Other Mormon Discussion Forums

[volgadon]

Could you be a tad more specific here? Are you referring to weapons or propulsion?

Rumors abound that the Dolphin class is capable of fielding nuclear arms- but such capability depends wholly upon the size of the weapon and the means by which it is to be delivered.

To date, Israel has done no testing of nuclear weapons or of the delivery systems necessary to make such a weapon practical (or survivable) in a maritime environment.

If you refer to nuclear propulsion, I will point out that the Israeli Navy has neither the need nor the budget to do any such thing. As such, this assertion fails the snicker test for the same reasons as the claims about the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force.

One of my commanding officers had been involved in the technical side of the Dolphin purchase and spent time on exchange in Germany. Your conclusions square more or less with what he shared.

[inquiringmind]

Could you be a tad more specific here? Are you referring to weapons or propulsion?

Rumors abound that the Dolphin class is capable of fielding nuclear arms- but such capability depends wholly upon the size of the weapon and the means by which it is to be delivered.

To date, Israel has done no testing of nuclear weapons or of the delivery systems necessary to make such a weapon practical (or survivable) in a maritime environment.

I have the highest respect for the scientific and technical capabilities of both the Israeli's, and the Japanese.

Israel is about the size of New Jersey, and I believe Iran's Prez once boasted that it would only take one atomic bomb to destroy "the Zionist State," whereas it would take more than that to destroy his country.

It seems to me that to have any credible deterrent (assuming a credible deterrent would even mean something to Iran) Israel would have to learn how to make it's nuclear weapons "serviceable in a maritime environment" (and in a hurry), if the United States openly adopted a wholly isolationist foreign policy.

First and foremost, you are quite correct to put scare quotes around the phrase "defense force". The only difference between a defensive military force and an offensive force is a fuzzy-line in the minds of amatuers, politicians, and other arm-chair admirals.

I know the only difference is semantic and psychological.

That's why I put the words in quotes.

My point is that Japan would have to change her way of viewing herself, her military, the world, and weapons of mass destruction if the U.S. adopted an isolationist foreign policy.

On the other hand, the idea that the Japanese could develop and field offensive nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems in a matter of weeks is (hands-down) the single dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on these boards (which is quite an acheivement in and of itself).

The assertion demonstrates a frightening ignorance of military logistics, of the vaguaries of research and development, and a profound ignorance of the Japanese mindset towards weapons of mass destruction.

At the height of North Korea's nuclear sabbar rattling, I heard reports that there were factions within Japan's parliament that wanted to bring up the possibility of re-writing their constitution, so they are capable of adjusting their "mindset towards weapons of mass destruction."

And since they already have a civilian nuclear industry, and are in some ways at least as advanced as we are in computer science, electronics, and technology, I think you seriously underestimate how quickly they could adjust to a changing world.

You yourself said.

n terms of the quality of ships, training, manpower, and the quality of weapons, the Japanese Maritime Defense Force is the second most formidable force in the western Pacific (the first being the United States).

BTW: The comment about "advanced delivery systems" was my own, but the observation that Japan could develop nuclear weapons "within weeks" was not.

That too came from a news report I heard during the height of the crises (when George W. was still president, I think.).

Technically, the EU already has. France and Britain (both EU members in good standing) already possess such deterrents.

Against Russia?

I didn't know NATO was that obsolete.

I haven't been interested in politics for a long time, but do Britain and France really have a nuclear deterrent comparable to the Russian Republic?

One of my commanding officers had been involved in the technical side of the Dolphin purchase and spent time on exchange in Germany. Your conclusions square more or less with what he shared.

That's interesting.

I'm not sure the concept of a "credible deterrent" would have much effect on the leadership of Iran, but if you armed those subs with some of the nuclear weapons Jimmy Carter has already told the world you have, and let it be known that you have a second strike capability, it might go a long way toward motivating my country, Europe, and maybe even Russia to really stop Iran.

I'd rather Israel, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and my own country didn't have any atomic weapons, but we do (and I don't see the world growing any safer by letting more countries into the club.)

Three words for you: Marque and Reprisal -Ron Paul advocates for it. Plus we also have the missile defense shield too.

So having a isolationist policy would work.

I won't push Ron Paul on here; I know the rules, but I'll still defend him.

I respect you for that.

I'm not attacking Ron Paul, I didn't start this topic heading to argue politics, I'm not the one who took this thread in that direction, and I confess some ignorance here.

I only see two words (Marque and Reprisal), and I can guess what Reprisal means (if they hit us, we hit them harder, right?)

But what does Marque mean?

How are you using these words, and what do they have to do with Ron Paul's foreign policy positions (and how would they make an "isolationist policy would work")?

Edited January 25, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Skylla]

Keep politics out of the threads, please.

Skylla

[LeSellers]

But what does Marque mean?

A Letter of Marque and Reprisal is a contract between a country and a private ship owner to capture enemy (of the country) ships on the high seas. It differed from piracy in that it was authorized by the country who issued the letter.

The "privateer" made a profit on the transaction by selling (or otherwise using) the captured vessel.

Lehi

Edited January 25, 2012 by LeSellers

[frankenstein]

a site I came across in looking into an alleged prophecy, is latterdayconservative dot com