StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Login   Register FAQ    Search

View unanswered posts | View active topics


It is currently 2014-11-22 08:47pm (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics


Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)

Fourth Dolphin for Israel with Germanoid Money?

Moderators: SCRawl, Thanas, D.Turtle, PeZook, Edi, Stas Bush

Post new topic Post a reply  Page 4 of 5
 [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

Aaron MkII
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 07:54am 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2012-02-11 05:13pm
Posts: 1358
Hey Thanas

How much longer do you figure the Israelis will be able to play the Holocaust/Nazi card effectivly with Germany? With Israel a stable and nuclear armed state, this is going to be harder and harder to justify as living memory of the events literally die.
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 08:41am 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 25665
Pretty much as long as we put a focus on the holocaust in school and in the political life. I very much doubt it is going to go away in the next ten or twentyy years.
   Profile |  

Tribun
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 10:06am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2003-05-25 10:02am
Posts: 2154
Location: Lübeck, Germany
Thanas wrote:
Pretty much as long as we put a focus on the holocaust in school and in the political life. I very much doubt it is going to go away in the next ten or twentyy years.


Yeah, but that's already starting to die as well. As much as others might bemoan it, using the sledgehammer to constantly force that into people's awareness has pretty much bluntened the whole issue. You can only ride on the issue for so long before "I don't care" becomes the standard answer.
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 11:01am 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 25665
The real trouble for Israel with regards to popular opinion will come in the next ten years IMO - which is when the people who have not spend a single day of their life under the threat of nuclear annihilation/the Berlin Wall will grow up and get into important positions. All these people know about Israel is essentially "racist assholes" and they won't give much about the holocaust or American opinion either. That may be the time when one might actually get anti-Israel votes. Up until then (and I think inertia will prolong it even more) Germany will always bow down to whatever the Israelis want.
   Profile |  

Omega18
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 03:47pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2004-06-19 11:30pm
Posts: 638
Sarevok wrote:
I am wondering something about Israeli navy. Lack of an effective navy is Israel's military weakness. Israel depends on overseas trade to sustain it's commerce. It had only 3 submarines and little dedicated ASW capability. It is true the IDF is unbeatable in the ground and air. But what if the regional enemies tried a submarine blockade ? Israel would be helpless.

Maybe this was considered when the Dolphins were purchased ?

The key right now is that Israel has virtually no plausible regional enemies which represent an effective sub threat of that type. Egypt has 4 quite obsolete Romeo Class subs and Syria no longer has any, nor do any of the other states actually in the Arabian Peninsula.

Iran's midget subs lack the range to be useful here, and their 3 Kilo subs which are perhaps still active would have massive problems logistically pulling off an effective blockade. (Among other issues there is a huge amount of traffic through the Suez Canal, and Iran would be in a huge amount of trouble if they sunk an innocent ship not running their blockade by mistake, so the subs would have to hang out right by the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea side of things to figure out who appears to be running the blockade.)

You have to assume something pretty crazy like Germany, Italy or Turkey imposing the blockade for this need to possible make sense. (While recent tensions with Turkey make a conflict perhaps seem a tiny bit less farfetched, Turkey going as far as a sub blockade of general shipping is. Besides the massive negative reaction from the US in particular to such a move, Israel is quite capable of retaliating by essentially imposing an effectively aerially based blockade of Turkey if it came to that.)

It should be noted that Israel's current 3 corvettes are quite modern vessesl which even feature towed sonar arrays along with the ability to accommodate and support the Eurocopter Panther helicopter or an unmanned with its ASW capabilities. Two of Israel's missile boas can also support of those some ASW capable Eurocopter Panthers or drones. You also have Israel's current 3 quite modern subs which would be plenty ASW capability for the moment given the actual threats they face.

If the concern was actually the sub threat, Israel could far more cost effectively counter that by acquiring some ASW capable patrol planes or drones along with some frigates or corvettes with ASW capabilities.

This is definitely primarily about having an effective second strike nuclear capability which is all about what Iran is doing. With this latest purchase, Israel is going now have 6 submarines going forward which is clearly more than is needed for any of Israel's realistic naval threats rights now, but will give them a quite effective sub based nuclear threat when you consider Iran's naval limitations and the fact range wise the subs basically only need to go one way for a "vengeance strike."

This latest purchase definitely makes me think Israel expects Iran to eventually have nukes. It also bring into question if they ever are actually going to launch air strikes to stop Iran's nuclear program, although they could view even delaying the program a couple of years to be worthwhile and eventually go ahead anyways.
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 04:42pm 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 25665
Omega18 wrote:
Besides the massive negative reaction from the US in particular to such a move, Israel is quite capable of retaliating by essentially imposing an effectively aerially based blockade of Turkey if it came to that.


How?
   Profile |  

MKSheppard
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 06:05pm 

Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger


Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Or hell, maybe just base the whole plan on nuclear hovercraft that go all the way from Eilat to Europe. Quickly commence estimating required nuclear hover freighter numbers!


Image
Dimensions are in Meters (feet).

9,070 metric tons gross weight, of which 5,430 mt are payload. It has a 2,277 Mw(t) gas cooled reactor that produces 763,000 hp of shaft horsepower. Top speed would be 100 knots, and it would have a emergency range of 500 nautical miles on 585 tonnes of chemical fuel.

Image

In addition to having its cargo transferred by crane or conveyor, this freighter could carry its cargo in a roll-on - roll-off mode - for example, the 110 25-ton trailer truck vans. Containers would be used that are mobile - to be towed or even driven on and off the freighter. Essentially, it wculd be a step toward rather sophisticated containers that can load and unload themselves. By using two decks this freighter could ferry nearly 500 camping families (with camper or car with tent or trailer) to Europe in a day and a half at a one-way cost of about $300 per family. The ACV could thus act as a transocean highway greatly increasing interchange and hence understanding among cultures.

Image

This freighter has more than an acre of main deck space. Because the cargo space is about 3 stories high, the freighter could provide about 3 acres of floor space. Coupled with its mobility, it could thus carry and distribute prefabricated housing units such as Habitats. Its speed would allow transportation of emergency housing and medical facilities to coastal disaster areas.
   Profile |  

Omega18
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 06:20pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2004-06-19 11:30pm
Posts: 638
Thanas wrote:
Omega18 wrote:
Besides the massive negative reaction from the US in particular to such a move, Israel is quite capable of retaliating by essentially imposing an effectively aerially based blockade of Turkey if it came to that.


How?

Upon further reflection it would not be quite as easy as had been my initial thought on the subject. However Israel could certainly hit any Turkish flagged merchant vessels going to Turkey, or simply going through the Suez Canal for that matter.

Israel could also require shipping heading in the direction of Turkey specifically to declare their intended port destinations, and get confirmation from the country in question (someone other than Turkey) that the transport ship is supposed to stop there. Israel can also make it clear that agents of Mossad (and their spy satellites) are going to take pictures of transport ships stopping in Turkish ports, and any transports caught violating the blockade by previously stopping at a Turkish port, can be sunk even when heading away from Turkey by the IAF. (Israel could publicly release the photos after the fact to justify any sinking.) While the Mossad would not actually be able to get sufficiently good photos of every transport, the threat would be enough to essentially completely stop shipping to Turkey except transports willing to remain in the Black Sea only for their routes.

Obviously the international community isn't going to be happy about this, but they are not going to be happy about a general Turkish blockade of Israel either. In fact, Turkey is basically going to have to pretty much do the same thing and sink ships now heading away from Israel, because the proximity of valid Arab ports to some Israeli ones would require the subs to otherwise stay in a couple of very small areas that even with Israel's current ASW capabilities would make the subs far too vulnerable.

There is another obvious practical political problem with any Turkish blockade of general shipping to Israel. It would not merely hit the Israeli Jews, but also the Israeli Arabs. For that matter given how Israel currently controls the borders of the West Bank, Israel could essentially make sure it hits the Palestinians there equally as well. In fact, in major respects it would hit the Palestinians there worse because they generally have less money to buy basic items which would rise in price due to the blockade. Given the good of the Palestinians would presumably be the key public justification for its military actions given domestically, it would be hard to explain this result.
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 06:30pm 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 25665
Omega18 wrote:
Thanas wrote:
Omega18 wrote:
Besides the massive negative reaction from the US in particular to such a move, Israel is quite capable of retaliating by essentially imposing an effectively aerially based blockade of Turkey if it came to that.


How?

Upon further reflection it would not be quite as easy as had been my initial thought on the subject. However Israel could certainly hit any Turkish flagged merchant vessels going to Turkey,


No, they can't. They do not have the range to operate there, especially not against the Turkish Navy and Air Force, which both provide pretty tough matchups for the Israelis. The Turkish Navy is pretty much superior to the Israeli one (except for the subs) for once and the Israeli airforce cannot operate in Turkish waters.
   Profile |  

Omega18
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 06:58pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2004-06-19 11:30pm
Posts: 638
Thanas wrote:
No, they can't. They do not have the range to operate there, especially not against the Turkish Navy and Air Force, which both provide pretty tough matchups for the Israelis.

The thing is Israel doesn't have to hypothetically have anything like remotely a 100% success rate to get this to work.

They merely have to make the risk high enough to practically ground any shipping to a halt. (Shipping insurance rates for vessels heading to Turkey would become preposterous.)

Basically you really need only one Israeli aircraft getting a good enough visual on a transport to mark it as a valid target, and then its a matter of taking out a vessel with no actual protection itself.

Range wise, it should be noted that Israeli aircraft including the F-16I and their F-15s with their somewhat extended potential ranges on top of their tanker aircraft definitely do give the IAF some options to work with. Israel also has drones for recon, including the Eitan with an up 4500 mile range and sophisticated photo capabilities, and it also can potentially be armed to go after transports well away from Turkey.

If Turkish naval vessels start providing escorts for these ships, Israel can announce any ships participating in such an convey will be considered automatic violators of the blockade so they don't have to get visual confirmation. That makes it merely a matter of slipping antiship missiles past any naval escorts to take out shipping.

Again the big picture is merely creating enough risk will be enough to essentially shut down shipping to Turkey outside of the Black Sea.
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 07:07pm 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 25665
Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than Skimmer can weigh in, but really, Israeli aircraft over the Dardanelles or the Aegean sea are just suicide missions in my opinion. The corvettes Israel has are not a challenge for the Turkish Navy.

What range does Israel even have on their aircraft? Do they even have dedicated naval bombers?
   Profile |  

Omega18
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 07:39pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2004-06-19 11:30pm
Posts: 638
Thanas wrote:
Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than Skimmer can weigh in, but really, Israeli aircraft over the Dardanelles or the Aegean sea are just suicide missions in my opinion. The corvettes Israel has are not a challenge for the Turkish Navy.

What range does Israel even have on their aircraft? Do they even have dedicated naval bombers?

The roughly 100 F-16Is apparently have an unrefueleed combat radius of 2100 kilometers, they also have 25 F-15 Strike Eagles which should have around the same combat radius, Israel also has around 58 regular F-15s, and the rest of their aircraft should have somewhat less range. (Although if they serve merely in the aerial escort role this can effectively get extended a bit.) They also can use their tankers to extend the range of their aircraft further.

All of these major Israeli fighters to my knowledge can be armed with air launched Gabriel III antiship missiles to go after shipping with. My assumption is this sort of mission makes up at least an element of the IAF training.

As I sort of noted before, the UAV Eitans which are Israeli built 5 ton long range UAVs, can effectively pretty much serves as long range naval bombers. While exact figures are classified and there is some dispute on the details, it can take up to a 1 ton payload, and it appears that it can carry something like at least a 500 pound bomb if modified to do so while still having the sort of 4500 mile range I previously talked about. (Possibly significantly more than this is the round trip range is less.)

This means a transport heading immediately west to get away from Israel after stopping at a Turkish port can potentially be looking at being identified and targeted by one or more of these UAVs once its to far away for any aerial protection from Turkey. I would think that the Turkish Navy would have massive problems continuing to provide escorts for threats like these who can potentially hit shipping so far away from Israel. (It appears the Eitan can even be be configured to aerially refuel other Eitans to further extend their potential strike ranges.)
   Profile |  

MKSheppard
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 07:47pm 

Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger


Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
Omega18 wrote:
The key right now is that Israel has virtually no plausible regional enemies which represent an effective sub threat of that type. Egypt has 4 quite obsolete Romeo Class subs and Syria no longer has any, nor do any of the other states actually in the Arabian Peninsula.


You forgot the anti-surface warfare component. A fairly modern diesel electric can be a swine to hunt down, especially for a third tier navy.

The US Navy or JMSDF would be able to hunt down a dolphin pretty well, thanks to their longstanding ASW assets and experience; but...few others would be able to easily.
   Profile |  

Omega18
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 09:28pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2004-06-19 11:30pm
Posts: 638
MKSheppard wrote:
You forgot the anti-surface warfare component. A fairly modern diesel electric can be a swine to hunt down, especially for a third tier navy.

