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 fnj on Saturday July 11 2015, @04:56AM
Of course. Jesus, this is the longest never-ending eight years in my lifetime. Infinitely longer than the eight Clinton years. And the ending of it is going to be the longest eighteen months ever inflicted.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday July 11 2015, @06:00AM
The people who had to do three useless tours in Iraq may want to object ... They were better off than the guys in the trenches in WWI, but they still think you're a whining pussy.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 11 2015, @11:02AM
Really, longer than the 8 years of George W. Bush's utter stupidity and Dick Cheney's coarse evil? The 8 years of economic activity under Clinton had nothing to do with Clinton and was in fact a speculative bubble that had not yet burst before he left office, but at least it was nice for people to have jobs and get paid decent money for a little while. As for the last 8 years, they've been long too because they have shown that it makes absolutely no difference who sits in the Oval Office as long as the country is run as a kleptocracy of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. In short, it's been 16 years of accelerating Suck after 40 years of progressively worse Suck.
Washington DC delenda est.