German submarine deal with in question now.

[moof]

Watching some German news and there is some debate about how to square Germany's position against selling weapons to nations engaged in disputes/wars with the delivery of two more of these subs.
The guy was saying they have helped the Israelis before by selling the subs at give away costs but now the whole deal is in question.

Seriously, what does Israel need submarines for ?

http://www.dolphin.org.il/dolphins/

Edit to try and keep this thread in GD as it seems a thread with Israel in the title is automatically banished to another forum.

[James T. Kirk]

1. Countries that fought Israel in the past have navies.

[punpirate]

2. The Egyptians do have a navy, but...

... not much of one, by anyone's estimation. That could be a reason for selling subs to Israel. They are, after all, a Mediterranean nation.

But, this is really, now, about the Israelis having a platform from which to launch cruise missiles with much less chance of detection.

That's what this is about....

[James T. Kirk]

4. Syria has a navy, too.

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

Things are still tense between Israel and Syria. They have only a cease fire, not a peace treaty.

[punpirate]

13. Sure, Syria has a navy...

... perhaps half the size of Egypt's. We're not talking about a threat to Israel's security here....

[James T. Kirk]

14. Do you have a good link for data on world navies?

I'm trying to find one, but it is hard at my lame dial-up speed.

[punpirate]

15. The quickest look is from Jane's force assessments...

... which says of Syria's navy:

Navy
Strength: 6,000e; 3 × submarine (2 possibly non-operational) 2 × frigates and about 20 patrol craft.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/sentinel/sent001013_1_n.shtml

The estimate of naval personnel strength is probably overestimated--given the shipboard component, support would likely be lower than US standards.

At any rate, it doesn't look as if Syria has an overwhelming naval advantage over Israel, with three operational ships and a couple of dozen PT boats.

Egypt's navy, by contrast, is:

Navy
Strength approximately 18,500 including 2,000 coastguards and 12,000 conscripts: 4 × submarines; 10 × frigates; 40+ coastal and patrol craft.

Cheers.

[Redhead488]

3. This is why...

The four larger 25.5 inch diameter torpedo tubes could be used to launch a long-range nuclear-capable submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM). According to some reports the submarines may be capable of carrying nuclear-armed Popeye Turbo cruise missiles, with a goal of deterring an enemy from trying to take out its nuclear weapons with a surprise attack.

[Spentastic]

6. We have a winner

Israel could possibly be overun by combined armies who could effective neutralise its ground based missile systems.

Israel has always implied that if it is going down it is taking everyone with it.

Subs allow Israelis to maintain an untouchable nuclear threat. Whether this is a good thing or not is another argument entirely.

[Redhead488]

7. Not everyone...

Just those Arab countries that are still plotting to "drive the Jews into the sea."

[Spentastic]

9. Nuclear conflict

Would rapidly escalate. Israel knows this. Everyone in this context means everyone.

I'm actually not making any moral judgement here. Israel will defends itself as it sees fit. The outcome of allowing Israel to be "driven into the sea" is known. I would argue therefore that defusing this tension is not a regional issue but should be the world's primary concern. Watching bush fuck it up just makes things worse.

[Redhead488]

10. It can only escalate if another

nuclear power jumps into the fray. Now, Pakistan would be worrisome on that front, but I don't think it would "rapidly escalate" as you put it. Just my opinion!

[Spentastic]

11. "worrisome"

Potential armageddon? Yes I'd rank that around "local supermarket may not have my favourite cheese" worrisome.

I wish I had your powers of positive thinking.

[Redhead488]

12. I wish you did too!

I'd rank it a lot higher than your cheese scenario, though . Worrisome fits. Perhaps you'd prefer to obsess, but I'd just worry.

[Another Bill C.]

5. So they can attack our ships without getting caught.

"After reviewing documents dating back 36 years, the State Department has concluded that Israel's attack on a U.S. spy ship in 1967 was an act of gross negligence for which it should be held responsible.

"The USS Liberty was attacked off the Egyptian coast June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War, while gathering electronic intelligence. The attack killed 34 Americans and injured another 171."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/12/us.israel.ussliberty/

[izzie]

8. It is a new arms race but we just have new players.

I am sure we must be in this some place as we deal arms more than any other country in the world. Ask Bush's father.

[msmcghee]

16. If you were reading . .

. . "German submarine deal with in question now", for the first time . .

Would you have any idea what the writer was talking about?

It is important that the headline to a thread give some idea what the thread is about - at least in words whose meaning can be deciphered. You could easily have inserted "another nation" between "with" and "in" - offering us some glimpse at the topic and still avoided the dread "Israel" word.

Sorry to be so picky - but I like to believe that we liberals are smart and articulate and can express ourselves clearly. When I see something like this first thing in the morning - I tend to lose all hope.

:eyes: