Page 1 of 2
US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:28 amby Dekloren
US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
Press TV
Monday, March 24, 2008
An American nuclear submarine has crossed the Suez Canal to join the US fleet stationed in the Persian Gulf, Egyptian sources say.
Egyptian officials reported that the nuclear submarine crossed the canal along with a destroyer on Friday and Egyptian forces were put on high alert when the navy convoy was passing through the canal.
An American destroyer recently left the Persian Gulf, heading towards the Mediterranean Sea; earlier Thursday, a US Navy rescue ship crossed the canal to enter the Red Sea.
The deployment comes as recent reports allege that US Vice President Dick Cheney is seeking to rally the support of Middle Eastern states for launching an attack on Iran.
(Article continues below)
This is while US officials deny that Cheney's Mideast tour is linked to a possible military attack on Iran.
According to the latest reports, in recent months a major part of the US Navy has been deployed in and around the Persian Gulf.
The fleet is armed with nuclear weapons and cruise missiles and carries hundreds of aircraft and rapid reaction forces.
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:31 amby RedBullNation
I hope we're not the ones to start the huge nuclear war to end the human race (although that won't matter when we're all dead).
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:43 amby dewey316
I would almost guarantee that the US has had at least 1 nuc-sub stationed in or near the gulf for a very long time. I don't see this as news, they just happened to see on coming through. It would be ignorant to assume that the US didn't have at least one sub in that part of the world, at any time. Or at least one within strike range. Much like during the cold war, I can promise you we had strike capability of moscow around the clock, we probably still do, and you can bet that anywhere there are that many US troops, there is going to be likely several diffrent subs within strike range of that area.
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:25 amby DaGip
We are on a peace keeping mission...
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:59 amby reminisco
dewey316 wrote:I would almost guarantee that the US has had at least 1 nuc-sub stationed in or near the gulf for a very long time. I don't see this as news, they just happened to see on coming through. It would be ignorant to assume that the US didn't have at least one sub in that part of the world, at any time. Or at least one within strike range. Much like during the cold war, I can promise you we had strike capability of moscow around the clock, we probably still do, and you can bet that anywhere there are that many US troops, there is going to be likely several diffrent subs within strike range of that area.
QFT.
i completely agree.
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:21 pmby Hologram
reminisco wrote:dewey316 wrote:I would almost guarantee that the US has had at least 1 nuc-sub stationed in or near the gulf for a very long time. I don't see this as news, they just happened to see on coming through. It would be ignorant to assume that the US didn't have at least one sub in that part of the world, at any time. Or at least one within strike range. Much like during the cold war, I can promise you we had strike capability of moscow around the clock, we probably still do, and you can bet that anywhere there are that many US troops, there is going to be likely several diffrent subs within strike range of that area.
QFT.
i completely agree.
And we definitely have several submarines in top secret patrols in the territorial waters of hostile/potentially hostile nations.
The nations know this too, they just don't know where they are.
There are probably about 20 near China alone. And that's a conservative estimate.
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:34 pmby dewey316
Hologram wrote:The nations know this too, they just don't know where they are.
There are probably about 20 near China alone. And that's a conservative estimate.
Yup, mutualy assured destruction, redundancy and all that.
I just don't see this as "news", we all know those weapons are there. The only reason I see this in the news at all, is as a way to trying to get people stired up.
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:36 pmby Hologram
dewey316 wrote:Hologram wrote:The nations know this too, they just don't know where they are.
There are probably about 20 near China alone. And that's a conservative estimate.
Yup, mutualy assured destruction, redundancy and all that.
I just don't see this as "news", we all know those weapons are there. The only reason I see this in the news at all, is as a way to trying to get people stired up.
Yep, that's exactly what it is. The media gets an actual confirmation of a nuclear sub going into a hostile area and they jump all over it because it sells newspapers and commercials.
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:44 pmby Colossus
Not to mention the fact that the US does not need to use the SUEZ CANAL to get a submarine into striking distance. Puh-lease. If this story is true, then it was a deliberate move by the DoD, and they WANTED people to see that sub.
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:59 pmby Hologram
Colossus wrote:Not to mention the fact that the US does not need to use the SUEZ CANAL to get a submarine into striking distance. Puh-lease. If this story is true, then it was a deliberate move by the DoD, and they WANTED people to see that sub.
Probably because they want to scare the Iranians.
Woo. Political bluffs.
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:01 pmby Colossus
And everyone else.
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:03 pmby Hologram
Colossus wrote:And everyone else.
Well the Iranians specifically.
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:18 pmby Gregrios
All of these responses just goes to show you that speculation is more convincing than fact.
Posted:
Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:53 pmby brooksieb
US Neuclear submarine hotspots
Atlantic
China's sea or closely outside of it
Between russia's sea and the north pole
Medditeranian, to mark libya
persian gulf
Gulf of mexico to mark cuba
Baltic sea
waters surrounding America
Various others but not as much
Posted:
Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:17 amby Jenos Ridan
Did the article say what class the submarine was, because nuclear could very well be referring to the powerplant and not the armament. People get the two confused all the time.
Posted:
Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:41 amby dewey316
I am pretty sure that we don't have any non-nuclear powered subs left in the fleet.
Re: US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
Posted:
Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:02 amby Dekloren
Dekloren wrote:US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
The fleet is armed with nuclear weapons and cruise missiles and carries hundreds of aircraft and rapid reaction forces.
Re: US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
Posted:
Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:08 amby DaGip
Dekloren wrote:Dekloren wrote:US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
The fleet is armed with nuclear weapons and cruise missiles and carries hundreds of aircraft and rapid reaction forces.
How does a submarine carry aircraft?
Re: US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
Posted:
Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:14 amby Neoteny
DaGip wrote:Dekloren wrote:Dekloren wrote:US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
The fleet is armed with nuclear weapons and cruise missiles and carries hundreds of aircraft and rapid reaction forces.
How does a submarine carry aircraft?
You need to play more video games.
Re: US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
Posted:
Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:09 pmby Hologram
DaGip wrote:Dekloren wrote:Dekloren wrote:US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
The fleet is armed with nuclear weapons and cruise missiles and carries hundreds of aircraft and rapid reaction forces.
How does a submarine carry aircraft?
It doesn't. He's talking about the battle group, which has an aircraft carrier at the center.
Re: US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
Posted:
Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:11 pmby DaGip
Hologram wrote:DaGip wrote:Dekloren wrote:Dekloren wrote:US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
The fleet is armed with nuclear weapons and cruise missiles and carries hundreds of aircraft and rapid reaction forces.
How does a submarine carry aircraft?
It doesn't. He's talking about the battle group, which has an aircraft carrier at the center.
Yeah, but maybe you can carry aircraft on a sub?
Re: US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
Posted:
Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:21 pmby Hologram
DaGip wrote:Hologram wrote:DaGip wrote:Dekloren wrote:Dekloren wrote:US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
The fleet is armed with nuclear weapons and cruise missiles and carries hundreds of aircraft and rapid reaction forces.
How does a submarine carry aircraft?
It doesn't. He's talking about the battle group, which has an aircraft carrier at the center.
Yeah, but maybe you can carry aircraft on a sub?
No. Not nearly enough room.
Subs are made so that each square inch is used for something, and adding a flight hanger, even for one or two helicopters, would increase the size of the sub dramatically, to the point where it wouldn't be able to maneuver underwater.
It doesn't really matter though because it has plenty of cruise missiles, both conventional and nuclear, and if there isn't a carrier near that can send an aircraft, there always seems to be an air force base close enough to send a long range bomber/fighter.
Re: US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
Posted:
Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:25 pmby DaGip
Hologram wrote:DaGip wrote:Hologram wrote:DaGip wrote:Dekloren wrote:Dekloren wrote:US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
The fleet is armed with nuclear weapons and cruise missiles and carries hundreds of aircraft and rapid reaction forces.
How does a submarine carry aircraft?
It doesn't. He's talking about the battle group, which has an aircraft carrier at the center.
Yeah, but maybe you can carry aircraft on a sub?
No. Not nearly enough room.
Subs are made so that each square inch is used for something, and adding a flight hanger, even for one or two helicopters, would increase the size of the sub dramatically, to the point where it wouldn't be able to maneuver underwater.
It doesn't really matter though because it has plenty of cruise missiles, both conventional and nuclear, and if there isn't a carrier near that can send an aircraft, there always seems to be an air force base close enough to send a long range bomber/fighter.
Maybe we stuff soldiers into the missle chambers with jetpacks?
Re: US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
Posted:
Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:27 pmby Hologram
DaGip wrote:Hologram wrote:DaGip wrote:Hologram wrote:DaGip wrote:Dekloren wrote:Dekloren wrote:US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
The fleet is armed with nuclear weapons and cruise missiles and carries hundreds of aircraft and rapid reaction forces.
How does a submarine carry aircraft?
It doesn't. He's talking about the battle group, which has an aircraft carrier at the center.
Yeah, but maybe you can carry aircraft on a sub?
No. Not nearly enough room.
Subs are made so that each square inch is used for something, and adding a flight hanger, even for one or two helicopters, would increase the size of the sub dramatically, to the point where it wouldn't be able to maneuver underwater.
It doesn't really matter though because it has plenty of cruise missiles, both conventional and nuclear, and if there isn't a carrier near that can send an aircraft, there always seems to be an air force base close enough to send a long range bomber/fighter.
Maybe we stuff soldiers into the missle chambers with jetpacks?
LMAO!!!
I would pay money to watch that!
Re: US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
Posted:
Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:35 pmby DaGip
Hologram wrote:DaGip wrote:Hologram wrote:DaGip wrote:Hologram wrote:DaGip wrote:Dekloren wrote:Dekloren wrote:US 'deploys nuclear sub to Persian Gulf'
The fleet is armed with nuclear weapons and cruise missiles and carries hundreds of aircraft and rapid reaction forces.
How does a submarine carry aircraft?
It doesn't. He's talking about the battle group, which has an aircraft carrier at the center.
Yeah, but maybe you can carry aircraft on a sub?
No. Not nearly enough room.
Subs are made so that each square inch is used for something, and adding a flight hanger, even for one or two helicopters, would increase the size of the sub dramatically, to the point where it wouldn't be able to maneuver underwater.
It doesn't really matter though because it has plenty of cruise missiles, both conventional and nuclear, and if there isn't a carrier near that can send an aircraft, there always seems to be an air force base close enough to send a long range bomber/fighter.
Maybe we stuff soldiers into the missle chambers with jetpacks?
LMAO!!!
I would pay money to watch that!
The dream is becoming reality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agTDPRQuZVc
We just got to get them stuffed in the missle launchers!
But, you know...they Navy is phasing out missle launchers by 2010 in favor of the Rail Gun, which shoots a metal nonexplosive projectile at a speed of MACH 7. If USA has got any type of UFO tech, they could stuff a UFO craft into a RailGun sub. A little Sci Fi, but fun to think of...