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: 5, Insightful) by deimtee on Saturday July 11 2015, @02:54AM
from the article: (emphasis added)
A military strike would result in the worst of all worlds," said Dalia Dassa Kaye, director of the Center for Middle East Public Policy at the nonpartisan Rand Corp. "It may eliminate some facilities. But it would not eliminate Iranian scientists' technical know-how and would likely further incentivize Iran to pursue a weapon at all costs."
Iran could increase support for regional militant groups, such as Hezbollah, and perhaps back a terrorist attack on the United States, she said. U.S. forces battling Islamic State fighters in Iraq could find themselves targeted by Iranian-backed militias who are in tacit alignment in the war against the Sunni extremists.
I'm fairly sure that if one country makes war on another, then counterattacks are part of that war, not the bogeyman of terrorism.
And if it's not war, then aren't the initial attacks terrorism?
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.