Create new account | My Profile | My Journal | My Account | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Google search

Advanced search

HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Iran 'designing nuclear s...

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 09:50 AM

bananas (20,292 posts)

Iran 'designing nuclear submarine'

Source: Telegraph

Iran has begun to design its first nuclear submarine, according to a report in the country's semiofficial Fars news agency.

"Initial steps to design and build nuclear submarine propulsion systems have begun," Admiral Abbas Zamini, the technical deputy navy chief, told the agency.

"All countries have the right to use peaceful nuclear technology, including for the propulsion system of its vessels," he said.

Iran's navy "needs the (nuclear-powered) propulsion system to succeed in realising very long-distance operations."

<snip>

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9326126/Iran-designing-nuclear-submarine.html


The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons.

While the rest of the world has been trying to reduce and eliminate the threat of nuclear war, Iran is going in the wrong direction.

Iran is provoking other countries into starting or increasing their own nuclear weapons programs, which will make nuclear war much more likely.

73 replies, 6761 views

Thread infoBookmark this threadTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 73 replies Author Time Post
Reply Iran 'designing nuclear submarine' (Original post)
 bananas Jun 2012 OP
LineReply Just what we need, more religious nuts with nukes
 jpbollma Jun 2012 #1
LineReply This message was self-deleted by its author
 onehandle Jun 2012 #2
LineLineReply Because nuclear submarines are so scary?
 bhikkhu Jun 2012 #10
LineLineReply This message was hidden by jury decision.
 harun Jun 2012 #13
LineLineReply then get your ass down to the recruiter..
 frylock Jun 2012 #18
LineLineLineReply We do live in upside-down land. - n/t
 coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #23
LineReply Sounds like an Iranian jobs program.
 bluedigger Jun 2012 #3
LineReply Who says that the Iranians don't have a sense of humor
 grantcart Jun 2012 #4
LineLineReply I was wondering if they could modify one of their existing, conventional submarines. n/t
 Ian David Jun 2012 #7
LineLineLineReply You mean the Kilo Class
 grantcart Jun 2012 #16
LineLineReply Agree that much of Iran's public saber rattling seems more bluster than substance. PR tools.
 pinto Jun 2012 #27
LineReply You're wrong, of course.
 CanSocDem Jun 2012 #5
LineLineReply Finally, someone said it!
 RC Jun 2012 #6
LineLineLineReply I'd add Pakistan
 muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #8
LineLineLineLineReply Not disagreeing with you about Pakistan, but the Hindu nationalists in India (also
 coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #25
LineLineLineLineLineReply There is no comparison between India and Pakistan
 cosmicone Jun 2012 #48
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply Yes, in addition to Pakistan and India and us, add Isreal
 EFerrari Jun 2012 #49
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply You are the 'nutcase.' Roy won the Booker Prize back in 1957. Do you have
 coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #50
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply Very mature indeed. n/t
 cosmicone Jun 2012 #51
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply There's always one way to get The Last Word in.
 LanternWaste Jun 2012 #53
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply I mean, really, when someone calls the winner of the Booker a 'nut case,' there's
 coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #58
LineLineReply I'd flag the OP but it won't do any good. MIC appeasers would vote to leave it.
 harun Jun 2012 #12
LineLineLineReply We only hide rude. Rightwing nonsense is fine.
 Warren Stupidity Jun 2012 #44
LineReply The Pentagon is pissed only because once the winds change,
 Blue_Tires Jun 2012 #9
LineLineReply Naah--we weren't much into selling Iran that kind of stuff.
 MADem Jun 2012 #14
LineReply Like that super-duper rocket they built, and the new "fighter plane" made out of pieces of old
 MADem Jun 2012 #11
LineReply Give me a break.
 harmonicon Jun 2012 #15
LineLineReply agree
 Remember Jun 2012 #59
LineReply Drums... drums in the deep...
 AtheistCrusader Jun 2012 #17
LineLineNew Reply Ennh... I think this is news worthy to an extent...
 octothorpe Jun 2012 #65
