US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'

US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'

www.presstv.ir

23 Mar 2008 An American nuclear submarine has crossed the Suez Canal to join the US fleet stationed in the Persian Gulf, Egyptian sources say. Egyptian officials reported that the nuclear submarine crossed the canal along with a destroyer on Friday and Egyptian forces were put on high alert when the navy convoy was passing through the canal. An American destroyer recently left the Persian Gulf, heading towards the Mediterranean Sea; earlier Thursday, a US Navy rescue ship crossed the canal to enter the Red Sea.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.legitgov.org

I do not believe China nor Russia will allow the US to invade Iran w/out retribution.

www.presstv.ir
(visit the link for the full news article)

do we even have enough soldiers TO start a war with another country? I don't think so.

At least I hope not.

no need for another war imho.

Just my 02 of course

Tela

reply to post by Telafree


I'm pretty sure we do have enough soldiers to do so.

However, I hope we don't do this, and this is not looking good. Sad when you actually hope this is just more chest puffing and not the real thing about to happen.

I think it's only a matter of time before we're at war in Iran, but I don't think that this sub movement is really much of a sign of that. These subs creep everywhere all the time. It basically gives the President the ability to nuke any place on the surface of the Earth without any warning.

But this is not even really what we are even talking about here. Just because the sub is nuclear, does not mean its weapons are. The sub in question here is not a "boomer" but an attack sub, Los Angeles class. It's not carrying nuclear missiles. It's really a submarine for protecting surface ships from enemy submarines, and attacking enemy surface ships. It does also have some stand-off capabilites for attacking land-based surface targets as well, but in a far more limited capacity than a nuclear missile submarine or "boomer" as they are called.

I need to know the answer to a question.

Why does every single thing the U.S. does militarily immediately become associated with a brewing war on Iran?

EVERY
SINGLE
THING.

None of it could possibly have anything to do with the war in Iraq... no... it must be about Iran!

reply to post by mattifikation


Why? Because there's been a war of words between Bush and Ahmedinejad (sp?). When leaders start puffing chests, somebody usually gets stupid about it. If we were parking ships off the coast of South America, the speculation would be that we were about to go to war with Venezuela.

Do you think this is the only sub in the gulf area?

reply to post by mattifikation


I see your point, but Naval activity is not going to have much to do with the war in Iraq. All that sand and no beach ya know.

[edit on 3/25/0808 by jackinthebox]

If there's water within missile range, there can be naval activity. Being that Iran is waterfront property, and that they have ships, or little boats at least, the navy can still be useful.

reply to post by Mekanic


Iran would be much more of a Naval target than Iraq, which is pretty much landlocked.

I know I made a post in this thread. Where did it go? I had asked how do you know that they sub is going to the Persian gulf by it just sailing down the Suez? It could be going to Japan for all we know. You wont know where they are going because that info is highly classified.

I for one do not condemn a nuclear First Strike. I don't see why you assume there has to be an invasion ?

The smartest thing anyone could do to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat is take out their nuclear infra structure and let them stew on it.

Iran is not pursuing peaceful nuclear energy. IAEA have already established with snap inspections that Iran had a concealed underground enrichment plant and that they enriched Uranium to near bomb grade. IAEA has also established Iran was separating plutonium which has no peaceful purpose.

I don't like the consequences of a First Strike but the consequences of letting the mullahs get nuclear ballistic missiles is even more grave.

reply to post by sy.gunson


How many nuclear facilities are they running? That's one nuke each to strike with. That's alot of radiation to unleash, and if any of them are even near a civilized area, then there's civilian casualties to go with it.

holy crap!!!!!


The US has sent a nuclear sub over into the persian gulf. Damn!!! when did they start doing this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

unbelievable!!!!!

whats next!!!! Our subs are going to start tapping into oceanic communication cables for the purpose of spying?

Originally posted by bridger2
Do you think this is the only sub in the gulf area?

Gotta agree with that statement.

If I were the other side, I'd be worried about the ones I don't see. I have to believe there are missile subs with places in the middle east already targeted as standard procedure.

reply to post by sy.gunson

I for one do not condemn a nuclear First Strike.

The submarine in question, is not a first strike platform for nuclear weapons.

It is a Los Angeles class attack submarine with a nuclear propulsion system. No nuclear missiles.

The sub has nuclear ordinance. Nuclear tipped torpedoes, ASROCs, possibly tomahawks. Maybe even mines too. who knows what they have put a nuclear munition on these days.

This is good news! "Freedom's on the march!" I just wish those Egyptians can keep our wanton nuclear subs on the DL, if you know what I mean. If they werent so agianst freedom, they wouldve been put on high alert--for celebration, of freedom.

A nuclear sub, not a sub with nukes. No nukes on a nuclear sub. What if they were to use it as a missile? They being, US. A nuclear sub used as a missile! Breaking news! No! Its a nuclear sub, not a sub with nukes...okay, thank you for that.