Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

From The Sunday Times
May 30, 2010

Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv

Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.

The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including air bases and missile launchers.

The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.

The flotilla’s commander, identified only as “Colonel O”, told an Israeli newspaper: “We are an underwater assault force. We’re operating deep and far, very far, from our borders.”

Each of the submarines has a crew of 35 to 50, commanded by a colonel capable of launching a nuclear cruise missile.

The vessels can remain at sea for about 50 days and stay submerged up to 1,150ft below the surface for at least a week. Some of the cruise missiles are equipped with the most advanced nuclear warheads in the Israeli arsenal.

The deployment is designed to act as a deterrent, gather intelligence and potentially to land Mossad agents. “We’re a solid base for collecting sensitive information, as we can stay for a long time in one place,” said a flotilla officer.

The submarines could be used if Iran continues its programme to produce a nuclear bomb. “The 1,500km range of the submarines’ cruise missiles can reach any target in Iran,” said a navy officer.

Apparently responding to the Israeli activity, an Iranian admiral said: “Anyone who wishes to do an evil act in the Persian Gulf will receive a forceful response from us.”

Israel’s urgent need to deter the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance was demonstrated last month. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, was said to have shown President Barack Obama classified satellite images of a convoy of ballistic missiles leaving Syria on the way to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, will emphasise the danger to Obama in Washington this week.

Tel Aviv, Israel’s business and defence centre, remains the most threatened city in the world, said one expert. “There are more missiles per square foot targeting Tel Aviv than any other city,” he said.

Your Comments

Paul Scott wrote:
Following on from my previous posts about nuclear deterrence (and please remember I am talking about how to prevent war here, with equal passion as pacifists, but with more intelligence).

Nuclear deterrence is not entirely binary (ie. peace or global devastation). There is a middle option of a demonstrative nuclear strike (using a tactical weapon, targeted say offshore to avoid killing people) which could well prevent all-out nuclear war starting, but demonstrates a willingness to use nukes. God help us that we never get to that stage, and with strong deterrence we never will - THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF DETERRENCE!

The moment you get weak & wobbly, that is when you THINK you are being peaceful, but you are actually creating the risks & circumstances in which war is MORE likely.
A very strong & unequivocable defence strategy for the whole of NATO (led by the US, thank God we've had the US to protect us for 65 years, we owe the US a debt of gratitude that goes beyond words, as does all of Europe) is the way to secure lasting peace.

The moment we let our guard down, then we make war more likely, not less likely.
Peace depends on a STRONG foreign policy by the West, not weakness.
May 31, 2010 4:15 AM BST

David Gee wrote:
I do not like Israel, especially because it targets the U.S. with espionage. Nor do I understand why we do not treat Israel the same as all other non-signatories of the NNPT. Nevertheless, Israel does have a right to defend themselves against Ahmedinejad's promises to destroy it, and against the constant attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas. But they should not expect help from the U.S. If you're going to steal our secrets -- and sell some of them to China -- then you're on your own.
May 31, 2010 3:03 AM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
Recommend? (15)

Report Abuse
Permalink
User Image
Paul Scott wrote:
In a nutshell, what I am saying is this. YES nuclear weapons are horrendous, and their use is unimaginable. However, in order to achieve a lasting peace, we do actually have to envisage & carefully set out the circumstances in which we WOULD use nuclear weapons. Scary though that seems, there is no point in having nukes unless you are prepared to use them.

Paradoxically, this is the way to create peace.

You stipulate precisely what circumstances would trigger a nuclear response. So that would, eg have prevented Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. The only reason he invaded Kuwait was because he guessed that the West did not have the resolve to tackle him if he presented us with a fait accomplie. It was OUR weak foreign policy which created the opportunity for Saddam's aggression.
If we had had a strict policy which said that if Kuwait's borders are breached by an aggressor, this triggers an immediate & automatic nuclear response, then nobody would ever invade!

You HAVE to be strong with nuclear deterrence & make sure everyone knows the consequences if they commit an act of aggression. Why else do you think the Cold War lasted 45 years without anyone firing a shot? Because both the USSR and the USA knew the consequences, and the USSR respect violence & strength. That is why they backed off in Cuba in 1962, and at other times. You have to take deterrence to the brink. You have to be prepared to use nuclear weapons. Then, AND ONLY THEN, do you have peace!

This is scary stuff, but it is true. The peaceful hippies actually make the world a helluva lot more dangerous, that's why they should never be let anywhere near the levers of power.
May 31, 2010 2:55 AM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
Recommend? (18)

Paul Scott wrote:
Richard Scott - I respect your service record & experience, and also your superb surname!

But they key point about nuclear weapons is that they are NEVER used. Their purpose is solely as a deterrent, and as the last 65 years have shown, nuclear deterrance works.

Sadly, you cannot un-invent nuclear weapons. We would all love a nuclear-free world. But that is not possible. Therefore we have to pursue a policy of non-proliferation, and a robust control of rogue states like Iran. This is no time for wishy-washy peaceful weakness. By trying to be peaceful, you actually incite war. Strong defence is the way Reagan/Thatcher won the Cold War. Strong defence & nuclear deterrance is the best option we have out of a very bad set of options.
Long term as Stephen Dawkins says, the only option is to colonise other planets. Mankind is indeed doomed within a few hundred years, as the fragile nuclear-deterrent peace can only hold for so long. But the alternative is a wipe-out much sooner. The moment you show weakness, we are doomed, look at Saddam invading Kuwait - that never should have happened if the West had properly deployed a no-nonsense nuclear deterrent strategy. Saddam only invaded Kuwait because he thought he could get away with it - because our deterrent was weak. Do you see now?
May 31, 2010 2:36 AM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
Recommend? (10)