Hezbollah Sinks Israeli Warship

It is apparent that they are getting better at photoshop, though they could have juiced-up the explosion a little to make it look different.
 
Bikewer said:
It is apparent that they are getting better at photoshop, though they could have juiced-up the explosion a little to make it look different.
Click to expand...
Photoshop? Doesn't look altered to me. They just changed the caption.
 
In the Syrian capital, this same image is sold as a popular poster, alongside CD's and pictures of Nasrallah.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807...fYLtUsB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

In the last few weeks alone Ali says he has sold thousands of posters ranging from close-ups of a serene-looking Nasrallah to Hizbollah fighters stepping over skulls of Israeli soldiers.

"My customers are from every sect and religion. Nasrallah is the only Arab leader alive who has actually achieved something. He liberated south Lebanon from Israel," Ali said.

(This was said during the height of the 34-day IDF bombardment, as Lebanon went up in flames due to the Hezbollah adventurism.)

There is an unlimited Arab propensity to indulge in fantasy and perpetuate myths and be experts of wishful thinking, apparently.

I'm reminded of an old story:

  • An old man is sitting quietly in the town square. A group of young children come around, and start noisily playing in the street, causing a great disturbance to the old man's serenity. He decides to offer them an imaginary diversion --- "Hey, kids, why are you playing here, when there are delicious juicy dates being distributed free in the marketplace?" he yells at them.
    The youth run off, and go in search of the fictitious sweets.
    After a moment of renewed calm, the old man suddenly stands up and says to himself --- "What a fool I am, sitting here, while over in the market free dates are to be had"
 
BREAKING FAUX NEWS:

Hezbollah sank Israeli submarine, and Israel now needs to replace it.

PHOTO EVIDENCE -----
ocean.jpg
:
(Actual picture of the Israeli sub that was sunk)
 
BPSCG said:
I read elsewhere that the two new subs (this is not a joke) Israel is buying from Germany have nuclear second-strike capability.

Obviously, this has been in the works for some time. But it's interesting that the announcement comes the day after Iran tells the UN to shove it.
Click to expand...

I didn't think Germany had nuclear strike capability. Or even missle launch capability (well, ok, they had missle launch before anyone else did, even the US, but they didn't get a chance to improve on it after the war.)
 
Beerina said:
I didn't think Germany had nuclear strike capability. Or even missle launch capability (well, ok, they had missle launch before anyone else did, even the US, but they didn't get a chance to improve on it after the war.)
Click to expand...
Slight correction: They had ballistic missiles before anyone else did. Rockets (missiles) had been used in warfare for hundreds of years prior. Francis Scott Key wasn't watching fireworks when he penned The Star Spangled Banner.
 
BPSCG said:
I read elsewhere that the two new subs (this is not a joke) Israel is buying from Germany have nuclear second-strike capability.
Click to expand...

Technicaly any submarine with topedo tubes can be made to have that. It depends on exactly what weapons Isreal has.
 
geni said:
Technicaly any submarine with topedo tubes can be made to have that. It depends on exactly what weapons Isreal has.
Click to expand...
An argument is being made that Israel is modifying nuclear warheads for use on Harpoon missiles. Harpoons are submarine launchable through torpedo tubes of the Standard NATO size, which the German subs are built with.

I don't know how true that is, but I have seen reference to that in a number of places. Harpoon isn't a long range weapon. This would be a tactical nuke.

If Israel has in their possession Tomahawk missiles, or the Russian equivalent (SS-N-22, IIRC), you are dealing with a horse of a different color entirely.

I find credible the possibility that the Israeli arms industry can successfully fashion a longer range cruise missile than Harpoon.

DR
 
BPSCG said:
I read elsewhere that the two new subs (this is not a joke) Israel is buying from Germany have nuclear second-strike capability.

Obviously, this has been in the works for some time. But it's interesting that the announcement comes the day after Iran tells the UN to shove it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that Israel can modify the subs anyway they want. I wonder why Israel hasn't made more of an effort to get into the ship building business themselves. They do very well on aircraft and tanks.

I would not normally be applauding improved nuclear capabilities in this crazy world, except in the case of Israel. If it wasn't for their nuclear capabilities, I'm pretty sure that they would have been overcome by the Muslims, with sheer numbers. Nukes have a tendency to neutralize those numbers.
 
Trantor said:
I'm sure that Israel can modify the subs anyway they want. I wonder why Israel hasn't made more of an effort to get into the ship building business themselves. They do very well on aircraft and tanks.

I would not normally be applauding improved nuclear capabilities in this crazy world, except in the case of Israel. If it wasn't for their nuclear capabilities, I'm pretty sure that they would have been overcome by the Muslims, with sheer numbers. Nukes have a tendency to neutralize those numbers.
Click to expand...
?????
I understand the strategic deterrent value of Israel's nukes, which have only been acknowledged (versus the old dirty little secret approach) n the past 5 years. (Forget the name of the book that broke this)

But their nukes aren't a symmetrical deterrence. Who else has nukes to deter, absent Iran in a year or so? Assymetrical deterrence doesn't work too well, which is why Israel spends so much on its robust conventional forces.

Nukes could not deter Hezbollah, nor Syria, nor the Palestinians. Tactical nukes would tend to be used on Israeli soil, if you are neutralizing numbers, which is a self defeating proposition from step one. Or, you are suggeting Israeli nuclear aggression into the Arab nations, which I don't think many Israelis would pursue for critical political/propaganda/international legitimacy reasons.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
?????
I understand the strategic deterrent value of Israel's nukes, which have only been acknowledged (versus the old dirty little secret approach) n the past 5 years. (Forget the name of the book that broke this)

But their nukes aren't a symmetrical deterrence. Who else has nukes to deter, absent Iran in a year or so? Assymetrical deterrence doesn't work too well, which is why Israel spends so much on its robust conventional forces.

Nukes could not deter Hezbollah, nor Syria, nor the Palestinians. Tactical nukes would tend to be used on Israeli soil, if you are neutralizing numbers, which is a self defeating proposition from step one. Or, you are suggeting Israeli nuclear aggression into the Arab nations, which I don't think many Israelis would pursue for critical political/propaganda/international legitimacy reasons.

DR
Click to expand...

No, nukes don't work against small terrorist operations like Hezbollah, but against much larger countries with much bigger populations, they do tend to provide a deterrent.

Pakistan has nukes, as well a population filled with Muslim extremists, who don't like Israel. Bin Lauden is a popular hero for many there.
 
Trantor said:
No, nukes don't work against small terrorist operations like Hezbollah, but against much larger countries with much bigger populations, they do tend to provide a deterrent.

Pakistan has nukes, as well a population filled with Muslim extremists, who don't like Israel. Bin Lauden is a popular hero for many there.
Click to expand...
OK, got that thought, but how does a tactical nuke deter Pakistan? I can see how a longer range cruise missile, or ballistic missile, would deter Iran when they get nukes.

I also don't think Iran would nuke Israel, since in doing so it kills thousands of Palestinians whose agenda Iran allegedly supports.

Nukes are not precision weapons.

DR
 
trantor

Darth Rotor said:
OK, got that thought, but how does a tactical nuke deter Pakistan? I can see how a longer range cruise missile, or ballistic missile, would deter Iran when they get nukes.

I also don't think Iran would nuke Israel, since in doing so it kills thousands of Palestinians whose agenda Iran allegedly supports.

Nukes are not precision weapons.

DR
Click to expand...

I was not refering to tactical nukes at all. Isreal does have tactical nukes, but I'm sure that those alone are not going to deter another nuclear power. They could deter a non-nuclear country.

I agree that it doesn't make any logical sense for Iran to nuke Israel. I don't think it has anything to do with the Palestinians. It probably has to do with the fact that the response by Israel would totally destroy Iran. When it comes to religious extremists, I wouldn't count on logic too much.

Actually, I do think that nukes are precision weapons. They can precisely destroy a city, an approaching army, or an approaching fleet. Tacticals give you the ability to get even more precise; they can take out a part of a city and are excellent against land armies, especially mechanized ones.
 
Trantor said:
I'm sure that Israel can modify the subs anyway they want. I wonder why Israel hasn't made more of an effort to get into the ship building business themselves. They do very well on aircraft and tanks.
Click to expand...

Not really. Their aircraft are nothing special and the Merkava has been haveing problems with AT-13 Metis-M.
 
geni said:
Not really. Their aircraft are nothing special and the Merkava has been haveing problems with AT-13 Metis-M.
Click to expand...

While their aircraft may be nothing special compared to the US; they are special by the fact that a very small country with limited resources such as Israel, can produce them.

As far as the Merkava is concerned, I remember reading a few years back, that they performed very well against our own Abrams Tanks in a series of military exercises back in the 90's. I think the AT-13 Metis-M would pose some problems for the Abrams as well. The weapon is Russian and I'm sure that Israeli tanks were not the only ones they had in mind when they produced them.
 
Trantor said:
While their aircraft may be nothing special compared to the US; they are special by the fact that a very small country with limited resources such as Israel, can produce them.
Click to expand...

Sweden produced the JAS-39 Gripen.

As far as the Merkava is concerned, I remember reading a few years back, that they performed very well against our own Abrams Tanks in a series of military exercises back in the 90's.
Click to expand...

The Abrams suffer from the problem of not being sure where they are going to operate. they are also becomeing somewhat dated

I think the AT-13 Metis-M would pose some problems for the Abrams as well. The weapon is Russian and I'm sure that Israeli tanks were not the only ones they had in mind when they produced them.
Click to expand...

Merkava Mk 4 enter service 12 years after the AT-13 Metis-M.
Abrams suffer from the problem of not being sure where they are going to operate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom