It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by BASSPLYR
 



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.


Most weapon systems can be modified to carry a nuclear projectile, but attack subs don't deploy with nuclear weapons just because those systems have been developed. There's no need to, especially in the post Cold-War environment. If they use a sub to hit Iran with a nuclear package, you can bet it's gonna be a boomer.




posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Telafree
 


Unfortunately we do have enough soldiers to start a war with another country, or 2 or 3, it is called a "draft" and lets hope we never, ever see it happen.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


How can you possibly know that there are no nuclear weapons on that sub? Nuclear payloads can be loaded on virtually any type of projectile that sub can fling. I would like to think that there are no nukes on board but knowing our government I would bet that there is.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   
This Easter I saw a relative of mine who is a career military man. He's special ops. Never talks about anything. He cant. He has Top Secret clearances. I asked him a simple question. "So... What do you think about Iran?" All he did was laugh in a sly way insinuating they are next. I said, "That's all I needed to know." I then told him I was aware of the cut undersea internet cables and the lack of service to Iran. He got a weird look on his face and didnt say anything. I took that as another sign. Take it as you will.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by kaspermartyrphantom]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Amazing how you guys have absolutely no idea what the heck you are talking about. This is nuclear POWERED submarine. IT IS NOT ARMED WITH NUKES!!



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   
All of you saying that its just a "nuclear" sub without "nuclear" weapons are wrong. 688's rarely deploy without the "nuclear" variants of the Tomahawks. These are TACTICAL nukes of course, meaning, they are PERFECT for precise strikes with lower yields....aka....bunker complexes! What would we possibly want to strike near the Persian Gulf? Hmmmmm!
On the other hand, as previously said, there are probably other nuclear US subs already there. Any carrier strike group is usually accompanied by 1 or 2, sometimes 3 attack subs as part of its defense screen/attack force. This is no more a new "move" to bracket Iran than any other routine military deployment IMO.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Iran isn't the soviet union. The US wouldn't need nuclear tipped tomahawks to deal with them. I don't see any reason to believe they have nuclear weapon on board.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   
My question is:

How in hell have Iranian sources managed to discover that a US nuclear submarine is within their theatre?

This news isnt on BBC yet.

Are you sure this isnt just more propaganda from the Iranian press machine? Take a good look at the source.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:24 AM
link   


How in hell have Iranian sources managed to discover that a US nuclear submarine is within their theatre?


For a start the Suez canal isn't exactly deep enough to sail through submerged.


Egypt will be full of spies for the Iranians and Hezbollah. Who do you think is smuggling arms and money to Hammas on the West bank.

Even hunter killer subs can make attacks with nuke tipped Tommahawks. Use of the Suez canal suggests real urgency in the deployment. It can't be often that a nuke sub deploys through the canal ?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   


Mekanic asked

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.


Here's the answer:
news.bbc.co.uk...

In actual fact all of Iran's nuclear infrastructure is remote from populated areas. You could take out three sites, Arak, Natanz and Isfahan and that would halt Iran's nuclear ambitions overnight.

The underground Uranium enrichment plant at Natanz provides highly enriched uranium required for breeding plutonium in heavy water nuclear reactors. Plutonium has only one use. Nuclear weapons.

Arak produces Heavy water. Iran does not need heavy water for nuclear power generation, but Iran does need heavy water plants to breed Plutonium.

Isfahan is vital for refining Uranium from mineral ores and turning it to a form able to be used in enrichment centrifuges.

Three nuclear Tommahawks would end Iran's threat.

The radioactive fallout of small nukes would not last long or have an appreciable effect on Iran's populated centres.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   

The radioactive fallout of small nukes would not last long or have an appreciable effect on Iran's populated centres


and welcome to reality

a tactical nuke is one used in germany - at the end of the day , a nuclear weapon , no matter what the yield is that - it goes bang, a very big bang.

as for your comment: the TLAM/N was the designation of the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile/ Nuclear - its warhead WAS a 200 kilotonne W80 warhead

i say WAS for 1 reason - they were inactivated as per SALT and were withdrawn from USN service in 1992

www.globalsecurity.org...

and fallout? littleboy as used in hiroshima was 13 KT and look what that did.

you start dropping nukes on iran and the entire ME will know about it very quickly and fallout will spread downwind to cover other countries.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Wow, please around here sure know how to get all worked up over a flexing of strength.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson

In actual fact all of Iran's nuclear infrastructure is remote from populated areas.



source
Esfahān or Isfahan (historically also rendered as Ispahan or Hispahan, Esfahan City had a population of 1,986,542 and the Esfahan metroplitan area had a population of 3,430,353 in the 2006 Census, the second most populous metropolitan area in Iran after Tehran.[2]

Natanz (Persian: نطنز) is the centre of a township of the same name in the Isfahan province of Iran. It is located 70km south-east of Kashan. The population of the township as of 1999 was 39,964.[1]

Arak, (in Persian: اراک) previously known as Soltan-abad, is the center of Markazi province, Iran. It had an estimated population of 511,127 in 2005.[1]




The underground Uranium enrichment plant at Natanz provides highly enriched uranium required for breeding plutonium in heavy water nuclear reactors. Plutonium has only one use. Nuclear weapons.


If you have evidence to support that, you should immediately notify the:

International Atomic Energy Agency
P.O. Box 100
Wagramer Strasse 5
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Tel: (+431) 2600-0
Fax: (+431) 2600-7




Three nuclear Tommahawks would end Iran's threat.


Alternatively, treatment with thioridazine or haloperidol would also end Iran's threat.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mekanic
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.


The small tactical nukes would detonate underground, in the sand, and would release minimal radiation. Also, the major facilities even being considered for a preemptive strike are out in the desert away from any civilians. Unless you count the nuclear scientist.

Not condoning it.. just, thats most likely the case.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
oh boy....

Man dead. Suez Canal. Associated Press 3 hours ago.

Egyptian; US ship fires warning shots...

afp.google.com...

[edit on 26-3-2008 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
has this got anything to do with a massive europian build up of navel ships i wonder?

imo

it the entire west just saying, stop your nuke plans and applying pressure, could there be a war on iran, probly not thats the last thing we want but sure its possible for a air strike or sea/navel based attack on its programs but i seriously doubt a full scale war is on the cars given the situation in afghan & iraq,

i d be more concerd about the china & tibet situation getting out of hand tbh,



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   

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.


---------------------------------

23 Mar 2008 An Iranian nuclear submarine has crossed the panama canal to join the Iranian fleet stationed in the Gulf of California, Canadian sources say. Canadian officials reported that the nuclear submarine crossed th canal along with destroyer Friday and Canadian forces were put on high alert when the navy convoy was passing through the canal. An Iranian destroyer recently left the Gulf of California, headed towards the Caribean Sea; earlier Thursday, a Iranian Naval Guard rescue ship crossed the canal to enter the Gulf of Panama.

Sometimes it helps to look at the world from the other side of the looking glass.

Iranian officials claim the US defence department is continuing to enrich uranium into weapons grade material and accuses them of failing to abide by OPEC resolutions to cease supplying Sunni Iraqi's with munitions. Fortified by the growing demand and new refineries in China, OPEC has agreed on sanctions to restrict US supply of crude oil to 30% of 2005 levels. China has taken moves to freeze the assets of key elements of the US military complex as reports of a Depleted Uranium dust storm cross into the Mainland. An undisclosed bidder based in Hong Kong made a hostile takeover bid for both Dupont and ConAgra earlier this week; both companies have large land holdings in the US and represent most of the US food and plastics supply. Both companies had been hit hard by the ever weakening dollar



Originally posted by pugachev
Amazing how you guys have absolutely no idea what the heck you are talking about. This is nuclear POWERED submarine. IT IS NOT ARMED WITH NUKES!!


So would it be just peachy to you to have the Iranians in a nuclear POWERED submarine stationed to the Gulf of Mexico?... while with their, so protected, surface ships they occasionally took pop shots at Mexican dingys.

the alternate peachy reality,

Sri Oracle


[edit on 26-3-2008 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

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.


---------------------------------

23 Mar 2008 An Iranian nuclear submarine has crossed the panama canal to join the Iranian fleet stationed in the Gulf of California, Canadian sources say. Canadian officials reported that the nuclear submarine crossed th canal along with destroyer Friday and Canadian forces were put on high alert when the navy convoy was passing through the canal. An Iranian destroyer recently left the Gulf of California, headed towards the Caribean Sea; earlier Thursday, a Iranian Naval Guard rescue ship crossed the canal to enter the Gulf of Panama.

Sometimes it helps to look at the world from the other side of the looking glass.

Iranian officials claim the US defence department is continuing to enrich uranium into weapons grade material and accuses them of failing to abide by OPEC resolutions to cease supplying Sunni Iraqi's with munitions. Fortified by the growing demand and new refineries in China, OPEC has agreed on sanctions to restrict US supply of crude oil to 30% of 2005 levels. China has taken moves to freeze the assets of key elements of the US military complex as reports of a Depleted Uranium dust storm cross into the Mainland. An undisclosed bidder based in Hong Kong made a hostile takeover bid for both Dupont and ConAgra earlier this week; both companies have large land holdings in the US and represent most of the US food and plastics supply. Both companies had been hit hard by the ever weakening dollar



Originally posted by pugachev
Amazing how you guys have absolutely no idea what the heck you are talking about. This is nuclear POWERED submarine. IT IS NOT ARMED WITH NUKES!!


So would it be just peachy to you to have the Iranians in a nuclear POWERED submarine stationed to the Gulf of Mexico?... while with their, so protected, surface ships they occasionally took pop shots at Mexican dingys.

the alternate peachy reality,

Sri Oracle


[edit on 26-3-2008 by Sri Oracle]


As long as they are in international waters, they are within their rights to be there...



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
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.


As a former member of the US Submarine Service, I can tell you that very seldom does a boat go out, no matter fast attack or boomer, that is NOT equipped with some nuclear weapons.

"Fast, Silent, Deep & Deadly" is NOT just a slogan.

SK2(SS)
SSBN634(blue)



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by StonyJ
 


That might have been the case during the good ol' days but I don't think even VLA LA's carry decommissioned nuclear Tomahwks, much less tube only launch boats. The Harpoons were also all decommissioned from the fast attack fleet. I know that sub crews will neither deny nor confirm carriage of nuclear weapons on board but I doubt nowadays, unless it's a special occasion, normal SSN's go out on rutine patrol with nukes on board.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join