant or a joint or a blowjob or whatever its going to take for them to realize that killing people isn't the answer to solve problems?
Its freaking crazy what we do to each other.
- 1 vote
Well at least the dudes in black suits, hats and the long curly locks aren't running the subs, eh?
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |


