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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Man I love this website.....these boards really give me a good chuckle to start my day.
Sri Oracle......I bet your one of those touchy feely types that believes you can have peace with anyone if we'd just all sit down and sing Kum By Ya.




posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pugachev
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.


But you're also forgetting that this sub is probably a week to two weeks out from its home naval base, at the least. That's an eternity in a world where an ICBM can go from in the silo to on target, anywhere in the world, in 20 minutes. Its highly unlikely, but there is a realistic chance that the target could go from Iran to Russia or China within a blink of an eye at any point in their patrol.

In that type of environment, I'd be absolutely stunned if this thing isn't carrying a compliment of nuclear-tipped tomahawks in addition to conventional ones. Doing otherwise would be risking the equivalent of being caught with your pants down.

Still, I have no idea why this is news. The United States maintains a fleet of over 70 nuclear submarines. Its not like they leave them in port 365 days a year.

There are probably half a dozen or more of them in the waters near the Middle East, if the truth were known, and I'm sure at least one of them is going to be an Ohio class.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
I'd be absolutely stunned if this thing isn't carrying a compliment of nuclear-tipped tomahawks in addition to conventional ones.


Conventional cruise missile yes, absolutely, nuclear one's, highly unlikely; all nuclear tipped Tomahawks were decommissioned and removed from general service. There is no need to equip this boat with nuclear cruise missiles; if we are going to use Nuclear Weapons then the boomer fleet along with the AF is more than adequate to perform this mission, against Iran, or anyone else for that matter. The primary mission of Fast Attacks was to hunt for and sink enemy boomers, primary, enemy SSN's/SSGN's, secondary and then shipping/surface vessels. There is no point in reducing that role so they can launch a few nuclear Tomahawks when the SSBN fleet and the AF can more than do that job. The VLS capability was added rather recently and is a sub role, not a primary one. Just on of things done to increase multi-mission in the face of an ever shrinking fleet and in the face of budget problems and to help justify the large SSN fleet to ignorant legislators/politicians after the Cold War "ended".

[edit on 26-3-2008 by WestPoint23]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


That's their official line, but whether or not one believes it is another story entirely. I'm not sure I do. Without proof otherwise, its a point I'd have to concede in an argument, but its not something that I actually believe.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
i think we are jumping to alot of conclusions about this

the USS Montpelier is a nuclear POWERED sub, not a ballistic missile sub. it can only fire tomahawk cruise missiles and torpedos. however, i highly doubt that these submarines dont have atleast a few nuclear warheads for the tomahawks onboard at all times. its sort of like our aircraft carriers, our military never confirms or denies that we carry nuclear bombs on the carriers but we all know they do. but if "boomer" means ballistic missile sub, this sub in the suez canal it is not, as others have pointed out. heres more info on the USS Montpelier
www.montpelier-vt.org...

and the fact that the sub is going through the suez doesnt automatically mean its now war time with iran. 8 percent of the worlds ocean going vessels travel through the suez , for all we know it could be going anywhere in the eastern part of the world. if you are in the atlantic, and need to go to say, the indian ocean, the persian gulf, if you wanna get to china/taiwan or japan, korea, then your only logical option is through the suez. its either that or go all the way south around africa, or all the way up north through the artic ocean. obviously its easier to send ships that are based in the pacific to alot of those areas, but im sure they still have to send ships from the atlantic fleet from time to time.


[edit on 26-3-2008 by charliegrs]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Maybe I missed it if some one else mentioned, but isn't the point of a submariner fleet being submarine is...secrecy???

The fact that THIS sub was revealed is the telling part...it is provacative.

Isn't it? The deployment of other US Subs is not usually common knowledge, as far as I've ever seen! Kinda hard to hide a flat-top, so they don't stay very secret.

SO, this seems to be a posturing, a 'test of the waters', so to speak. Looking for reactions.....



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



SO, this seems to be a posturing, a 'test of the waters', so to speak. Looking for reactions.....


That is exactly what it is.

And to all those who insist that this sub has nuclear weapons on board, you need to study up on tactics and international diplomacy. Could it have them? Yes. Does it have them? No. Why would they bother?

reply to post by vor78
 



...but there is a realistic chance that the target could go from Iran to Russia or China within a blink of an eye at any point in their patrol.


This is irrelevant to the question of nuclear-tipped Tomahawks on an SSN. These weapons have limited range, and therefore it could be days before the sub was in the position to strike, whereas other platforms could deliver a package within hours or minutes.


[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Maybe I missed it if some one else mentioned, but isn't the point of a submariner fleet being submarine is...secrecy???


I had similar thoughts. One part of an answer to that might be how often a sub uses the Suez.

Is there a need to shorten the trip to it's destination due to it's mission. May be it has to due with someone on board or something it is delivering (obviously not general cargo).

