Let them sort it out themselves.

Over Clocker · 16 Jul 2006 at 18:02

Israel (as well as India & Pakistan) have short range nukes. They don't have the capability to project that power worldwide.

Out of the big 5, it is really only the US & UK at the moment that has a real worldwide scope, however, of course Russia do, but the reliability of their military hardware should be called into question. France have a nuclear capability but their delivery systems and submarines are not up to scratch. China doesn't yet have to global reach of the US & UK.

Mal

Vanilla · 16 Jul 2006 at 18:07

Strictly speaking now Israel has mounted the nukes in subs they can hit anywhere....

clv101 · 16 Jul 2006 at 18:11

Over Clocker said:
Israel (as well as India & Pakistan) have short range nukes. They don't have the capability to project that power worldwide.

I remember reading a while back than Israel had taken delivering of a submarine from Germany with missile launch capability. Submarines greatly enhance the effectiveness of tactical nukes.

Over Clocker · 16 Jul 2006 at 18:14

clv101 said:
I remember reading a while back than Israel had taken delivering of a submarine from Germany with missile launch capability. Submarines greatly enhance the effectiveness of tactical nukes.

Surely that depends on the submarine? Germany never possesed a global submarine service. Unline the 16,000tonne Royal Navy Trident submarines which can truly go anywhere and strike anywhere.

Also, missiles travel a hell of a lot quicker than a sub!

clv101 · 16 Jul 2006 at 18:23

Here's a link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/sub.htm

Three 1,925 ton Type 800 Dolphin class submarines have been built in German shipyards for the Israel Navy. Modern submarines with the most advanced sailing and combat systems in the world, they combine extensive sophistication with very easy operation. The purpose of these submarines is to enable the Israel Navy to meet all the tasks faced in the Mediterranean Sea in the 21st century. The submarines cost $320 million each, and are twice as big as the aging Gal-class submarines that the Israeli navy has relied on to date.

The four larger 25.5 inch diameter torpedo tubes could be used to launch a long-range nuclear-capable submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM). According to some reports the submarines may be capable of carrying nuclear-armed Popeye Turbo cruise missiles, with a goal of deterring an enemy from trying to take out its nuclear weapons with a surprise attack.

Range 4500 miles at 8 knots

Not global coverage - but enough to cover Israel’s corner of the world.

Vanilla · 16 Jul 2006 at 18:24

Good subs. Obviously not as good as the subs that the US, UK and Russia churn out but still very modern.

phykell · 16 Jul 2006 at 18:29

Over Clocker said:
Surely that depends on the submarine? Germany never possesed a global submarine service. Unline the 16,000 Royal Navy Trident submarines which can truly go anywhere and strike anywhere.

Also, missiles travel a hell of a lot quicker than a sub!

Just a point of fact, they don't have 16,000 submarines

Over Clocker · 16 Jul 2006 at 18:32

phykell said:
Just a point of fact, they don't have 16,000 submarines

Ooops, meant 16,000 tonne subs

PS, our nuclear missiles can reach the middle east without the submarine even leaving the English Channel

7500 mile range at 18,000mph

SiD the Turtle · 16 Jul 2006 at 18:34

Even if Israel's enemies did somehow manage to destroy it / drive them out, do you think the middle east would be at peace?

Sunnis vs Shiites, warlord against warlord etc.

cleanbluesky · 16 Jul 2006 at 19:40

SiD the Turtle said:
Even if Israel's enemies did somehow manage to destroy it / drive them out, do you think the middle east would be at peace?

Sunnis vs Shiites, warlord against warlord etc.

No, but as far as their discourse in the West is concerned, they seem to be blinkered against Muslim on Muslim violence...

ballistic · 16 Jul 2006 at 19:46

Jumpingmedic said:
I say just leave them to it... let them kill each other, the winner wins! It's not worth our trouble.

that's the kind of attitude sweden had in the second world war (where 62 million people died), you're not swedish by any chance?

JohnnyG · 16 Jul 2006 at 19:51

ballistic said:
that's the kind of attitude sweden had in the second world war (where 62 million people died)

Except Sweden laid down & let the Germans walk all over them as they didn't have the balls to remain truly neutral.

Indy500 · 16 Jul 2006 at 19:54

JohnnyG said:
Except Sweden laid down & let the Germans walk all over them as they didn't have the balls to remain truly neutral.

IIRC ore from Sweden was an important resource for the German war machine.

However they did aid Finland with 2 full divisions in the 1939 winter war against Russia.

As for walked over, that happened to the other "neutral" countries as well..

JohnnyG · 16 Jul 2006 at 20:00

Cool, so it wasn't really the attitude Sweden had during WWII then?

Indy500 · 16 Jul 2006 at 20:05

JohnnyG said:
Cool, so it wasn't really the attitude Sweden had during WWII then?

No, as it was a seperate conflict. The Russians did lose a great deal of men and machines (for example, Finnish ski troops sabotaging vehicles at night, and the Mannerheim Line stopping virtually all assaults), but the Finns were eventually exhausted and gave up 10% of their territory.

Von Smallhausen · 17 Jul 2006 at 03:04

clv101 said:
I remember reading a while back than Israel had taken delivering of a submarine from Germany with missile launch capability. Submarines greatly enhance the effectiveness of tactical nukes.

They do in that they are difficult to detect which makes a first strike on Israel to disrupt it's nuclear capability difficult with SLCM capability and also they can skirt the coastline of a target country and fire while submerged.

The situation is worrying though.