And even with the Jerusalem Post and the Scotsman doing all the hard work for them, still gets it wrong. Or one of their sources did and they didn't catch it.
"They are very well-built, very well-prepared, lots of interesting equipment, one of the best conventional submarines available," Beaver said. "We are talking about a third string of deterrence capabilities."
Michael Karpin, an expert on Israel's nuclear capabilities who published a book on the issue in the United States, said nuclear submarines provide better second-strike capabilities than missiles launched from airplanes.
"Planes are vulnerable, unlike nuclear submarines that can operate for an almost unlimited amount of time without being struck," Karpin said. "Second-strike capabilities are a crucial element in any nuclear conflict."
These are diesel-electric or 'conventional' submarines. Nuclear submarines use nuclear propulsion systems. They are some of the most advanced conventional boats in history, though and armed to the teeth by all accounts.
One thing that the article mentions that I suspect is very true:
What also makes Tehran dangerous, Beaver said, is that it may not understand the consequences of carrying out a nuclear strike.
I think that is exactly what is wrong here. They simply do not comprehend what will happen to them. The reason the MAD doctrine worked with the Soviets is that they did understand what would happen, as did the US.
UPDATE: In comments, Quilly Mammoth catches the AP "correcting" the story. And actually making it even less accurate! (The link is to Just Barking Mad, QM is one of the proprietors thereof. His disassembly of the AP is quite amusing.)
And hey, if they make Web Fu into a television series, can we get David Carradine? Nah. I'm not that old…..
ROFLMAO. The AP has edited this story:
So Dolphin’s armed with just HE missiles don;t get that same advantage?
I must go beat them now.
That is so damned funny! The AP reads Blue Crab Boulevard.
And they SHOULD.
Pingback: justbarkingmad.com » Blog Archive » al-AP:wrong and wronger
The MAD theory is irrelevent in this case. MAD is Mutually Assured Destruction. In the Iran-Israel face off the destruction of neither is assured. Teheran understands one side of this i.e that Israel most likely does not have enough nukes to totally destroy Iran . It does appear that it’s leadership currently does not undrstand the other half – that it’s extremly unlikely even 10% of a large missile salvo they fired would get close enough to it’s targets in Israel to do more then raise the background radiation somewhat.