LineLineLineNew Reply They couldn't even build their own commercial reactor
 AtheistCrusader Jun 2012 #70
LineReply Is Iran asking to be attacked?
 SoutherDem Jun 2012 #19
LineReply Where Did You Get This Idea, Sir?
 The Magistrate Jun 2012 #20
LineReply "Iran is going in the wrong direction" - It's OK for the U.S. to
 coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #21
LineLineReply It's not ok for either.
 bananas Jun 2012 #30
LineLineLineReply The rest of the world HAS NOT been trying to reduce and eliminate
 coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #37
LineLineLineReply We have lots of nuclear submarines and are building more.
 Warren Stupidity Jun 2012 #45
LineLineReply The US would prefer they had nuclear subs
 hack89 Jun 2012 #32
LineLineLineReply Well, at least until the diesel boats have to snorkel n/t
 DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2012 #60
LineLineLineLineReply With AIP technology they don't even have to do that. nt
 hack89 Jun 2012 #61
LineReply Fearmongering exemplified: "The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons"
 Xithras Jun 2012 #22
LineReply Good - let them piss away a fortune and get nothing for it. nt
 hack89 Jun 2012 #24
LineReply So much wrong all in one OP
 14thColony Jun 2012 #26
LineLineReply +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - Well put and definitely
 coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #39
LineLineReply Well and succinctly put!
 Prometheus Bound Jun 2012 #42
LineReply a little perspective
 Douglas Carpenter Jun 2012 #28
LineLineReply wait, you mean Iran doesn't have that many bases in Canada & Mexico?
 yurbud Jun 2012 #34
LineLineReply Your map is quite out of date.
 MADem Jun 2012 #41
LineReply I'm designing one too! I also invented helium.
 Throd Jun 2012 #29
LineLineReply Damn
 Kolesar Jun 2012 #31
LineReply How many nuclear submarines do we have? and how many nuclear weapons?
 yurbud Jun 2012 #33
LineReply 1 min VIDEO: our nuclear subs and what they can do
 yurbud Jun 2012 #35
LineReply charts on nuclear arsenals
 yurbud Jun 2012 #36
LineLineReply I don't see Iran anywhere on any of your charts. Surely the OP
 coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #38
LineLineReply Thank you for putting it in perspective.
 Nihil Jun 2012 #43
LineLineReply charts on nuclear arsenals looks biased
 may3rd Jun 2012 #47
LineLineLineReply the one where it looks like Israel has the most is WITHOUT US & Russia
 yurbud Jun 2012 #54
LineReply I hope the Prez has the Navy Seals on speed dial. nt
 Remmah2 Jun 2012 #40
LineReply I'm sure Russia can SELL them a previously owned model
 may3rd Jun 2012 #46
LineReply Iranian naval engineering reminds me of the standard Soviet braggadocio...
 LanternWaste Jun 2012 #52
LineReply Interesting
 sarisataka Jun 2012 #55
LineReply Will it be yellow
 dipsydoodle Jun 2012 #56
LineReply LOL! So did I...
 Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #57
LineReply "The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons." FALSE
 NutmegYankee Jun 2012 #62
LineReply Just stay away from ny please.
 hrmjustin Jun 2012 #63
LineNew Reply Nuclear propulsion does not mean the same thing as nuclear weapons.
 octothorpe Jun 2012 #64
LineNew Reply The Los Angeles-class and Seawolf-class NUCLEAR submarines aren't armed with nuclear weapons
 jmowreader Jun 2012 #66
LineNew Reply I'm designing a new warp driven space ship!
 Marrah_G Jun 2012 #67
LineNew Reply IRAN SAYS IT SEEKS TO BUILD NUCLEAR-POWERED BIRDHOUSE
 Zorro Jun 2012 #68
LineNew Reply The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons.
 FrodosPet Jun 2012 #69
LineLineNew Reply and like nuclear power in general, having a space program, and a couple of other things...
 yurbud Jun 2012 #72
LineNew Reply Oh no!!!
 and-justice-for-all Jun 2012 #71
LineNew Reply Good For Iran!
 porcinaalbastrucaine Jun 2012 #73

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 10:02 AM

jpbollma (552 posts)

1. Just what we need, more religious nuts with nukes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

onehandle This message was self-deleted by its author.

Response to onehandle (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:06 AM

Star Member bhikkhu (7,752 posts)

10. Because nuclear submarines are so scary?

If you look into the technology involved, its the sort of project that occupies decades and would sink the economies of most smaller countries. On the other hand, the technology for submarine hunting and elimination is pretty well mature in the countries of the developed world.

