Israel gets fourth submarine capable of launching nuclear warheads

Thread temporarily closed for staff review

The thread is now re-opened.

Please... no more personal attacks or off topic posts.

The topic is: www.haaretz.com...

Apparently anything anti-Israel is off topic folks, hail Zionism

Originally posted by YourDreamsCanceled
Apparently anything anti-Israel is off topic folks, hail Zionism

Its kind of Hard to debate people
when they start off a topic with a religious rant or use relgion to jusify their stance

but this is ATS and sadly those who spout relgious intolerance or hate will prevail

I don't really think it's much about religion, I know real Hebrew Jewish guys that hate Zionism. I don't see Zionism as a religion or attached to a religion but an ideal for the elite to keep ruling and purifying their bloodline. I think that's where most American people get confused they support the Jews because of all the holocaust history that has been blasted into their heads and how genocide is the wrong all the while genocide is happening right under their nose by those they support. American propaganda has led them to believe in the support of Israel who are actually the real terrorists. They won't awaken to this until Israel brings the US with them in WWIII which will be the US and Israel against the world. By then it will be too late for them.

I really, really want one of those subs. Israel does not need any more "defensive" capabilities. Ask the survivors of the USS Liberty.

Having subs gives Israel the power to nuke the US. Then they can blame it on Iran. It also makes it easier to smuggle terrorists and spies into the US.

Originally posted by groingrinder
Having subs gives Israel the power to nuke the US. Then they can blame it on Iran. It also makes it easier to smuggle terrorists and spies into the US.

Israel won't nuke a country that is bent over on it's knee taking it from behind for Zionism

Originally posted by CountDrac
reply to post by illusive man

 

Considering not too long ago (50 years) the Germans wiped out half of the Jewish population on the planet. I would say at least another 50 years.

However being a normal person with a brain I don’t really think you can put a cash amount on such an atrocity. But hey that’s just me.

edit on 3-5-2012 by CountDrac because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/5/12 by masqua because: Removed Off Topic comment

No it wasn't the Germans that did those things to the Jews it was the Zionist and Nazi's. And seeing how much money Israel milks from the rest of the world it looks like they are trying to get paid for it.

If America really was interested in peace then we would stop a rouge nuke state from acquiring this weapon.

Originally posted by groingrinder
I really, really want one of those subs. Israel does not need any more "defensive" capabilities. Ask the survivors of the USS Liberty.

I have to agree with this. They got 600 nukes, who is seriously going to go poking at a grizzly bear that has 600 nukes? I guarantee you any country who is against Israel is going to have nukes targetting their nation's capitol and probably already does just incase TSHTF and the world comes after them.

Hopefully Israel won't misuse the submarines by withholding the strike on Iran and allowing the submarines to get surrounded by dust due to lack of usage. Israel has this tendency to purchase the most expensive weapons and proceed by disregarding them. This time the advanced weaponry ought to be implemented, not reserved for a greater challenge. Then again, I understand the Zionist viewpoint: if the Islamic cancer be eliminated, what will save the Jewish state from degenerating into a theocracy? With this conviction in mind, there's no difficulty apprehending why the Zionist state continues to foster its own enemies (and not extirpating them equals fostering them), including Iran, instead of bringing their final extermination. It's because the external enemy, with its pernicious demography (I refer here to the Israeli Palestinians), is that which has been safeguarding so far the Jewish state from sinking into a theocracy.

The moment the Iranian threat will become imminent, it will be obliterated.

I can see the Arab states becoming one huge sea of glass, radioactive glass, with Israelis only being able to travel by air if they want to get out of the country,even the Israely shore line glowing in the dark, to keep seaborne attacks
at bay.

reply to post by RATSOYFY37


So essentially you think the weapons should be used simply because Israel has these weapons and it would be a waste not to use them? That seems like backwards thinking. Using weapons should be the last resort, not the thing you press and kill thousands of people simply because it is getting old and it is better to use it than throw it away. A submarine capable of being armed with nuclear warheads isn't your fridge.

This place makes me question the IQ of Americans at times.

Originally posted by pikestaff
I can see the Arab states becoming one huge sea of glass, radioactive glass, with Israelis only being able to travel by air if they want to get out of the country,even the Israely shore line glowing in the dark, to keep seaborne attacks
at bay.

your bit of a special person arent you?
you do realise if Israel use nukes they will also glow green

but then again most you guys think a mystical being will put a protective blanket on israel which will protect them from nuclear radiation and clense the contaminated food and water surplies as it reaches israels shores.
and insure that they Israelis arent glowing green

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by RATSOYFY37

 

So essentially you think the weapons should be used simply because Israel has these weapons and it would be a waste not to use them? That seems like backwards thinking. Using weapons should be the last resort, not the thing you press and kill thousands of people simply because it is getting old and it is better to use it than throw it away. A submarine capable of being armed with nuclear warheads isn't your fridge.

My point is that if you do purchase weapons of mass destruction (or any other product), and the raison d'etre of the transaction remains (Iran's threat to Israeli security, in this case), then not exploiting said weapons and mitigating your response deems the whole bargain wasteful, and indeed it shouldn't have been conducted in the first place. If Israel is to engage in Cold War with Iran, it shouldn't wait for an inter-Iranian revolution which might never occur, but capitalize its resources for the sake of Iran's evaporation; since Israel has achieved the measures, the only logical conclusion is that they should be used.

Originally posted by CountDrac

In case you hadn’t noticed the Muslim world is stuck in the 21 century. While israel has the fifth most powerful army in the world.
Give the Muslims a hundred years and they might be able to do something. Meanwhile they are too busy oppressing and killing their own people in the Middle East….

The major exception is Pakistan. It has between 50 to 100 operational nuclear weapons. Pakistan manufactures most of its weapons.

Originally posted by RATSOYFY37


My point is that if you do purchase weapons of mass destruction (or any other product), and the raison d'etre of the transaction remains (Iran's threat to Israeli security, in this case), then not exploiting said weapons and mitigating your response deems the whole bargain wasteful, and indeed it shouldn't have been conducted in the first place. If Israel is to engage in Cold War with Iran, it shouldn't wait for an inter-Iranian revolution which might never occur, but capitalize its resources for the sake of Iran's evaporation; since Israel has achieved the measures, the only logical conclusion is that they should be used.

During the 1980's, Russia had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Does this means that the Russians should have use them, instead of letting them sit there and rust?

Originally posted by coolieno99

Originally posted by RATSOYFY37


My point is that if you do purchase weapons of mass destruction (or any other product), and the raison d'etre of the transaction remains (Iran's threat to Israeli security, in this case), then not exploiting said weapons and mitigating your response deems the whole bargain wasteful, and indeed it shouldn't have been conducted in the first place. If Israel is to engage in Cold War with Iran, it shouldn't wait for an inter-Iranian revolution which might never occur, but capitalize its resources for the sake of Iran's evaporation; since Israel has achieved the measures, the only logical conclusion is that they should be used.

During the 1980's, Russia had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Does this means that the Russians should have use them, instead of letting them sit there and rust?

There's no correlation here. I was referring to a state of affairs in which one has purchased massive weaponry for a certain purpose, just to have it rot underground. In Russia's case, it's strategic armament with no actual intention to use it (it was acquired during a nuclear race between the two super-powers -- the Cold War --, not for any specific purpose of implementation), the weaponry being used as a counter-force against the US. Also, in the case of Russia, the weaponry not only would not have acheived anything of meaning if had been employed and inducted for a war, but the American reciprocation would have left Russia devastated.

So again, you're comparing whole different scenarios.