It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by musselwhite

Now we understand why the trinket peddler was blasted the other day. To to make room for this billion dollar weapon of mass destruction.

I'm sure once they searched his boat, and instead of finding a terrorist plot ... found a box full of 3x5 post cards of sunsetted Pyramids, America said they were sorry - right?

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 12:54 PM

Originally posted by wazar
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.

I am a prince.
I am a priest.
I am you.
Seek the inner truth.

I am,

Sri Oracle

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:48 PM

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???

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

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

Where is the world when North Korea, Iran, Al Q, Hezbollah, et al supposed "militant rogue regime" postures an unmanned, inexpensive, but well armed, kinetic-drive mini-submarine, out of nowhere, 13 miles off the coast of Louisiana, in the High Seas of the Gulf of Mexico? And then, when demands are made... they simply posture more.

These days technology is cheap and abundant. The only threat I see in a cumbersome naval fleet or postured multi billion dollar nuclear sub is posed the host country's economy.

That's my reaction.

I posture with my pen as my sword,

Sri Oracle

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:23 PM

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

It was the IAEA who in 2006 sprang a surprise inspection at Natanz and found 70% enriched uranium.

Prior to that, Iran concealed existence of Natanz and hid the entrance under a trucking warehouse.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:25 PM
reply to post by CreeWolf

Wrong. Subs and ships are banned from sailing with the nuclear Tomahawks under a treaty that we have with Russia. It does not specifically say that in the treaty however the two nations have agreed to not carry tactical nuclear missiles on board their ships and subs. Can they yes do they no. Same goes with the nuclear air launched tactical cruise missile, This I know we are disarming yet the Russians seem to be not going along with this one by making all the bomber flights lately and their Generals making stupid claims. Don't really matter to us as our Ohio class subs carry enough nukes to wipe out Russia in fifteen minutes after they launch anyway.

We are not going to nuke Iran unless they try to nuke someone else first, Anyone who thinks otherwise is off their rocker.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by Sri Oracle

Pass the crack pipe!!! What tabloid did you find that info in? The North Korean Sun tribune? What was in it Pablo Escabars body?

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:14 PM
reply to post by vor78

It still wouldn't be instant by any means, but beats sailing halfway around the world and back.

Do you realize how many first-strike nuclear weapons we have on-station at any given time?

If we were down to using nuclear Tomahawks as a last resort, the world would have already been cracked in half, and moltenized as it fell into the sun from the amount of nukes that had already gone off.

The only use I could see for nuclear Tomahawks would be if US forces were indeed stretched across the enitre globe carrying out imperialist ambitions in every country. In such a case, it might be prudent to have tactical nuclear weapons on station at sea in each theatre. In other words, the sort of war where you might hear of a nuke going off here and there every few weeks or so. A limited nuclear war.

This might be why the US agreed to give up the TLAM/N in the first place, since they are no longer useful. Their original mission had been that of a redundant strike force in the event of a full-scale global thermonuclear exchange with the Soviets. That if somehow the Soviets were able to disable or destroy our first-strike capability, we would still be able to strike with some effect. Such a redundant measure is no longer practical in today's world, and was not even very practical then.

[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Pass the crack pipe!!! What tabloid did you find that info in?

Sri Oracle Political Fiction Press
Ringing Your Bell Daily

I am,

Sri Oracle

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:20 PM
Plenty of soldiers to start several wars, especially with troops already on the ground in the region.

Thats not to say a draft wouldn't be require to protect the homeland.

Iran needs to be taken care of. I don't think china would take any action but Russia is another story.

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 03:06 PM
Well I agree that the sub(s) sent over to the persian gulf is nuclear powered. I also think it's a bit naive to think that just cause we said we have mothballed our nuclear tipped just about anything that you can launch from a sub means we actually have.

I mean if you were in charge of making that decision for the US military. would you? i mean really, would you? Hell noooooooo you would't!!! you'd tell the world of course we defanged our military. I mean we're the US right not some other less trustworthy country.

but meanwhile in the real world........

No those weapons are still there, just on the back burner. the sub or the US might have no intention of using them for this campaign doesn't mean that they still don't have them on board. ready to go at a moments notice.

Also, nuclear ordinance is used for lots of other useful things besides blowing things up.

Not saying the US would use these types of ordinance on Iran or anybody else, but to actually believe the party line that we've decommissioned them is just dumb. no offense.

also, to anybody who thinks that this is the only nuclear sub we've got skulking around over in the gulf, or that this is any sort of news. dude!!!! what are you smoking? where have you been? what time is it!?! where's your foil hat!!!! what kind of conspiratory fan are you!!!!

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:56 AM

Gorbachev says U.S. missile defense is against Russia and China, not Iran!

China and Russia entered into The Shanghai Cooperation Organization back in 2001, I believe, to rid their soil of western occupation.

this makes more sense from a strategic point to make believe they are going after Iran when in fact it is Russia and China!

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by mattifikation
you are right, it is not's Russia and China! just the though the US will invade Iran was just another distraction from the real issue.

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:31 AM
The US won't invade Iran - they'll just bomb or missile strike the nuclear power facilities, AFTER israel has struck first and Iran retaliates.

It would be a big mistake to invade Iran - the whole region would come to the war along with their allies russia, who have built the plants for them and are providing them with the nuclear material.

Meanwhile Israel steps up the rhetoric, having a swipe at the swiss of all people


And the Russians fulfill their contract with Iran by building their 4th ship:

Russia's Volgograd Shipyard has built its fourth double-screw dry-cargo vessel for Iran, thus fulfilling its contract with the country.

Fitted with 4 cargo tanks and boasting a total capacity of 10,800 cubic meters, the multi-purpose ship meets all the requirements of international conventions.

The vessel was designed to transport general and bulk cargo, timber and large-size cargo.

The 4-ship contact had been signed in August, 2005. According to MNP Group, three of the vessels were delivered to Iran's Irinvestship Limited in 2007.

The fourth ship is expected to be handed over to Iran in the near future.


Anyone except war hungry morons really want to mess with one of Irans major trading partner?
Who just also happens to have hundreds of nukes.

[edit on 1/4/2008 by budski]

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in