• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

Things may be lining up for some major ugliness very soon. Iran and Israel, N and S Korea... and then there's their backers, the USA, Russia and China.

North Korea has little international support. I think if there is a war the only reason we'll be talking about Chinese troops crossing the Yalu River is because they will be trying to force a swift and decisive halt to any aggression taken by North Korea and to insure Korean reunification happens on terms that are favorable to it.

As it concerns Iran the most likely scenario seems to be something that is either clearly caused by Israel or the U.S. or something ambiguous. In that scenario I doubt China will likely complain and nothing more, while Russia will strongly back its allies Syria and Iran, though not necessarily with direct military force.
 
This is just pure insanity.

Two primitive nations squaring off in preparation for nuclear strikes, and one of them we even support. Mark my words, if there is a WWIII, it's not going to start with NK or China. It's going to be between Israel and Iran.
 
A ship traveling directly toward territorial water with the stated purpose of delivering aid to people engaged in conflict with the sovereign state constitutes mere words?

Someone should call Daniel Webster and explain that to him.
Come back when you can prove that a stated purpose of delivering aid is a credible threat.
 
This is just pure insanity.

Two primitive nations squaring off in preparation for nuclear strikes, and one of them we even support. Mark my words, if there is a WWIII, it's not going to start with NK or China. It's going to be between Israel and Iran.

Its going to be awesome. A climactic failure to weak US foreign policy.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
In the other thread where you posted about that Convention, I explained why you're incorrect in claiming that it applies.

I have already responded to that thread, but will show you exactly what this Convention applies to. Keep in mind Israel is a signatory to this Convention:

Article 2

1. This Convention does not apply to:

(a) a warship; or

(b) a ship owned or operated by a State when being used as a naval auxiliary or for customs or police purposes; or

(c) a ship which has been withdrawn from navigation or laid up.

2. Nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes.

The Gaza aid flotilla does not meet any of the requirements of 1a, 1b, or 1c. As such, the Convention applies to aid vessels on humantiarian relief efforts.
 
I have already responded to that thread, but will show you exactly what this Convention applies to. Keep in mind Israel is a signatory to this Convention:

The Gaza aid flotilla does not meet any of the requirements of 1a, 1b, or 1c. As such, the Convention applies to aid vessels on humantiarian relief efforts.

Go back to that thread, I explained the problem with your interpretation.

The reason that this convention is not applicable to this situation is not because of Art. II, it's because of Art. III.
 
Go back to that thread, I explained the problem with your interpretation.

The reason that this convention is not applicable to this situation is not because of Art. II, it's because of Art. III.

Article 3 is what the offence Israel commited, You are obviously confused.

They took over control of another ship (Article 3) in international waters. I suggest rereading Article 3 to better understand it.
 
Article 3 is what the offence Israel commited, You are obviously confused.

They took over control of another ship (Article 3) in international waters. I suggest rereading Article 3 to better understand it.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This is basic legal interpretation, as I have painstakingly explained to you in the other thread.
 
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This is basic legal interpretation, as I have painstakingly explained to you in the other thread.

That's why I'm doing my Masters of Law currently at University of Houston. International law was less than 2 semesters ago. I think I have a firmer grasp on legal interpretation that you do.
 
That's why I'm doing my Masters of Law currently at University of Houston. International law was less than 2 semesters ago. I think I have a firmer grasp on legal interpretation that you do.

Right. Well, best of luck with that.
 
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.

As you have noted elsewhere, international law lacks teeth unless someone is willing to do something about it. The only reason why Israeli sovereignty according to its current expanding borders is accepted and defended is because the Western powers are behind it, and no other reason. Israel would not exist without U.S. military aid. The legality simply stems from might makes right, and that's all... and not because there is some greater moral argument happening here.

I do believe that both parties are irrational actors which is why I wish the West would withdraw its support from both of these savages but oh well. State actors do what they do.
 
That's why I'm doing my Masters of Law currently at University of Houston. International law was less than 2 semesters ago. I think I have a firmer grasp on legal interpretation that you do.

I took international law classes in both undergrad and graduate school, and that does not make me an expert. You of all people (studying law) ought to realize that there are two sides to almost every case, both grounded in some form of the law.

In graduate school my teacher started the class by saying "Why is it important to study international law." The answer: "So you can ignore it effectively."
 
I took international law classes in both undergrad and graduate school, and that does not make me an expert. You of all people (studying law) ought to realize that there are two sides to almost every case, both grounded in some form of the law.

This is absolutely true as a general principle, but this isn't really one of those cases. The language of the convention is exceedingly clear in that unlawfulness is an element of a violation.
 
Back
Top Bottom