The US Navy or JMSDF would be able to hunt down a dolphin pretty well, thanks to their longstanding ASW assets and experience; but...few others would be able to easily.

If I understand you correctly, no I was perfectly aware of them and I am sure they would get used in the anti-surface role as well in a conventional war, but having 6 of them really is not necessary.

Basically, on top of Israel's own current naval surface capabilities, they can use the IAF to go after enemy surface warships. Unless they end up fighting Turkey, the rest of their neighbors simply are not that formidable surface navy wise. The only slight even possibly arguable exception might be Iran, whose ships would be sitting ducks outside of effective Iranian air cover by the time they could reach locations which would be of real concern to Israel.

The IAF would be better off going for more fighters who also could be used for other things as well rather than more subs if surface warships were really the concern.
   Profile |  

Simon_Jester
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 10:24pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 22195
The Israelis might think being able to fight the Turkish Navy's surface strength is worthwhile. Having two or three subs ready to sail out and engage the Turks would be helpful

And, as noted, having six submarines means they can keep a nuclear cruise missile sub in the Mediterranean and one in the Arabian Sea at all times. This is going to be hugely important if the Iranians develop nuclear missiles of their own, because literally the only reliable nuclear deterrent Israel would have against them is a submarine off their coast.
   Profile |  

Sea Skimmer
PostPosted: 2012-02-12 10:54pm 

Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate


Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Posts: 35421
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
Thanas wrote:
Maybe somebody more knowledgeable than Skimmer can weigh in, but really, Israeli aircraft over the Dardanelles or the Aegean sea are just suicide missions in my opinion. The corvettes Israel has are not a challenge for the Turkish Navy.

What range does Israel even have on their aircraft? Do they even have dedicated naval bombers?


Most IAF aircraft can carry anti ship missiles, not that you exactly need a dedicated anti ship missile to cope with the generally obsolete warships Turkey has, it'd work just as well to spam other types of stand off weapons. The IAF has the range to attack any ship bound for Turkey, but then Turkey can just as well cover any ship bound for western Israel with much greater ease.

The Israelis have about 400 F-15s and F-16s, while Turkey has about 200 F-16s, 130 combat capable F-4s, plus more unarmed recon models and about 90 F-5s. Some of the Turkish F-4s have Israeli upgrades, most are quite old, the F-5s are primarily used as trainers. The Israelis also have considerably more modern ground based air defenses, though the Turks have a fair bit of equipment of varying quality. The air matchup certainly favors Israel. The biggest problem is both sides would quickly run out of weapons and spare parts, and only the US could supply large amounts of replacements quickly. Other nations might sell either side limited quantities, and both sides can produce some parts, Israel can produce all its own weapons but not that quickly. Turkey has some capability in this respect. Of course since Israel has nuclear weapons and Turkey does not, the outcome of a major war is somewhat academic. Turkey even if it was winning is not going to push Israel so far that Israel decides to vaporize all of Turkey's airfields and naval bases.
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2012-02-13 06:46am 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 25665
^Thanks Skimmer, exactly what I was looking for. Conceded.
   Profile |  

Skgoa
PostPosted: 2012-02-14 05:19pm 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2007-08-02 01:39pm
Posts: 1388
Location: Dresden, valley of the clueless
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Of course since Israel has nuclear weapons and Turkey does not, the outcome of a major war is somewhat academic. Turkey even if it was winning is not going to push Israel so far that Israel decides to vaporize all of Turkey's airfields and naval bases.

Because the rest of the world would just sit around and watch... :roll:
   Profile |  

ChaserGrey
PostPosted: 2012-02-14 06:03pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2010-10-17 11:04pm
Posts: 501
Skgoa wrote:
Because the rest of the world would just sit around and watch... :roll:


They'd probably do all kinds of things, but after the warheads went off. Most basic rule of geopolitics, post-1945: don't back a nuclear power into a corner. Of course, there's all kinds of ways Turkey could win a limited conflict, militarily or diplomatically, without having it come to that. Especially if Israel is the one that initiates it for basically no reason- there's been some Turkish-Israeli friction but nothing even approaching cause for war.
   Profile |  

Agent Sorchus
PostPosted: 2012-02-14 06:08pm 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2008-08-16 09:01pm
Posts: 1116
Doesn't Turkey have some US nukes on loan? Or did the mention of changing that actually happen. I know Turkey would need US backing to use them, but still it isn't like they aren't there.
   Profile |  

Sea Skimmer
PostPosted: 2012-02-14 06:31pm 

Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate


Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Posts: 35421
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
USAF nuclear warheads are kept at Incirlik air base under US guard and duel key control; some are assigned for delivery by Turkish pilots in the event of a nuclear war involving NATO. They are not loaned to Turkey. Try to tamper with a US nuclear weapon and it will explode itself, conventionally, in your face after you already killed a bunch of US troops to gain access to the devices. The only thing messing with those nukes could do is ensure Turkey is utterly defeated by the United States, economically destroyed and becomes an international pariah out of a war it'd otherwise be likely to hold the political high ground in.
   Profile |  

madd0ct0r
PostPosted: 2012-02-15 01:02am 

Sith Marauder


Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am
Posts: 3551
So all Israel needs is to covertly fund someone o go and try and grab those nukes in order to nuke turkey and still have their own reserved?

about as likely as me getting arrested for chicken fucking in germany, admittedly, and I can't see any reason at all for Isreal to do it, since their own nukes would be enough of a 'back off now' threat.

So it'd be a third party looking to destroy turkey and implicate Israel, thus making it politically difficult for Israel to threaten nuclear exchange in a following war. stupid movie plot anyone?
   Profile |  

Irbis
PostPosted: 2012-02-15 11:32am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2011-07-15 05:31pm
Posts: 1726
Sea Skimmer wrote:
USAF nuclear warheads are kept at Incirlik air base under US guard and duel key control; some are assigned for delivery by Turkish pilots in the event of a nuclear war involving NATO. They are not loaned to Turkey. Try to tamper with a US nuclear weapon and it will explode itself, conventionally, in your face after you already killed a bunch of US troops to gain access to the devices. The only thing messing with those nukes could do is ensure Turkey is utterly defeated by the United States, economically destroyed and becomes an international pariah out of a war it'd otherwise be likely to hold the political high ground in.


Utterly defeated? :| IMHO, the world is not a Clancy novel, even if it were to happen, who would make it public? Virtually everyone involved would try to keep it under wraps and deal with it secretly. In whose interest would be acting otherwise? Al Qaeda's?

Also, wanted to add a question, wasn't this very board had a story recently how US warheads were protected by very simple code ("0000", IIRC) for decades - would tampering with them be actually so difficult seeing no new bombs were produced in 25+ years so any attacker (especially military one) would need to defeat very obsolete means of protection? Or were safeguards actually modernized?
   Profile |  

ChaserGrey
PostPosted: 2012-02-15 11:42am 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2010-10-17 11:04pm
Posts: 501
Well- first off, the "000000" story may or may not be true. Some folks say it is, others who did the same job at SAC have said the lock was kept at zero to make sure the tumblers would function correctly when the combination was dialed in, analogous to spinning the dial on a combination lock. I can try to find the article on that if you like.

Regardless, new generations of safeguards have been produced and installed on old warheads. It's all electronic now, with no mechanical lock elements. I believe the latest generation is a keypad with a 12-digit code and a limited-retry feature which after a certain number of failed attempts locks up the system, requiring factory maintainence to reset. There's also a "dummy" code and a destruct code, which means if you put a gun to the head of the guy with the codes a la Crimson Tide he can either a) punch in a code which will destroy the warhead or b) punch a code that will cause it to say it's armed and behave as though it is, right up until you try to touch it off and it just sits there.
   Profile |  

Skgoa
PostPosted: 2012-02-15 11:52am 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2007-08-02 01:39pm
Posts: 1388
Location: Dresden, valley of the clueless
Who would even volunteer for the job? You MIGHT get away with sending conscripts to fiddle with the bomb in the middle of a desert but I dearly hope the people in command have more sense then to temper with a nuke in their base. ;)
And from a data security point of view 0000 is the best choice IHMO, if you have to go with a very short key and can keep it secret. Why? Because nobody would even believe it's the actual key. I.e. people would assume what they got was an obvious "placeholder" key. 1234 looks like a valid key, so does 2222. But 0000 doesn't seem as if anyone would delibeately choose that, ever.
I know anectodes aren't data but let me illustrate: I once secured my wifi with the passphrase "wifi key" (actually the german translation but that doesn't matter right now) and the more people knew about computers and security, the bigger the trouble they had understanding it. Many CS students seem to have a filter that just made it impossible to parse "the key for the wifi is 'wifi key'."
   Profile |  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 4 of 5
 [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

It is currently 2014-11-22 08:47pm (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: Atia, bilateralrope and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group