It sounds more like some of nutjob-in-charge stuff from the Nazi era - when someone wants to pour resources into pretty shiny stuff that ultimately won't work, you let him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to onehandle (Reply #2)

harun This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to onehandle (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:44 AM

Star Member frylock (19,375 posts)

18. then get your ass down to the recruiter..

and with a john lennon avatar no less. fucking unreal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to frylock (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:12 PM

coalition_unwilling (14,180 posts)

23. We do live in upside-down land. - n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 10:06 AM

bluedigger (10,726 posts)

3. Sounds like an Iranian jobs program.

And a good way to rally national pride.

I'll worry about them building an actual effective nuclear sub sometime around 2030...maybe...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 10:13 AM

Star Member grantcart (38,894 posts)

4. Who says that the Iranians don't have a sense of humor

Putting aside completely the idea of putting the engineering together that would take nuclear off land and onto a vessel, a much greater challenge than simply making a nuclear bomb, there is the entire submarine technology challenge.

If they started today it would take decades for the Iranians to build all of the integrtrated industries necessary to support a submarine manufacturing industry.

Then you would actually have to have a submarine manufacturing dry dock, all of which would be easily visible and even more easy to destroy with a simple missile.

And then on top of this is that submarines are now becoming redundant in that just like flying predators we have a whole fleet of robotic buoys making ocean surveillance by submarine expensive and obsolete.

You don't build an entire industry to manufacture a single submarine.

Not a serious effort by Iran but if you put enough red herrings on the table then it gives you more things to take off in a negotiation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to grantcart (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 10:27 AM

Star Member Ian David (68,667 posts)

7. I was wondering if they could modify one of their existing, conventional submarines. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Ian David (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:26 AM

Star Member grantcart (38,894 posts)

16. You mean the Kilo Class

Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:27 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Seems like that would be like putting a jet engine on a biplane.

And these little guys are never going to get to launch ICBMs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo_class_submarine

In any case the Russians would have to do it for them.

edited to add I think we can take the 'midgets' off the table, lol


The Iranian navy has 23 submarines, including three Russian Kilo-class attack vessels, according to the International Institute for Strategic Study’s 2012 Military Balance publication. It also has 12 midget submarines, the publication says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to grantcart (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:23 PM

Star Member pinto (98,208 posts)

27. Agree that much of Iran's public saber rattling seems more bluster than substance. PR tools.

Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:35 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

I would assume Iran's more concrete and disruptive (to all parties) goal is some sort of blockade of the Hormuz Strait

Interesting to see at least one country (forget which one specifically) is planning a pipeline / port beyond the Hormuz. If doable, would seem a good, if limited, workaround.



(ed to change is -> seems)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 10:16 AM

CanSocDem (1,583 posts)

5. You're wrong, of course.



"The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons."

This sounds like the hysterical nonsense written by the MIC knowing that fear will provoke reasonably intelligent people to get behind their weapons programs.

And you know where this leads, don't you....???? That's right, more war. Is that what you are promoting here????

The USA is the only religious "nut case" on the planet with nuclear weapons.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to CanSocDem (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 10:24 AM

Star Member RC (21,873 posts)

6. Finally, someone said it!

The USA is the only religious "nut case" on the planet with nuclear weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RC (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 10:48 AM

Star Member muriel_volestrangler (65,853 posts)

8. I'd add Pakistan

There are people with significant amounts of power in Pakistan who are also religious nutcases. Hence, for instance, the laws with the death penalty for blasphemy:

Last year, two prominent Pakistani political figures who spoke out against the blasphemy laws were killed in attacks that raised concerns about the rise of religious extremism in Pakistan.

Liberal politician Salman Taseer was shot and killed by one of his own guards in January 2011, and in March 2011, militants gunned down Shahbaz Bhatti, the only Christian minister in Pakistan's Cabinet.


Qadri confessed to killing Punjab Governor Salman Taseer on Tuesday because of Taseer's opposition to Pakistan's controversial anti-blasphemy law. He was a member of Taseer's security team.

Pakistani officials say an investigation is underway to determine whether Qadri acted alone or was part of a wider conspiracy.

Hundreds of lawyers said they are willing to defend Qadri. In addition, 500 conservative religious scholars issued a proclamation Wednesday praising the assassination and warning that anyone who expresses grief over the killing could suffer the same fate.

http://www.voanews.com/content/disruptions-mark-remand-of-alleged-pakistani-assassin-113016474/133207.html


While not all of the Pakistani authorities are religious nutcases, you can say the same about the USA. The nutcases have more power in Pakistan, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:15 PM

coalition_unwilling (14,180 posts)

25. Not disagreeing with you about Pakistan, but the Hindu nationalists in India (also

 

a nuclear power) are pretty fucking scary too, at least according to what I read from Arundhati Roy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 07:38 AM

Star Member cosmicone (3,428 posts)

48. There is no comparison between India and Pakistan

India is a constitutional and functioning secular democracy and the Hindu nationalists have never achieved political power. India's secular credentials are impeccable with two Muslim presidents, two Sikh presidents, a Jewish former joint military chief of staff, and several ministers from various religions including 5 Christian denominations. The leader of the ruling party is an Italian born Catholic.

Arundhati Roy is a nutcase and is the laughing stock in India. She only gets traction with (gullible) Westerners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cosmicone (Reply #48)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:36 AM

EFerrari (163,986 posts)

49. Yes, in addition to Pakistan and India and us, add Isreal

where the right wing plays the religious right just like it does here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cosmicone (Reply #48)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:38 AM

coalition_unwilling (14,180 posts)

50. You are the 'nutcase.' Roy won the Booker Prize back in 1957. Do you have

 

a Nobel under your belt? You probably also dismiss Amartya Sen as a 'kook.'

And when's the last time you spoke at Harvard U.?

Don't bother replying. You're now on Ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #50)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 01:02 PM

Star Member cosmicone (3,428 posts)

51. Very mature indeed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #50)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 01:08 PM

LanternWaste (16,520 posts)

53. There's always one way to get The Last Word in.

There's always one way to get The Last Word in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LanternWaste (Reply #53)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:33 PM

coalition_unwilling (14,180 posts)

58. I mean, really, when someone calls the winner of the Booker a 'nut case,' there's

 

really nowhere productive the discussion can go after that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to CanSocDem (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:11 AM

harun (9,772 posts)

12. I'd flag the OP but it won't do any good. MIC appeasers would vote to leave it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to harun (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 06:52 AM

Star Member Warren Stupidity (32,395 posts)

44. We only hide rude. Rightwing nonsense is fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 10:56 AM

Blue_Tires (31,886 posts)

9. The Pentagon is pissed only because once the winds change,

our people could have SOLD Iran as many subs as they could buy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:16 AM

MADem (87,283 posts)

14. Naah--we weren't much into selling Iran that kind of stuff.

We sold them their Air Force, though, a veritable TON of helicopters (Bell and Sikorsky) and some small craft and a few decommed surface ships, and of course, a load of appropriate weaponry...but nuke subs? Even in the chummy Shah days, I couldn't see that going down. They don't need them for any kind of homeland defense mission--or even a regional defense in the Gulf.

Nuke subs, when you strip away a lot of the make-work missions they go on, are out there to deliver payback, pure and simple. You nuke our homeland, we will rise up out of the sea and deliver unto thee a Pyrrhic victory! That's their role!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:10 AM

MADem (87,283 posts)

11. Like that super-duper rocket they built, and the new "fighter plane" made out of pieces of old

Shah-era aircraft!

If they had a working brain in their heads, they'd realize that if they're going for littoral defense (and not mastery of the seas--which ain't ever gonna happen given their geographic limitations, for starters) that conventional submarines are quieter, way cheaper and much, much easier to maintain.

This is simply more sabre-rattling horseshit from Iran--they'll buy a leaky sub from the Russkies on the sly--not that I see that as terribly likely, either-- before they'd build anything that works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:26 AM

harmonicon (11,996 posts)

15. Give me a break.

"Iran is provoking other countries into starting or increasing their own nuclear weapons programs, which will make nuclear war much more likely." Really?!

