SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
W. J. Hennigan reports at the LA Times that as diplomats rush to reach an agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program, the US military is stockpiling conventional bombs so powerful that strategists say they could cripple Tehran's most heavily fortified nuclear complexes. The bunker-busting bombs are America's most destructive munitions short of atomic weapons and at 15 tons, each is 5 tons heavier than any other bomb in the US arsenal. "The Pentagon continues to be focused on being able to provide military options for Iran if needed," says a senior US official. "We have not taken our eyes off the ball."
Obama has made it clear that he has no desire to order an attack, warning that US airstrikes on Iran's air defense network and nuclear facilities would spark a destabilizing new war in the Middle East, and would only delay Iran by several years should it choose to build a bomb. "A military solution will not fix it," says Obama. An attack "would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program, but it will not eliminate it." That being said the latest iteration of the massive ordnance penetrator (MOP) was successfully tested on a deeply buried target in January at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The test followed upgrades to the bomb's guidance system and electronics to stop jammers from sending it off course. B-2 stealth bombers would be required to drop the MOP, which is designed to burrow 200 feet underground before it detonates. Multiple MOPs probably would be aimed at the same target to bore deeper and achieve maximum destruction. A US attack could spark a broader war in the world's most volatile region. Iran has hundreds of medium-range missiles capable of hitting Israel, Jordan and other American allies, according to defense intelligence estimates. "It would create huge problems," says Michael E. O'Hanlon. "That said, it's hard to rule out if talks fail."
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Saturday July 11 2015, @02:35AM
Obviously one attack wouldn't stop them, but what if you bomb them each time they build a facility? (Other than spending a bunch of money and getting people to hate us just that little bit more)
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday July 11 2015, @06:15AM
Its common and popular in US news reports to suggest anything we do will be ineffective, and only offer a short delay because Iran will quickly leap frog the latest bomb technology, and build deeper bunkers. As for destroying facilities, you don't have to actually penetrate to the actual work chambers. You just need to close all elevator shafts, burst piping and electrical lines and the facility will become useless.
The story seems to make it seem that these bombs were custom built for the Iran mission.
They've probably been lying around for decades, at least as long as the Iraq war, although newer versions than those used in Iraq were only placed in stock-pile in 2011 at Whiteman Air Force Base. The old versions used in Iraq were found to be somewhat disappointing.
Odd that they chose to yank one out of storage to "make sure it still works" while talking to the Iranians. _cough_..
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 11 2015, @10:31AM
I remember reading about bunker busters in the 80's during the Cold War. They're probably close to their expiration and they want to use them to make room for depleted uranium shells in the warehouse.
Washington DC delenda est.