Let's not bomb Iran

GW is going out with a bang! Unending war, recession, food/gas prices way up, dollar heading downward, so I say let's light up those pesky Iranians. What could go wrong, right?

New Deep Thought

Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have.

? Jack Handey

New Deep Thought

Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have.

? Jack Handey

I love it, and totally agree. Seeing as how we can destroy the planet several times over I don't see the need for billions of $ in R&D for MORE bombs, especially when we are being hobbled by IEDs!

Just remember the man in the White House believes in the apocolypse and I'm sure he'll help it right along.

- Bill Maher or other "lefty" comedian.

The biggest bomb we have is the MOAB. You can go look at a mock up at the Armament Museum at Eglin. It's 21,000 pounds and has to be delivered from a pallet dropped by a C-130 cargo plane. Unfortunately, the biggest hole in Bill Wineke's statement is the size of the bomb. It's 10 tons greater than the entire payload of a B2 bomber. Not sure what qualifications he has other than being a columist for the Wisconsin State Journal and an ordained clergyman neither of which, of course make him an expert in this field. Sounds to me like he's just trying to stir the pot...

Sorry...my two cents...

Bomb Iran? U.S. Requests Bunker-Buster Bombs


White House Bomber Request Leaves Some Wondering if U.S. Is Preparing Action in Iran

October 24, 2007


Tucked inside the White House's $196 billion emergency funding request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is an item that has some people wondering whether the administration is preparing for military action against Iran.
The item: $88 million to modify B-2 stealth bombers so they can carry a newly developed 30,000-pound bomb called the massive ordnance penetrator, or, in military-speak, the MOP.
The MOP is the the military's largest conventional bomb, a super "bunker-buster" capable of destroying hardened targets deep underground. The one-line explanation for the request said it is in response to "an urgent operational need from theater commanders."
What urgent need? The Pentagon referred questions on this to Central Command.
ABC News called CENTCOM to ask what the "urgent operational need" is. CENTCOM spokesman Maj. Todd White said he would look into it, but, so far, no answer.
There doesn't appear to be any potential targets for a bomb like that in Iraq. It could potentially be used on Taliban or al Qaeda hideouts in the caves along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, but there would be no need to use a stealth bomber there.
So where would the military use a stealth bomber armed with a 30,000-pound bomb like this? Defense analysts say the most likely target for this bomb would be Iran's flagship nuclear facility in Natanz, which is both heavily fortified and deeply buried.
"You'd use it on Natanz," said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org. "And you'd use it on a stealth bomber because you want it to be a surprise. And you put in an emergency funding request because you want to bomb quickly."
"It's kind of strange," Pike said. "It sends a signal that you are preparing to bomb Iran, and if you were actually going to bomb Iran I wouldn't think you would want to announce it like that."
The MOP is a massive bomb -- 20 feet long and encased in 3.5 inch thick high-performance steel. It is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding.

Thanks...that adds credibility. He should have cited his sources. I have to agree on this one. Good Lord...who needs a 30 ton bomb?!

I don't know where Wineke got his info, but major news outlets like ABC were reporting the above.

I didn't think there was anything bigger than MOAB (unless it's the Russians FOAB), but I am far from an expert.

Either way, I think picking a fight w/ Iran is a BAD idea.

There's not...MOAB is our biggest, and FOAB is Russia's, but it has only been tested once. If it's in production, it's the biggest.

Iran is going to be sticky wicket. Erring on the side of caution will definitely be the best course IMHO...

The biggest bomb we have is the MOAB. You can go look at a mock up at the Armament Museum at Eglin. It's 21,000 pounds and has to be delivered from a pallet dropped by a C-130 cargo plane. Unfortunately, the biggest hole in Bill Wineke's statement is the size of the bomb. It's 10 tons greater than the entire payload of a B2 bomber. Not sure what qualifications he has other than being a columist for the Wisconsin State Journal and an ordained clergyman neither of which, of course make him an expert in this field. Sounds to me like he's just trying to stir the pot...

Sorry...my two cents...

• The MOAB is an air-burst bomb intended to be used against ground troops and not very effective against buried or hardened targets.
• A C-130 would be a sitting duck to Iran?s air defenses.
• A ?bunker buster? is designed to penetrate several hundred feet below ground before detonating thereby making it an effective weapon against buried or hardened targets.
• If you are going after Iran?s nuclear facilities, you would use a ?bunker buster? not a MOAB.

And finally, and most importantly??.

5. If you are going to go after Iran?s nuclear facilities, you probably wouldn?t advertise the fact by loudly publishing a shopping list of weapons you need to do the job. This one is pure saber rattling to back up our diplomatic effort.

• The MOAB is an air-burst bomb intended to be used against ground troops and not very effective against buried or hardened targets.
• A C-130 would be a sitting duck to Iran?s air defenses.
• A ?bunker buster? is designed to penetrate several hundred feet below ground before detonating thereby making it an effective weapon against buried or hardened targets.
• If you are going after Iran?s nuclear facilities, you would use a ?bunker buster? not a MOAB.

And finally, and most importantly??.

5. If you are going to go after Iran?s nuclear facilities, you probably wouldn?t advertise the fact by loudly publishing a shopping list of weapons you need to do the job. This one is pure saber rattling to back up our diplomatic effort.

yup...all great...sorry,Grayt, points. I wasn't going to get into details. For the record, MOAB and FOAB are called thermobaric bombs. They're very nasty...

The item: $88 million to modify B-2 stealth bombers so they can carry a newly developed 30,000-pound bomb called the massive ordnance penetrator, or, in military-speak, the MOP.

"You'd use it on Natanz," said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org. "And you'd use it on a stealth bomber because you want it to be a surprise. And you put in an emergency funding request because you want to bomb quickly."
"It's kind of strange," Pike said. "It sends a signal that you are preparing to bomb Iran, and if you were actually going to bomb Iran I wouldn't think you would want to announce it like that."

Hopefully it is just saber rattling, but I seriously think they won't be happy until they start yet another war - possibly hoping the 3rd time is the charm!

$88 million just so we can bluff :angry:

• The MOAB is an air-burst bomb intended to be used against ground troops and not very effective against buried or hardened targets.
• A C-130 would be a sitting duck to Iran?s air defenses.
• A ?bunker buster? is designed to penetrate several hundred feet below ground before detonating thereby making it an effective weapon against buried or hardened targets.
• If you are going after Iran?s nuclear facilities, you would use a ?bunker buster? not a MOAB.

And finally, and most importantly??.

5. If you are going to go after Iran?s nuclear facilities, you probably wouldn?t advertise the fact by loudly publishing a shopping list of weapons you need to do the job. This one is pure saber rattling to back up our diplomatic effort.

Did I miss something? When did we try diplomacy with Iran under the current administration? Or are our definitions of diplomacy different?

We just imposed severe economic sanctions on Iran.

I consider "bush diplomacy" on par with "scooterbug subtlety". :roll:

It exists, but severely stretches the definition ;-).

Years ago Iraq built a reactor...BOOM! Gone in the middle of the night.
Syria just built a reactor...BOOM! Gone in the middle of the night.

Iran? One has to wonder, but my guess is that in 15 years we'll be watching a special on the History Channel that includes "recently declassified" Israeli footage.

Having your very existance threatened on a daily basis must suck to no end...

Did I miss something? When did we try diplomacy with Iran under the current administration? Or are our definitions of diplomacy different?

I hear you, my bruva.!!

Did I miss something? When did we try diplomacy with Iran under the current administration? Or are our definitions of diplomacy different?

Well everything is relative, and the ?diplomatic effort? is greater than anything we have seen from this administration but it is easy to understand how you could miss it.

That being said, I hold no illusions that Dick Cheney, et al. has shown any capacity to learn from his mistakes and will continue to plodder, Neanderthal like and wielding a big stick, thru the remainder of his time in office. No doubt if Dick had his way the bombs would be falling across Iran by now.

However, given the failures of the administrations there is more weight behind a different, diplomatic approach this time. Plus the military is clearly not hankering for a new show down and are voicing a note of caution.

Well everything is relative, and the ?diplomatic effort? is greater than anything we have seen from this administration but it is easy to understand how you could miss it.

That being said, I hold no illusions that Dick Cheney, et al. has shown any capacity to learn from his mistakes and will continue to plodder, Neanderthal like and wielding a big stick, thru the remainder of his time in office. No doubt if Dick had his way the bombs would be falling across Iran by now.

However, given the failures of the administrations there is more weight behind a different, diplomatic approach this time. Plus the military is clearly not hankering for a new show down and are voicing a note of caution.

Thank you, just needed a little clarification. IMHO it seems that the current administration would love to go back to the 50's era economic boom of keeping everyone in terror and thus in line as well. Look what it's doing for our economy now!

From ABC NEWS:

IRAN DOES NOT NEED AMERICA

How about this for a novel idea, focus on America's problems and do something. Put different engines in our vehicles, and put the Middle East on ignore.

How about this for a novel idea, focus on America's problems and do something. Put different engines in our vehicles, and put the Middle East on ignore.

Bob for President!!!

How about this for a novel idea, focus on America's problems and do something. Put different engines in our vehicles, and put the Middle East on ignore.

AMEN, Bob!!!!!!

a little humor..........