Posted on 11/09/2007 12:23:18 PM PST by Wuli
Longer than a Humvee and weighing more than two elephants, the latest and largest bunker-busting bomb is an attention-getter.
The $88 million request last month to speed up the operational ability of the MOP, or Massive Ordnance Penetrator, was noticed by some in Congress who saw a signal that Washington was on track for a war with Iran.
Presumably, its listing as an “urgent operational need from theater commanders” was noticed, as well, by Iran’s leadership.
The 15-ton weapon would be most tailored to blast away at deeply buried nuclear facilities. Defense analysts have predicted any attack on Iran would involve the B-2 stealth bomber using its radar-dodging ways to slip past Tehran’s air defenses and drop bunker busters on places like Natanz, where nuclear facilities hum away 100 feet below the surface.
The jets could be MOP capable by late 2008, said a spokesman at Whiteman Air Force Base, near Knob Noster, home of the B-2 bomber.
In its October emergency appropriations request for $196 million more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House essentially sped up funding for the new bomb. Previously, only about $30 million had been allocated to develop it.
The administration listed the request under “technologies to improve the survivability of U.S. personnel and equipment.”
While American forces at times needed to blast through sturdy defenses during the very earliest stages of the invasions that ousted Saddam Hussein and put down the Taliban, those conflicts now are guerilla and counterinsurgency fights that demand a much lighter touch than a 15-ton bomb.
A high-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee called the funding request “a clear red flag.” Rep. Jim McDermott, a Washington state Democrat.....
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
In WWII the Brits/Americans and Germans were in measure/countermeasure contests involving radar and radar detectors on submarines whose period was measured in months if not weeks.
I cringe at the time it takes to develop and stand up weapons these days.
truth!
“The (Iranian) hard-liners are strengthened in direct proportion to the pressure that we apply.”
This is definitely false. Those people NEVER directly attack a stronger foe. They recognized Jimmy Carter for what he really is, spineless, and took out our embassy.
That isn’t Natanz
Here’s a two-fer: send McDermott over to “negotiate” with NutJob; while they’re talking, let’s do another beta test of the bunker buster in their neighborhood...........
Well nowaday everyone and his brother has their wants their slice
Try again.
Was gonna make a point about defense contractors these days but didn’t really know what the focus on. There are a myriad of problems in the industry. It’s not that bad I suppose. I hit post in the middle of it. Whoops.
October 17, 2007
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I write to urge you to consider pursuing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.
In the last two years, the United States has worked closely with the permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, Japan, and other key states as well as the UN Secretary General and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to pursue a diplomatic strategy regarding Iran’s nuclear program. I have supported your efforts. Maintaining a cohesive and united international front remains one of our most effective levers on Iran.
In the last year, you have also authorized our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to hold bilateral talks with Iranian officials regarding the situation in Iraq. I have also supported this effort. Although Iran has continued dangerous actions in Iraq, this channel for dialogue is important.
I am increasingly concerned, however, that this diplomatic strategy is stalling. There are growing differences with our international partners. Concerns remain that the United States’ actual objectives is regime change in Iran, not a change in Iran’s behavior. Prospects for further action in the UN Security Council have grown dim, and we appear increasingly reliant on a single-track effort to expand financial pressure on Iran outside of the UN Security Council. Iran’s actions, both on its nuclear program and in Iraq, are unchanged. Iran’s leaders appear increasingly confident in their positions vis-a-vis the United States.
Unless there is a strategic shift, I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months. I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking will produce the results that we seek. If this continues, our ability to sustain a united international front will weaken as countries grow uncertain over our motives and unwilling to risk open confrontation with Iran, and we are left with fewer and fewer policy options.
Now is the time for the United States to active consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. The offer should be made even as we continue to work with our allies on financial pressure, in the UN Security Council on a third sanctions resolution, and in the region to support those Middle East countries who share our concerns with Iran. The November report by IAEA Director General ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors could provide an opportunity to advance the offer of bilateral talks.
An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across the board to deal with Iran. Our friends and allies would be more confident to stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including tougher sanctions on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West. We should be prepared that any dialogue process with Iran will take time, and we should continue all efforts, as you have, to engage Iran from a position of strength.
We should not wait to consider the option of bilateral talks until all other diplomatic options are exhausted. At that point, it could well be too late.
I urge you to consider pursing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.
Thank you for considering my views.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Chuck H. Chuck Hagel
United States Senator
cc: Condoleezza Rice
Robert M. Gates
Stephen J. Hadley
Remember, the B-2 is the most complex aircraft in the world. It's inherent instability is controlled by a number of computers, now add a single 13,000 pound bomb and everything changes.
There have been a multitude of workings for the MOP, DRPA has tested the explosive, the penetrator has been tested at White Sands, the guidance is accurate to a few feet. Now it just needs a bus to carry it.
“I’m puzzled. I thought we had transcended the technology of the old style bunker busters with the “deep digger” weapon,”
I believe the MOAB they are taking about is of that later generation of weapon that you are thinking of, and the simple “bunker buster” term was just handy for the editors to use in the title.
Alternately, we could dispense with needing the B2 by obliterating all the Iranian radar and anti-air facilities first, then drop bunker busters from conventional B1’s
Bunker buster could affect U.S.-iran relations. YOU DAMN RIGHT IT WILL!LOL
Hmmmmmm... guess that is Natanz. Bombs away!
Soooooory as Glenn Beck would say
"I am increasingly concerned, however, that this diplomatic strategy is stalling. There are growing differences with our international partners."
The facts are that differences between the US and our major allies, over Iran, are diminishing; as evidenced in France's stronger stand against Iran, increasing western consensus for independent western economic sanctions (since they will be blocked by China and Russia). No one is deluded, unlike Hagel, that the US is "in" the current negotiations with Iran - Germany, Britain and France are well informed of our "bad cop" limits as they pursue the "good cop" role with Iran. The fact is that the Europeans are increasingly seeing the Iranian "diplomatic" intentions that we warned them about - they have been and continue to be strung along by Iran while the its nuclear programs continue without breaking stride.
"Prospects for further action in the UN Security Council have grown dim,.....
And does he question the legitimacy of why that is - China and Russia?? No, he does not.
"Unless there is a strategic shift, I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months."
"Isolated" - in his delusional state, by Russia and China vetoing stronger sanctions in the UN, but not "isolated" with France, Britain and Germany. Why does he think both Germany and France are moving closer to the US on Iran. Why is he less informed than they are?
"If this continues, our ability to sustain a united international front will weaken as countries grow uncertain over our motives."
The man is real idiot. Does he really believe that France, Germany, Great Britain, most of NATO, Saudi Arabia, Israel or the Iraqi's for that matter are "uncertain about our motives" with respect to Iran and just what motives of ours does he seriously believe even the Iranians are uncertain about - they have been consistent, consistently stated and presented openly and very publicly for years; Iran must stop its support for terrorists and terrorist organizations across the Middle East, it must quit meddling in the affairs of Lebanon, it must end its recent terrorist activity sponsorship in Iraq, for starters. These are not state secrets, hidden from Iran's leaders, locked in a non-functioning diplomatic pouch at foggy bottom. Hagels entire rant is no more than think tank cliches, not reality.
"Now is the time for the United States to active consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran."
Diplomacy for its own sake is not an objective with a purpose. Diplomacy by itself is neither a purpose or an objective, it is means that requires a purpose outside of itself. Diplomacy conducted without a purpose and with no demand that a particular purpose must be achieved, can only provide one of two results - no agreement, or a sham of an agreement that simply puts a nice face on an agreement that changes nothing. The fact that Mr. Hagel has not learned from history is that it is not a given that "diplomacy" can achieve what the diplomatic seeks to obtain with it and any time in history that a deal has been struck to "avoid" war, without the underlying conditions for war being changed by that agreement, it has, in a matter of time, proven to simply delay what diplomacy was not going to solve in the first place. What traitorous, appeasing gift does Hagel think Bush should offer the Mullahs - we will evacuate everything we have in Iraq in 24 hrs if you promise not to help terrorists anymore? And, with such a promise, what will the people of Iraq and the Saudis and the gulf states think of our "motives".
The GOP should disassociate itself from this man 100%. If he were POTUS, he'd be the next Chamberlain.
Or how about,
Longer than a Canoe, and weighing more than a Whale? /Heh
And Iran might get mad at America? As if they're in a position
the likes of the cold war. They're just begging for credit and recognition.
“Here’s a two-fer: send McDermott over to “negotiate” with NutJob; while they’re talking, let’s do another beta test of the bunker buster in their neighborhood...........”
You are much kinder than I am. I would rather give Mickdermutt a cell phone, the cell phone number for the Mullahs and attach him to the first bunker buster out the shoot - then he can call them and apologize for his failure to subvert his country’s interests to theirs. Maybe some Iranian cleric, on hearing of his apology, will issue a fatwa that promises him, the infidel, an allotment of seven virgins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