Of course there is the obvious answer that it was in support of the cargo ship, which bring up the question of is that a routine procedure.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Do "Egyptian officials" routinely announce to the media when and whos' warships pass through the Suez Canal?

Seems logical to me that, at least more than a few warships of many different nations would have to pass through the Suez on a regular basis.
I'm thinking this "news report" has more to do with posturing and intimidation.
Odds are there are several U.S. attack subs in and near the Gulf already.
So, to me, this "report" is a message intended for a specific recipient, after all, a routine transit is not really worthy of mention in the Global media.

So why is this really news?...




[edit on 26-3-2008 by FewWorldOrder]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FewWorldOrder
 


My answer would be since an American ship was involved in the shooting of a fisherman/vendor in the canal, they threw in the warship passage to add more negative spin to the story.

Edit:

IE: Everywhere the American military goes, innocent people get killed.

[edit on 3/26/2008 by roadgravel]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
i think the reason that the sub could be seen going through the suez is because the suez canal is only about 26 feet deep at its deepest. theres no way a sub can submerge in that depth so naturally it would have to ride on the surface. i dont think they were "putting on a show" but im confused as to why the egyptians went on full alert over it, i would think they would be used to seeing such things in the canal.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I swear i remeber the prediction from one of them(edgar cayce, nostra) that there will be Us Sunken Ships in the mediteranian which will be the spark. I'm going to find the text and i will post it here.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
its very unlikely the us would launch a nuke from a sub. however there is a good chance they could launch a cruise missile and take out one of iran's nuclear making plants. if that happened it would result in a great nuclear meltdown and leak radiation all over the region. with that suitation there would be heck to pay, so i say that is not to likely either. just looks like a flex of muscle in a ongoing chess game. to some thats all it is, a game!



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by bamaoutlaw
 


bama, that sounds very much like what the hawks in the current criminal adminstration just might try to do...BUT, it will be co-ordinated with a distraction event so that the cruise missile will not immedieatly be known to be the cause of the 'accident' at the nuke plant....it would appear to be a 'natural disaster'......



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


You're right, it could take days for it to redeploy into a position to counterattack with nuclear cruise missiles in the event of a nuclear exchange. However, this is as opposed to *never*, should it not be carrying these weapons and the sub pens be destroyed if such an event were to take place. The idea isn't that the subs could strike immediately, mind you, but that they could eventually strike if necessary. That's an added deterent, knowing that there will still be nuclear-armed attack subs moving into position to unload a few days after any nuclear war to take out any of your vital facilities that may have survived the initial exchange.

Even in the event of a crisis that does not end in a nuclear exchange, it would allow MUCH more rapid deployment of such weapons, as they would not need to make a 1-2 week trip back to port, followed by another 1-2 week trip to their operational area. It still wouldn't be instant by any means, but beats sailing halfway around the world and back.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
mark my word, if US attacks Iran, there will be WW3! It's a shame, but US needs to stop policing the world and try to focus on fixing it's own country before it becomes a 3rd world country with nukes!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
BTW,

Just for everyones information-here is what makes up a US battlegroup:

One Nimitz class aircraft carrier
Two Ticonderoga class AEGIS cruisers
One Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer
One Spruance class destroyer
One Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigate
Two Los Angeles Class attack submarines
One Supply class replenishment ship
Source

Now, the US has at least 2 battle groups in the area-that makes at least 4 LA class attack subs in the area.

Also, those class of subs are designed to go after other subs and some ships.

Now Iran has a few subs and a few mini-subs.

Lets also not forget the Russian "black sea fleet" and it's few attack class subs

While we are at it, lets also not forget China and it's subs.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
how hard would it be to drop a laser guided missile on to a nuclear reactor from 40 thousand feet? and how hard would it be to actually prove it was a bomb drop and who dropped it? if that were the situation.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by bamaoutlaw
 


Let's look at the geographical stability in the region, as well. Earthquakes happen frequently in the area...hence, the initial reports of 'Natural Disaster' would be believed, at first......



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bamaoutlaw
how hard would it be to drop a laser guided missile on to a nuclear reactor from 40 thousand feet? and how hard would it be to actually prove it was a bomb drop and who dropped it? if that were the situation.


Not hard at all, laser guided or GPS guided.

Iran does have radar, it should be able to have a trace of the bomb just before it blows their reactor to high heaven-would the reactor get 72 virgin fuel rods???


As for proving who did it, no matter who would do it, America and or Israel would be blamed.


Now, clearly we could not drop a bomb and say it was an earthquake.

That said, "IF" the US has tech that CAN cause earthquakes, that could be used to flatten the site. (it is a well know fact that Iran has many and strong earthquakes).



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join