Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49

Thread: Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

  1. #31
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,847

    Re: Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Man View Post
    Its going to be awesome. A climactic failure to weak US foreign policy.
    Did this "weak foreign policy" happen to start around early 2009, by your estimation?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Last Seen
    09-26-10 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,219

    Re: Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Did this "weak foreign policy" happen to start around early 2009, by your estimation?
    It started with appeasement, bowing, dissing our allies; yes.

  3. #33
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-13 @ 08:21 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,932

    Re: Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes View Post
    They certainly wouldn't play by the rules, and one of the biggest threats I see to this scenario is Iran loading a ship up with civilians, sailing it to the optimal sinking zone, unloading the civilians on to a trailing ship and the proceeding to sink the original ship. The 5th fleet is capable of blockading certain areas, but not en masse, and there would be only so many SEAL platoons capable of boarding and neutralizing such ships.

    Iran's premier anti-ship missile, the SS-N-22 also known as the Sunburn, is one of the scariest aspects of a battle to keep the strait open.

    The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."
    They only have to threaten the strait to effectively block it. That wont prevent the american navy from getting through but commercial ships are a bit diffrent when it comes to the risks they're willing to take.

  4. #34
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    Come back when you can prove that a stated purpose of delivering aid is a credible threat.
    It doesn't matter if your ship is carrying unicorns and glitter, if it's declared an intention to enter a sovereign state's territorial water and that entrance is in contravention of that state's law, it's a thread to that state's sovereignty, particularly where that state has internally concluded that the entrance is a threat for additional reasons.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    It doesn't matter if your ship is carrying unicorns and glitter, if it's declared an intention to enter a sovereign state's territorial water and that entrance is in contravention of that state's law, it's a thread to that state's sovereignty, particularly where that state has internally concluded that the entrance is a threat for additional reasons.
    Except that that sovereign state is gradually expanding to surround a claim on a separate sovereign state, cutting off their supplies at will. A ship destined for Palestine is not the same as a ship destined for Israel in the eyes of many.

  6. #36
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Except that that sovereign state is gradually expanding to surround a claim on a separate sovereign state, cutting off their supplies at will. A ship destined for Palestine is not the same as a ship destined for Israel in the eyes of many.
    The eyes of many aren't what really matters here. As a sovereign state, Israel has the authority to do what it feels necessary to address whatever it considers to be a threat to its sovereignty or a violation of its law, so long as that action does not contravene other binding law.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The eyes of many aren't what really matters here. As a sovereign state, Israel has the authority to do what it feels necessary to address whatever it considers to be a threat to its sovereignty or a violation of its law, so long as that action does not contravene other binding law.
    The eyes of many does matter here. You're acting like the Israel-Palestine conflict is not controversial and fraught with gray areas. I know what the law says, and I don't care. The law was formed by the U.S. and Britain through the UN and the behest of their foreign policies. Israel is expanding and acquiring new territory. Whether or not it has the right to do so is always up for debate, and whether or not the Palestinian people should receive supplies is always up for debate.

    I am one of the many who think that, in this case, the law is wrong and I support its violation to feed the people of Palestine. War is two sided and while I understand Israel's position, I can't ethically ignore Palestine's.

  8. #38
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    The eyes of many does matter here. You're acting like the Israel-Palestine conflict is not controversial and fraught with gray areas.
    IMO, it's quite the opposite. It's the fact that it's so controversial and fraught with gray areas that ensures that the two sides will never be willing to accept the decision of an "independent" third party, even if one could be found. It's precisely because of that that both sides will continue to do whatever they believe is legal, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. If this were a mundane dispute about oil drilling rights, it would be far more likely to be resolved by some international arbitral body with minimal fanfare, with international consensus playing a much more important role.

    I know what the law says, and I don't care. The law was formed by the U.S. and Britain through the UN and the behest of their foreign policies. Israel is expanding and acquiring new territory. Whether or not it has the right to do so is always up for debate, and whether or not the Palestinian people should receive supplies is always up for debate.

    I am one of the many who think that, in this case, the law is wrong and I support its violation to feed the people of Palestine. War is two sided and while I understand Israel's position, I can't ethically ignore Palestine's.
    That's fine, and you're absolutely entitled to think that. I don't have a strong feeling either way on the moral blame issue, as both are responsible for plenty of questionable incidents. I'm responding to arguments about legality because I have strong views on the propriety of individual state action in the international system, not because I really have any sympathies for the Israeli or Palestinian position.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    01-26-14 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    It doesn't matter if your ship is carrying unicorns and glitter, if it's declared an intention to enter a sovereign state's territorial water and that entrance is in contravention of that state's law, it's a thread to that state's sovereignty, particularly where that state has internally concluded that the entrance is a threat for additional reasons.
    Except the declared intention is to enter another sovereign state's territorial waters. Just because Israel is in a hostile relation with Hamas, they do not automatically get authority and power to extend their jurisdiction beyond their territory. No international law stipulates this, despite what donsutherland1 may think. The correct response to a ship flying a State's flag in international waters is to contact that State's government and make a request to board. Israel did not follow this guideline of international law, despite signing the Convention for the Supression of Unlawful Acts Against Martime Navigation just last year.

    They violated a convention they agreed to abide by. You may think that is appropriate. International law, however, does not.

  10. #40
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    Except the declared intention is to enter another sovereign state's territorial waters. Just because Israel is in a hostile relation with Hamas, they do not automatically get authority and power to extend their jurisdiction beyond their territory. No international law stipulates this, despite what donsutherland1 may think. The correct response to a ship flying a State's flag in international waters is to contact that State's government and make a request to board. Israel did not follow this guideline of international law, despite signing the Convention for the Supression of Unlawful Acts Against Martime Navigation just last year.

    They violated a convention they agreed to abide by. You may think that is appropriate. International law, however, does not.
    In the other thread where you posted about that Convention, I explained why you're incorrect in claiming that it applies.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •