MrRant 0 Report post Posted October 11, 2003 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. and Israeli officials say Israel has modified U.S.-made Harpoon cruise missiles so it can launch nuclear warheads from submarines, the Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday. The State Department and Pentagon (news - web sites) declined to comment on the report, as did an Israeli military spokesman, in line with that nation's policy of refusing to say if it has nuclear weapons. Israel is regarded as the only nuclear power in the Middle East. According to a story posted on the newspaper's Web site, U.S. officials disclosed the information as a caution to Israel's enemies amid heightened tensions in the region and concern over Iran's atomic program. The newspaper said two U.S. administration officials described the Israeli modifications and an Israeli official confirmed it. All three asked not to be identified. According to the U.S. officials, Israel modified nuclear warheads to fit the widely used Harpoon cruise missile. They would be carried on three diesel-powered submarines delivered by a German builder at the end of the last decade. An Israel Navy Web site said the submarines carry Harpoon missile but does not give details on the warheads. Deployed by the U.S. Navy (news - web sites) since 1977, the Harpoon is in the arsenal of 28 nations. Israel has 120 Harpoons capable of submarine launch, according to various researchers. That version is 15 feet long and weighs 1,500 pounds with a range of 70 miles or more. It can carry a 488-pound warhead. A book published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 2002 said Israel was attempting to arm its submarines with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wouldn't suprise me if Israel uses them either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted October 11, 2003 The hell with Harpoons; we should give them half a dozen Spirits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted October 11, 2003 The hell with Harpoons; we should give them half a dozen Spirits. Does it matter? The significance of using nuclear weapons is inherent, it doesn't matter if it's the same model as was dropped at Hiroshima or the latest model developed by the US. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted October 11, 2003 The significance of using nuclear weapons is inherent, it doesn't matter if it's the same model as was dropped at Hiroshima or the latest model developed by the US. You obviously don't have the faintest idea what I was talking about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted October 11, 2003 The significance of using nuclear weapons is inherent, it doesn't matter if it's the same model as was dropped at Hiroshima or the latest model developed by the US. You obviously don't have the faintest idea what I was talking about. I assumed by "Spirits" you meant B2 Bombers. My point was that that's just overkill. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted October 12, 2003 I did, but I'm not sure how you got from there to the latest models of nuclear weapons. In any case, the Spirit has far, far more uses than just dropping really big bombs on people, which is why it would be better for Israel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted October 12, 2003 Should I be dismayed by this news? Israel is the only country in that entire portion of the WORLD who would be responsible with nukes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted October 12, 2003 Frankly, all these people who endorse the thought of Israel wiping out and crushing all Arab opposition in the Middle East kind of disturb me. What happens if one of their leaders pulls a Saddam and starts behaving badly towards us? Or if they start selling all this stuff elsewhere? Without a clear and present enemy, the US will have no reason to send Israel all these generous donations of cash. Israel will find themselves suddently without what was a very dependable source of funds, but will have billions of dollars in military plans and machinery that was developed over the past conflict with our cooperation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted October 12, 2003 What happens if one of [israel's] leaders pulls a Saddam and starts behaving badly towards us? Literally impossible. Israel... will have billions of dollars in military plans and machinery that was developed over the past conflict with our cooperation. Superb. Few things could make me happier. I adore Israel; she's our little sister. Israel will find themselves suddently without what was a very dependable source of funds It's practically impossible for this to ever happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted October 12, 2003 (edited) Excerpts from the article linked to above: "There happens to be a convenient quantitative index of the way Israel stands out as an American ally: voting records at the United Nations General Assembly. Israel has for many years been far ahead of all other states in terms of voting most often with the United States. According to figures compiled by the U.S. government, Israel in 1996 agreed with Washington on 95 percent of all significant votes, far beyond the number-two state (Latvia, at 81 percent) and such close American allies as the United Kingdom (79 percent), France (78 percent), Canada (73 percent) and Japan (72 percent). By comparison, the top Arab country - Kuwait - voted with the United States only 45 percent of the time. Typically, when only one or two states stand with Washington, Israel is one of them... When Secretary of State Alexander Haig tried to create a "strategic consensus" in the Middle East to oppose Soviet expansionism, the Israelis eagerly