Two countries on their border have been invaded and decimated by the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in war. I can't blame Iran for wanting the same technology that other countries have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to harmonicon (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:45 PM

Remember (32 posts)

59. agree

 

The Neo Conservatives will drag the USA into war whether it be Iran or Syria. Syrian war would make the US military fight against Russia and China, no small task. I am so tired of war it is just totally disturbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:27 AM

AtheistCrusader (14,588 posts)

17. Drums... drums in the deep...

War drums.


Pretty foul connotation there, bananas. We have 43 attack subs, and 18 boomers. 4 of those boomers have been converted to conventional tomahawk MAC launchers, and do not carry nuclear weapons. So your claim is facially wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 06:42 PM

Star Member octothorpe (962 posts)

65. Ennh... I think this is news worthy to an extent...

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 06:43 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

It's like when the US military makes a big order for equipment. A nuclear submarine is a pretty big undertaking for a country that hasn't done it yet.


I don't really understand the part about it meaning nuclear weapons in some people's minds though. Nor do I understand why anyone should see this as something that has to be stopped because it's soooooooooooooooo bad and Iran is soooooo evil.

Anyway, I'm sure I had a point before I started writing that nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to octothorpe (Reply #65)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:31 PM

AtheistCrusader (14,588 posts)

70. They couldn't even build their own commercial reactor

I'm excited to see how they are going to make a naval reactor.

Maybe a diesel electric boomer? Ugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:04 PM

SoutherDem (2,151 posts)

19. Is Iran asking to be attacked?

I at this time I do not support an attack because we have seen a real trend of "saber rattling" in this area of the world. We have seen claims which have proven to be nothing more than rallying the troops and controlling the citizens.

Also, our intelligence in this area hasn't always been the best. Remember those pesky WMDs which were to be in Iraq?

That said, I can see taken by those who would like to attack Iran as more "proof" we need to take action soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:06 PM

Star Member The Magistrate (80,938 posts)

20. Where Did You Get This Idea, Sir?

"The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons."

Nuclear propulsion offers several advantages for submarine operations, most importantly extended range submerged and silent operation. While these are of use to a missile platform, they are also of great utility in attack operations, against surface vessels or other submarines. Since any U.S. engagement with Iran will certainly involve massive naval forces, building attack submarines would be a reasonable resolve for an Iranian government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:11 PM

coalition_unwilling (14,180 posts)

21. "Iran is going in the wrong direction" - It's OK for the U.S. to

 

have nuclear subs but not the Iranians?

Sigh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #21)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 01:43 PM

bananas (20,292 posts)

30. It's not ok for either.

As I said in the OP, "While the rest of the world has been trying to reduce and eliminate the threat of nuclear war, Iran is going in the wrong direction."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 02:56 PM

coalition_unwilling (14,180 posts)

37. The rest of the world HAS NOT been trying to reduce and eliminate

 

Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2012, 02:58 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

the threat of nuclear war. If anything, the contrary is true. In fact, the U.S. is violating its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to disarm it nuclear weapons.

It is certainly OK for Iran to act in its own self-defense. If Iran had numerous military bases in Canada and Mexico, you don't think we'd be right to act in our own self defense? Check any map of our military installations in Iraq and Afghanistan (or you could just take a look at post #28) and then tell me Iran isn't perfectly justified in pursuing any defense policy it deems within its national security interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 07:01 AM

Star Member Warren Stupidity (32,395 posts)

45. We have lots of nuclear submarines and are building more.

Your op is ignorant, confusing nuclear submarines with nuclear weapons, asserting that they are only used for launching nuclear missiles, and ignoring the obvious fact that Iran is and has been under threat of military attack from its neighbors and will do what it can to defend agains those threats. If we want disarmament in the region, in particular nuclear disarmament, we might want to convince our good friend Israel to first declare and then destroy its nuclear weapons, including its ballistic submarine fleet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #21)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 02:33 PM

hack89 (21,563 posts)

32. The US would prefer they had nuclear subs

they are bigger, noisier and therefore easier to detect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to hack89 (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 05:06 PM

DisgustipatedinCA (5,856 posts)

60. Well, at least until the diesel boats have to snorkel n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #60)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 05:11 PM

hack89 (21,563 posts)

61. With AIP technology they don't even have to do that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:12 PM

Xithras (13,566 posts)

