WSJ: U.S. military seeks more powerful bomb against Iran

[metisdead]

A profanity post has been removed, I'm pretty sure the poster in question knows this is against forum rules.

[TAWP]

Israel signed no treaties pledging to not develop nuclear weapons. Iran DID and they are violating them.

Good thing no nations that has signed any treaties elsewhere has broken against them or we wouid have to hand out more sanctions...

(Treaties to dictate what other nations cannot do is silly, and any treaty should be based on agreement and not force. Any treaty signed under force is like any civil contract signed under force - null and void.)

[chuckd]

Let me guess,all three posters above who ridiculed my question are americans.

edit : speeling

I am..and I agree with your avatar.

[chuckd]

Israel signed no treaties pledging to not develop nuclear weapons. Iran DID and they are violating them.

Good thing no nations that has signed any treaties elsewhere has broken against them or we wouid have to hand out more sanctions...

(Treaties to dictate what other nations cannot do is silly, and any treaty should be based on agreement and not force. Any treaty signed under force is like any civil contract signed under force - null and void.)

Assuming Israel does have nuclear weapons and has had for some time, can you cite any instances where they have threatened to use them? Against anybody? Anytime?

I am simply curious because, for the life of me, I can't recall them doing it. Perhaps I slept through that part of class.

[janverbeem]

Israel signed no treaties pledging to not develop nuclear weapons. Iran DID and they are violating them.

Good thing no nations that has signed any treaties elsewhere has broken against them or we wouid have to hand out more sanctions...

(Treaties to dictate what other nations cannot do is silly, and any treaty should be based on agreement and not force. Any treaty signed under force is like any civil contract signed under force - null and void.)

Assuming Israel does have nuclear weapons and has had for some time, can you cite any instances where they have threatened to use them? Against anybody? Anytime?

I am simply curious because, for the life of me, I can't recall them doing it. Perhaps I slept through that part of class.

Sleeping dogs are the most dangerous ones.

[Jingthing]

Sleeping dogs are the most dangerous ones.

1. Never pet a burning dog
   

[GentlemanJim]

I predict that Israel/Mossad will set off a nuke somewhere and blame it on Iran in a bid to move towards check mate. Remember where you heard it first! Ooops, is that the sound of Black helicopters outside!

[Jingthing]

I predict that Israel/Mossad will set off a nuke somewhere and blame it on Iran in a bid to move towards check mate. Remember where you heard it first! Ooops, is that the sound of Black helicopters outside!

There seems to be a fashion of seeing dinner parties as "false flag" events.

Sometimes a cigar IS a cigar.

Sometime a flag ... is a "true" flag.

In any case, Iran isn't near to playing the kinds of games North Korea has played with nuclear weapons as they don't have them ... YET.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

I predict that Israel/Mossad will set off a nuke somewhere and blame it on Iran in a bid to move towards check mate. Remember where you heard it first! Ooops, is that the sound of Black helicopters outside!

There seems to be a fashion of seeing dinner parties as "false flag" events.

Sometimes a cigar IS a cigar.

Sometime a flag ... is a "true" flag.

In any case, Iran isn't near to playing the kinds of games North Korea has played with nuclear weapons as they don't have them ... YET.

And what say you when the current IAEA inspections show that Iran is just building nuclear power stations for energy and nothing else? Where will all the warmongering hatred go then? I don't want anymore wars, for my children's sake if nothing else. Effective and honest diplomacy, support and reward is the only way to progression, AND to adopt an ethos that stipulates that not all countries on Earth want or need or can cope with our system of democracy.

[flying]

Israel signed no treaties pledging to not develop nuclear weapons. Iran DID and they are violating them.

It does not matter to you that the USA also signed the treaty?

That they are also in default for many years now?

In fact if memory serves me right ...North Korea was once a signatory too.

The reason they pulled out? They said the USA was not fulfilling their end of the deal.

To top it off Korea's complaint was about a totally different section of the treaty that most now point out as the most glaring refusal by the US to honor.

So good for the goose good for the gander? Or does the sheriff & deputies again get a gimme on this?

Edited January 30, 2012 by flying

[Jingthing]

Diplomacy between the US and Iran? Are you joking? There are no diplomatic relations between the US and Iran. Between Israel and Iran? Iran is on record to desire to destroy Israel and has proxy forces bordering Israel that are active military enemies of Israel. Not a matter of war mongering. The "soft" war has been on for a long time already.

Something about this you don't understand?

Note the call to "liberate" all of Israel for the Palestinians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtMJDepEVZk&feature=related

Edited January 30, 2012 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

Diplomacy between the US and Iran? Are you joking? There are no diplomatic relations between the US and Iran. Between Israel and Iran? Iran is on record to desire to destroy Israel and has proxy forces bordering Israel that are active military enemies of Israel. Not a matter of war mongering. The war has been on for a long time already.

Jingthing

You do your intellect a disservice by continuing to spout off the well worn and totally incorrect statement that Iran is on record to destroy Israel. That is not what was said is it? I am talking of the warmongering by several Thai Visa members.

[Jingthing]

Diplomacy between the US and Iran? Are you joking? There are no diplomatic relations between the US and Iran. Between Israel and Iran? Iran is on record to desire to destroy Israel and has proxy forces bordering Israel that are active military enemies of Israel. Not a matter of war mongering. The war has been on for a long time already.

Jingthing

You do your intellect a disservice by continuing to spout off the well worn and totally incorrect statement that Iran is on record to destroy Israel. That is not what was said is it? I am talking of the warmongering by several Thai Visa members.

Of course they want to destroy Israel! They don't want a Jewish state there and they don't want Jews there. They don't want to melt the land. They want the Palestinians to take over all of Israel and for all that land to be Palestine. That is destroying Israel. Israel, as in, the Jewish Zionist state of Israel, the one nation state in the world of the Jewish people. For Iran and so many others, with over 50 Islamic states in the world, they can't tolerate even ONE Jewish state. That is intolerable. Edited January 30, 2012 by Jingthing

[TAWP]

If Iran makes actions against Israel they shall and will be dealt with.

But that doesn't mean we should allow acts of aggression against them in advance.

[flying]

If Iran makes actions against Israel they shall and will be dealt with.

But that doesn't mean we should allow acts of aggression against them in advance.

That of course is common sense speaking.

How this whole preemptive strike to avoid wars became such a motto/M.O. in our supposedly advanced

civilization is beyond me.

[gopnarak]

Israel signed no treaties pledging to not develop nuclear weapons. Iran DID and they are violating them.

Good thing no nations that has signed any treaties elsewhere has broken against them or we wouid have to hand out more sanctions...

(Treaties to dictate what other nations cannot do is silly, and any treaty should be based on agreement and not force. Any treaty signed under force is like any civil contract signed under force - null and void.)

Assuming Israel does have nuclear weapons and has had for some time, can you cite any instances where they have threatened to use them? Against anybody? Anytime?

I am simply curious because, for the life of me, I can't recall them doing it. Perhaps I slept through that part of class.

No, nothing like that. Israel even made officially clear that they have no plans to attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons.

There is nothing that indicates that they would use so called mini-nukes, bunker buster to destroy Irans uranium enrichment facilities in an pre-emptive strike.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-denies-plan-to-hit-iran-enrichment-plant-with-tactical-nukes-1.209283

Iran too, Iran had never said that they want to build a nuclear bomb and Iran never threatened that they would use a nuclear weapon against anyone.

This thread is about the US military and their secret! request for money ($82 million) to enhance some 30,000-pounds (13,600-kilograms) Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) mega power bombs to make them even more powerful. The upgrade is needed because their already designated targets are so hard to destroy.

[Pedzie]

Let's just bomb Iran now..Problem solved who cares about the aftermath!

[gopnarak]

Diplomacy between the US and Iran? Are you joking? There are no diplomatic relations between the US and Iran. Between Israel and Iran? Iran is on record to desire to destroy Israel and has proxy forces bordering Israel that are active military enemies of Israel. Not a matter of war mongering. The war has been on for a long time already.

Jingthing

You do your intellect a disservice by continuing to spout off the well worn and totally incorrect statement that Iran is on record to destroy Israel. That is not what was said is it? I am talking of the warmongering by several Thai Visa members.

Of course they want to destroy Israel! They don't want a Jewish state there and they don't want Jews there. They don't want to melt the land. They want the Palestinians to take over all of Israel and for all that land to be Palestine. That is destroying Israel. Israel, as in, the Jewish Zionist state of Israel, the one nation state in the world of the Jewish people. For Iran and so many others, with over 50 Islamic states in the world, they can't tolerate even ONE Jewish state. That is intolerable.

This thread isn't about Israel, Israel as in, the Jewish Zionist state of Israel.

[gopnarak]

Blowback, obviously.

The topic isn't about the US using nukes, but you couldn't help yourself, could you?

It now seems the US is becoming more serious that Iran having nukes is not going to be tolerated. So will the tougher sanctions work, or not?

Sure but the topic is also about using bigger bombs.

Who knows what else unfolds once the attack iran for "alledegly" trying to make a nucleur weapon.

We all know about iraq and the "alleged" weapons of mass destruction which was found to be a lie even when rumsfeflt said he knew where they were then only to backtrack and say he never said that he knew where they were lol.

This is a discussion about them wanting a bigger bomb which obviously will get people thinking about what other weapons they might possibly use in the future on them.

Lets just hope there is no war but if the usa/israel/uk have there way that bigger bomb will be heading towards iran very shortly.

Im english btw and im not happy about this situation at all.

The OP mentioned not only these bigger bombs the US wants to use to attack Iran, it also says that nuclear weapon might be necessary.

The mountain above the Iranian enrichment site at Fordow is estimated to be at least 200 feet (61 meters) tall. The MOP is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding, but factors such as soil density and the types of stone and rock could decrease this dramatically. Some experts believe a tactical nuclear weapon may be the only option to completely take out the facility.

Iran says that its nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy. And Iran has enemies. Just remember when Iraq attacked Iran. If you have to deal with enemies like Dictator Saddam it makes sense if you build your nuclear energy facilities extra bombproof. Saddam wouldn't needed his weapons of mass destruction if he had the chance to blow up a nuclear reactor.

Now the US is planning to destroy a couple of Irans nuclear facilities, imagine the outcome. It probably doesn't matter if they are using an upgraded version of their largest conventional bomb or indeed a nuclear weapons, even if it are 'only' tactical ones.

[FOODLOVER]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uN2lYioHyY

Stickem together with bubble gum, voila! You've got twice the bomb and a really big bubble!

[GentlemanJim]

Israel signed no treaties pledging to not develop nuclear weapons. Iran DID and they are violating them.

Good thing no nations that has signed any treaties elsewhere has broken against them or we wouid have to hand out more sanctions...

(Treaties to dictate what other nations cannot do is silly, and any treaty should be based on agreement and not force. Any treaty signed under force is like any civil contract signed under force - null and void.)

Assuming Israel does have nuclear weapons and has had for some time, can you cite any instances where they have threatened to use them? Against anybody? Anytime?

I am simply curious because, for the life of me, I can't recall them doing it. Perhaps I slept through that part of class.

No, nothing like that. Israel even made officially clear that they have no plans to attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons.

There is nothing that indicates that they would use so called mini-nukes, bunker buster to destroy Irans uranium enrichment facilities in an pre-emptive strike.

http://www.haaretz.c...-nukes-1.209283

Iran too, Iran had never said that they want to build a nuclear bomb and Iran never threatened that they would use a nuclear weapon against anyone.

This thread is about the US military and their secret! request for money ($82 million) to enhance some 30,000-pounds (13,600-kilograms) Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) mega power bombs to make them even more powerful. The upgrade is needed because their already designated targets are so hard to destroy.

And there is the funny thing, don't you smell a fish? Are we now to believe that US military security is so poor that 'a secret request for $82 million', cannot be kept secret. My how things seem to have changed. The US machine, feeds us exactly the information they want us to know or believe. What this little snippet is about remains yet to be revealed.

[Morch]

If Iran makes actions against Israel they shall and will be dealt with.

But that doesn't mean we should allow acts of aggression against them in advance.

That's a fine notion (not being sarcastic or anything), just not always applicable to real conditions.

Easier to maintain this approach when you're a large country with some strategic depth, probably seen different by Israel.Granted, strategic depth may have something to do with the relationship with one's neighbors. The realities of the Middle East makes relying on this somewhat of a problem.

I'm pretty sure that waiting for the first blow to connect, waiting for the first bullet to hit, etc aren't the way things happen (or expected to happen) in most legal systems. There's usually some element of reasonable assessment that some harm will be done, which allows preemptive action.

It seems the debate has more to do with different assessments of threats, rather than the legitemacy of preemptive strikes. In some contexts, they may be acceptable.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

[flying]

It seems the debate has more to do with different assessments of threats, rather than the legitemacy of preemptive strikes. In some contexts, they may be acceptable.

Does surprisingly seem as you say debate wise.

But when you say legitimacy of preemptive strikes I wondered what you meant when you said in some context, they may be acceptable?

Just wondered acceptable by who & under what context were you thinking it would be considered acceptable?

Without Iran providing a concrete/actual threat I cannot think of any

Edited January 31, 2012 by flying

[gopnarak]

You're trying to make this personal. I am talking about Iran. We know what the current leadership wants and it is doing regarding their nuclear program. The west's hope for a "moderate" to take over is represented by Moussavi. It is well known and accepted that Iran's success in its nuclear program is a source of national pride for Iranian nationalists, and most Iranians are obviously Iranian nationalists, regardless of their position on the Islamic fundamentalist regime leadership.

This is a left wing US source. Show me one source from anywhere which says Iranians aren't proud of their nuclear program and want it to continue.

You can't.

It is generally accepted internationally that Mousavi WON the last election. What exactly do you want from me? To fly to Iran and interview people? Both sides were PRO nuclear program.

...

It’s true that Mousavi has seized the chance to attack Ahmadinejad from the right on the nuclear question, but this is consistent with Mousavi message during the campaign — back in April, Mousavi was quoted as saying “No one in Iran will accept suspension” of enrichment. And given his own significant past role in Iran’s nuclear program, I think it’s wrong to characterize it as simple opportunism.

...

All of this is to say that Mousavi has been a long-standing proponent of Iran’s right to enrich, a consensus issue among Iranians, and has as strong a claim as anyone to credit for Iran’s nuclear progress.

...

http://thinkprogress...tics/?mobile=nc

It is generally accepted internationally that Mousavi WON the last election. ???

Is it? I don't think so.

And what gets you so agitated about the fact that Iranians like their nuclear program? They say that their nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy. That is the point that makes them proud.

[Morch]

It seems the debate has more to do with different assessments of threats, rather than the legitemacy of preemptive strikes. In some contexts, they may be acceptable.

Does surprisingly seem as you say debate wise.

But when you say legitimacy of preemptive strikes I wondered what you meant when you said in some context, they may be acceptable?

Just wondered acceptable by who & under what context were you thinking it would be considered acceptable?

Without Iran providing a concrete/actual threat I cannot think of any

I was thinking both of the broader scope (this issue is in no way limited to the current conflict or the Middle East), and of the fact that different parties might have different views on the same situation.

In the current context? Well, obviously, from Israel's point of view (and at least as far as internal debate goes) it's not so much a question of whether a preemptive strike is morally right, but more whether it's feasible and would bring about a wished for result. I think it's generally seen more as a survival issue. Mind, not going into whether Israel's assessment is right or wrong here.

The USA stance is much more complex, of course. There isn't any clear and present danger to the USA or to American citizens, and the whole thing got more to do with global power play, commercial interests and elections (the latter, btw, is true to some extent for all parties involved, always a home front as well). A preemptive strike, from that point of view is more morally questionable then, say, an Israeli one.

I'm not sure that the conduct of any government can follow a strict moral code (unless you're a theocracy, maybe). Reality means adjustment and compromise, sometimes by the way of morals too.

[Pakboong]

Blowback, obviously.

The topic isn't about the US using nukes, but you couldn't help yourself, could you?

It now seems the US is becoming more serious that Iran having nukes is not going to be tolerated. So will the tougher sanctions work, or not?

Sure but the topic is also about using bigger bombs.

Who knows what else unfolds once the attack iran for "alledegly" trying to make a nucleur weapon.

We all know about iraq and the "alleged" weapons of mass destruction which was found to be a lie even when rumsfeflt said he knew where they were then only to backtrack and say he never said that he knew where they were lol.

This is a discussion about them wanting a bigger bomb which obviously will get people thinking about what other weapons they might possibly use in the future on them.

Lets just hope there is no war but if the usa/israel/uk have there way that bigger bomb will be heading towards iran very shortly.

Im english btw and im not happy about this situation at all.

The OP mentioned not only these bigger bombs the US wants to use to attack Iran, it also says that nuclear weapon might be necessary.

The mountain above the Iranian enrichment site at Fordow is estimated to be at least 200 feet (61 meters) tall. The MOP is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding, but factors such as soil density and the types of stone and rock could decrease this dramatically. Some experts believe a tactical nuclear weapon may be the only option to completely take out the facility.

Iran says that its nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy. And Iran has enemies. Just remember when Iraq attacked Iran. If you have to deal with enemies like Dictator Saddam it makes sense if you build your nuclear energy facilities extra bombproof. Saddam wouldn't needed his weapons of mass destruction if he had the chance to blow up a nuclear reactor.

Now the US is planning to destroy a couple of Irans nuclear facilities, imagine the outcome. It probably doesn't matter if they are using an upgraded version of their largest conventional bomb or indeed a nuclear weapons, even if it are 'only' tactical ones.

Nobody has to blow up anything. The UN inspectors are in Iran right now with the option of extending their visit until they are satisfied. The specific targets you are suggesting to be destroyed are available right now to the inspectors. The known targets will be inspected. If Iran is doing something covert, it will not be known target at this point.

If the US knows of a specific site they would like to be inspected, all they have to do is alert the UN inspection team There is absolutely no indication that the Iranians are going to exclude inspection of any particular known site. All the discussion so far on this particular thread is about known sites. Known sites are not a problem as they are all open to inspection today.

[chuckd]

I was thinking both of the broader scope (this issue is in no way limited to the current conflict or the Middle East), and of the fact that different parties might have different views on the same situation.

In the current context? Well, obviously, from Israel's point of view (and at least as far as internal debate goes) it's not so much a question of whether a preemptive strike is morally right, but more whether it's feasible and would bring about a wished for result. I think it's generally seen more as a survival issue. Mind, not going into whether Israel's assessment is right or wrong here.

The USA stance is much more complex, of course. There isn't any clear and present danger to the USA or to American citizens, and the whole thing got more to do with global power play, commercial interests and elections (the latter, btw, is true to some extent for all parties involved, always a home front as well). A preemptive strike, from that point of view is more morally questionable then, say, an Israeli one.

I'm not sure that the conduct of any government can follow a strict moral code (unless you're a theocracy, maybe). Reality means adjustment and compromise, sometimes by the way of morals too.

In the main, I would agree with your post. I take exception to your statement that there is no clear and present danger to any US citizens.

At the request of the government of Bahrain the Fifth Fleet is positioned in Manama with some 10,000 seamen. There is a military presence in Kuwait and Qatar as well.

In addition to these factors, there is also a large contingent of civilian US citizens working in Saudi Arabia and other Arabian Peninsula nations.

I would guess there are upwards of 30,000 Americans in the immediate range of Iran's missiles, with or without nukes. The nukes have a much broader kill range than conventional weapons, thus the increased peril if Iran goes nuclear.

[Pakboong]

I was thinking both of the broader scope (this issue is in no way limited to the current conflict or the Middle East), and of the fact that different parties might have different views on the same situation.

In the current context? Well, obviously, from Israel's point of view (and at least as far as internal debate goes) it's not so much a question of whether a preemptive strike is morally right, but more whether it's feasible and would bring about a wished for result. I think it's generally seen more as a survival issue. Mind, not going into whether Israel's assessment is right or wrong here.

The USA stance is much more complex, of course. There isn't any clear and present danger to the USA or to American citizens, and the whole thing got more to do with global power play, commercial interests and elections (the latter, btw, is true to some extent for all parties involved, always a home front as well). A preemptive strike, from that point of view is more morally questionable then, say, an Israeli one.

I'm not sure that the conduct of any government can follow a strict moral code (unless you're a theocracy, maybe). Reality means adjustment and compromise, sometimes by the way of morals too.

In the main, I would agree with your post. I take exception to your statement that there is no clear and present danger to any US citizens.

At the request of the government of Bahrain the Fifth Fleet is positioned in Manama with some 10,000 seamen. There is a military presence in Kuwait and Qatar as well.

In addition to these factors, there is also a large contingent of civilian US citizens working in Saudi Arabia and other Arabian Peninsula nations.

I would guess there are upwards of 30,000 Americans in the immediate range of Iran's missiles, with or without nukes. The nukes have a much broader kill range than conventional weapons, thus the increased peril if Iran goes nuclear.

The Ponce, Enterprise, and Vincennes are on their way as they are in various stages of being removed from early retirement plans to send in to the areas in question. These particular vessles present a different type of problem in that they are expendable. Particularly the Enterprise, a 50 year old nuclear Air Craft Carrier. The cost of decommissioning and disposing of the nuclear materials in an approved manner is extensive. Having it sunk in a false flag operation in the gulf or hormoz solves a couple of problems.

The USS HW Bush, another Air Craft Carrier with its complete task force has also been alerted and is moving to a location currently classified. Unlike the Enterprise, the Bush is the newest of the fleet and is not expendable.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Pakboong

[Jingthing]

Like I said, the "soft" war is already on and has been for a long time.

BTW, the beloved American President Obama's favorite color is blue, not pink.

Not that there is anything wrong with pink, but what were the Persian propagandists trying to pull with that pink thing? Was it an anti-gay allusion? If so, not surprising from a barbaric regime that denies the holocaust, threatens Israel's very existence, murders their gay people (except those willing to have their genitals cut off which they will generously pay for), stones their "adulterous" women to death, and cuts off the limbs of thieves.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Jingthing