joined in while Arab states stayed away... Israel has become an affluent country with a personal income rivaling Great Britain's, so the American willingness to provide aid to Israel is no longer based purely on need. Rather, the aid today is closely tied to the peace process; any hint of a reduction is resisted on the grounds that it endangers Israel's confidence and so its willingness to take risks for peace. This makes U.S. aid to Israel unlike any other. Although an increasing number of voices, especially among conservatives in both countries, express skepticism about the continuation of aid, it remains a mainstay of the two countries' relations... The U.S. government signed its first ever free-trade agreement (FTA) in 1985 - with Israel, of course. This unprecedented treaty opened up the entire U.S. market to Israel by gradually eliminating tariffs. Further, the FTA served as the model for the subsequent agreements with Canada and Mexico. Revealingly, while the latter two met with political opposition (and especially the Mexican one, which was part of the contentious North American Free Trade Agreement), the Israeli one did not; in fact, the Senate vote on the agreement was unanimous... Total two-way trade came to about $4.7 billion in 1985 and reached over $11 billion in 1995, with U.S. exports to Israel doubling in the last decade... Israel may be the only case of a country willingly cooperating with the United States on the development of its macroeconomic policy... More unusual yet, Americans and Israelis have many standing arrangements at the state and local level. Governors now routinely lead delegations of business leaders, educators, and cultural-affairs officials to Israel. The major milestone here occurred in 1984, when the Texas Israel Exchange came into existence to promote projects between the Texas Department of Agriculture and Israel's Ministry of Agriculture. At least another nineteen states followed suit... The general rule about states not interfering in each other's affairs goes out the window in this most family-like of relationships. Yitzhak Rabin supported Gerald Ford in 1972 and George Bush in 1992... Bill Clinton did everything he reasonably could, including a virtual joint campaign appearance, to aid the reelection of Shimon Peres. In 1992, Secretary of State James Baker precipitated a parliamentary election in Israel; and the Lubavicher rebbe in Brooklyn then had a substantial say about the outcome of that election. Neither side, interestingly, takes this interference much amiss. On learning of American efforts to keep the Labor in a coalition government with Likud in 1989, an unnamed Israeli official responsed calmly: 'Because of the intensity and intimacy of the relationship between our two countries, we have gotten used to such intervention and do not see it as meddling.' It strains the imagination to think of an official in any other country making such a statement... Israel is the only country where Americans are allowed to hold public office and still keep their U.S. citizenship... In the worst case, an American administration may seek to pressure the Israelis and might even reduce the level of cooperation (for example, by suspending arms deliveries or reducing strategic cooperation), but the ties today are so broad and deep that the alliance is unlikely to crack. Unlike Dwight Eisenhower in 1956-57, no president today can credibly threaten a cutoff of aid, for Congress would not support such action. Economic, academic, and personal relations between citizens of the two countries are largely immune to political vagaries. Further development of this remarkable relationship might be retarded, but not reversed." - How Special is the US - Israel Relationship? by Mitchell Bard and Daniel Pipes NB: all boldface mine. The excerpts are admittedly lengthy, but be sure to read the full article for a better understanding of the amazing ties our countries have at still more levels - educational, scientific, military, economic, and countless others. We make the European Union look downright frigid. Edited October 12, 2003 by Cancer Marney Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted October 12, 2003 Literally impossible. Link ain't working, but I'll believe you. Superb. Few things could make me happier. I adore Israel; she's our little sister. Yeah, that figures. I prefer the UK myself. Strong economically and militarily and a culture that, at the current time anyway, isn't too steeped in religion. It's practically impossible for this to ever happen. They have the power of a tiny nuclear superpower. Is their economy equally well off, discounting the happy American money that lands in their lap regularly? EDIT: Appearantly so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted October 12, 2003 (edited) Literally impossible. Link ain't working, but I'll believe you. How Special is the US - Israel Relationship? by Mitchell Bard and Daniel Pipes Just checked them again; both (identical) links work fine for me. Anyone else having a problem getting to the article? Edited October 12, 2003 by Cancer Marney Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted October 12, 2003 I prefer the UK myself. Strong economically and militarily and a culture that, at the current time anyway, isn't too steeped in religion. I like the UK too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommytomlin 0 Report post Posted October 15, 2003 Yeah, don't worry about Australia, we'll just keep commiting troops to your wars and you can just forget us when you're handing out the billion dollar reconstruction contracts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted October 15, 2003 Ok, sounds peachy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