22. Fearmongering exemplified: "The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons"

The only real difference between a nuclear submarine and a diesel submarine is RANGE...they are both capable of performing the same roles and carrying the same weapon payloads. The difference is that a diesel sub is limited by its onboard fuel and has to cruise with its snorkel up in order to hit its maximum range. A nuclear sub is only limited by the food stores it has onboard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:13 PM

hack89 (21,563 posts)

24. Good - let them piss away a fortune and get nothing for it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:16 PM

14thColony (1,515 posts)

26. So much wrong all in one OP

1. The main advantage of nuclear submarines are a) their very long endurance on patrol and b) they don't have to broach the surface to recharge their batteries like diesel boats, which are then vulnerable to swift detection and attack. The fact that the earliest Soviet nuclear missile subs were diesels and the earliest US nuclear subs were for conventional attack tends to invalidate your position that nuclear propulsion is somehow linked to nuclear armament.

2. As other have said, Iran doesn't even have the ability to build diesel submarines, let alone a nuclear propulsion system to fit into the submarine hull which it also can't make.

3. Add to that, they now have to develop the technology to miniaturize their non-yet-produced nuclear weapons to fit into a non-existent delivery system to go into the hull they can't manufacture powered by the propulsion system they can't build.

This article might as well be titled Iran 'designing Death Star.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to 14thColony (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 03:02 PM

coalition_unwilling (14,180 posts)

39. +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - Well put and definitely

 

needed saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to 14thColony (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 04:35 PM

Prometheus Bound (3,489 posts)

42. Well and succinctly put!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:36 PM

Star Member Douglas Carpenter (15,354 posts)

28. a little perspective

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #28)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 02:45 PM

Star Member yurbud (31,463 posts)

34. wait, you mean Iran doesn't have that many bases in Canada & Mexico?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #28)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 03:27 PM

MADem (87,283 posts)

41. Your map is quite out of date.

There are very few troops left in Iraq now.

Also, Iran doesn't have a "mutual aid" defense agreement with any of those black-dotted nations.

It's all quid-pro-quo. Those nations do not give up a parcel of land (or create a joint - use installation) for nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 01:06 PM

Throd (3,631 posts)

29. I'm designing one too! I also invented helium.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Throd (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 02:21 PM

Star Member Kolesar (29,528 posts)

31. Damn

I was going to use that joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 02:44 PM

Star Member yurbud (31,463 posts)

33. How many nuclear submarines do we have? and how many nuclear weapons?

That should be required info in the second or third paragraph of every scare-mongering article about Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 02:48 PM

Star Member yurbud (31,463 posts)

35. 1 min VIDEO: our nuclear subs and what they can do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 02:51 PM

Star Member yurbud (31,463 posts)

36. charts on nuclear arsenals

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to yurbud (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 03:00 PM

coalition_unwilling (14,180 posts)

38. I don't see Iran anywhere on any of your charts. Surely the OP

 

Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2012, 03:01 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

isn't engaging in a bit of saber-rattling and fear-mongering?

(in case it's needed)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to yurbud (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 06:00 AM

Star Member Nihil (11,279 posts)

43. Thank you for putting it in perspective.

It only takes one warhead to really spoil your day ... and the size of the
first few columns in each graph compared to the subsequent ones shows
precisely where the danger of "day spoiling" is likely to come from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to yurbud (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 07:29 AM

may3rd (593 posts)

47. charts on nuclear arsenals looks biased

 

Israel has the most # of warheads ? Really ?
Who slipped Israel into that wiki graph ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to may3rd (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 01:32 PM

Star Member yurbud (31,463 posts)

54. the one where it looks like Israel has the most is WITHOUT US & Russia

once you add them, it's hard to see any difference with the rest, or it makes it look like someone getting a handful is more or a threat than it is in reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Tue Jun 12, 2012, 03:05 PM

Remmah2 (3,291 posts)

40. I hope the Prez has the Navy Seals on speed dial. nt

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 07:26 AM

may3rd (593 posts)

46. I'm sure Russia can SELL them a previously owned model

 

That's the shortcut to a nuke boat building program these days

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 01:07 PM

LanternWaste (16,520 posts)

52. Iranian naval engineering reminds me of the standard Soviet braggadocio...

Iranian naval engineering reminds me of the standard Soviet braggadocio from the early seventies-- "Soviet wrist-watches are the fastest in the world!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 01:52 PM

Star Member sarisataka (2,296 posts)

55. Interesting

like reading about the Chinese air craft carrier.
China is 1 vs 11+ and we have over 60 years of experience in warfare using the platform

Iran 1 vs 50-ish + surface anti-sub platforms. We spent the entire cold war era practicing anti-sub operations against the Soviets...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 01:59 PM

Star Member dipsydoodle (33,175 posts)

56. Will it be yellow

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 02:53 PM

Egalitarian Thug (7,966 posts)

57. LOL! So did I...

when I was 12. And the chances of my success were every bit as good as Iran's.

Fear the evil bogeyman! He's coming for you and your children! We must fight them over there so we...

I love pretend news!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 05:34 PM

Star Member NutmegYankee (4,907 posts)

62. "The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons." FALSE

Nuclear Propulsion allows you to travel long distances fully submerged without needing to refuel. With nuclear power you can produce your own air and water and move around completely underwater with only food as a limiter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 05:38 PM

Star Member hrmjustin (10,690 posts)

63. Just stay away from ny please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 06:38 PM

Star Member octothorpe (962 posts)

64. Nuclear propulsion does not mean the same thing as nuclear weapons.

They want to build one of those for endurance and range, most likely....


Which is their right to build them if they feel it will benefit them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 08:12 PM

jmowreader (24,124 posts)

66. The Los Angeles-class and Seawolf-class NUCLEAR submarines aren't armed with nuclear weapons

The main reason to build nuclear submarines is to keep from having to carry diesel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 08:20 PM

Star Member Marrah_G (22,708 posts)

67. I'm designing a new warp driven space ship!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 08:36 PM

Star Member Zorro (4,075 posts)

68. IRAN SAYS IT SEEKS TO BUILD NUCLEAR-POWERED BIRDHOUSE

From the Borowitz archive.

<snip>

One day after the signing of a controversial deal calling for Russia to deliver nuclear fuel to Iran, Iran’s vice president said that it only sought the fuel because it plans to build the world’s first nuclear-powered birdhouse.

At a press conference in Tehran today, Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh showed reporters extensive plans for the birdhouse, which, if constructed, would be the first of its kind anywhere in the world.

Calling the state-of-the-art birdhouse a potential boon for Iranian tourism, Mr. Aghazadeh said, “We believe that people will come from far and wide to see this awesome birdhouse.”

But shortly after Mr. Aghazadeh’s press conference, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said that the plans for the birdhouse, while “impressive,” were still cause for international concern.

<snip>

More at: http://www.borowitzreport.com/2005/02/28/iran-says-it-seeks-to-build/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 09:26 PM

FrodosPet (1,094 posts)

69. The only reason to build nuclear submarines is to carry nuclear weapons.

No, the only reason to build nuclear submarines is to stay deployed in deep water for extended periods without surfacing or refueling.

Nukes are only one of the reasons for that. You can also use them as combat vessels and coastal area infiltration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FrodosPet (Reply #69)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 02:36 PM

Star Member yurbud (31,463 posts)

72. and like nuclear power in general, having a space program, and a couple of other things...

it's a matter of national pride for a lot of countries, a way of saying we've arrived and deserved to be at the adult table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:25 PM

and-justice-for-all (14,763 posts)

71. Oh no!!!

How many does the use have???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to bananas (Original post)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 02:38 PM

porcinaalbastrucaine (6 posts)

73. Good For Iran!

 

America needs to stop demonizing other nations for doing exactly what the USA has done or is currently doing.

We should applaud Iran for wanting to accept such a technological challenge.

If Iran is successful and uses their new toy for bad things, I am fully confident in the US Submarine Force sinking the pride of the Iranian Navy.

Now for all you who think Nuclear Reactors and Weapons on submarines are dangerous and bad.

The reactor and the weapons are some of the safest things on board.

The Oxygen Generator, the things that makes oxygen for the people, is far more dangerous then the reactor or weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread

Latest Breaking News (Forum)
DU Home | Latest Threads | Greatest Threads | Forums & Groups | My Subscriptions | My Posts

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

Advertise on DU

© 2001 - 2013 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.