I agree with OmegaLogos. The thing is pure propaganda. The original source for the latest news cycle about the need for a refinement of the Massive
Ordnance Penetrator started with an article called Pentagon Seeks Mightier Bomb vs. Iran
Wall Street Journal
The article is no shining highlight of journalism.
...according to U.S. officials briefed on the plan
Some experts question....
A senior defence official said...
Another senior U.S. official said...
According to Air Force officials....
Anonymity is important in the journalistic process to protect whistleblowers from repercussions. But this is not how it is used here. Glenn Greenwald
has written very eloquently, why this sort of reporting is a reason for both caution and complaint.
In very limited circumstances, anonymity is valuable and justified (e.g., when someone is risking something substantial to expose concealed wrongdoing
of serious public interest).
But promiscuous, unjustified anonymity -- which pervades the establishment press -- is the linchpin of most bad, credibility-destroying reporting. It
enables government officials and others to lie to the public with impunity or manipulate them with propaganda, using eager reporters as both their
megaphone and shield. It is the weapon of choice for reporters eager to serve as loyal message-carriers and royal court gossip columnists. It
preserves and bolsters the culture of secrecy that dominates Washington -- exactly the opposite of what a real journalist, by definition, would seek
Then the article also contains the following passage:
“They (anonymous officials) said the new money was meant to ensure the weapon would be more effective against the deepest bunkers, including Iran's
Fordow enrichment plant facility...”
Fodrow and all other known nuclear facilities are regularly inspected by the IAEA. The IAEA knows how much uranium is enriched and, like all 16 US
intelligence agencies (see their N.I.E. about Irans Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities) found no evidence for a secret nuclear program.
I believe the absence of evidence combined with laziness and ignorance of the journalists is why we rarely see exact names and identifiable sources in
MSM-articles about Iran.
The article in the WSJ continues:
The official said some Pentagon war planners believe conventional bombs won't be effective against Fordow and that a tactical nuclear weapon may be
the only military option if the goal is to destroy the facility. "Once things go into the mountain, then really you have to have something that takes
the mountain off," the official said.
Fine logic and moral judgement here by the anonymous official. To prevent Iran from getting the bomb we need to bomb it with a nuke. For this scenario
It is unimportant that all enriched uranium is accounted for and the IAEA inspectors can find no diversion of nuclear material.
Add to this, that Iran is not known to possess any biological or chemical weapons and is a signee of all treaties which repudiate the possession of
weapons of mass destruction. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei even has issued a fatwa, which forbids the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons
This is not just talk. When Iran was attacked by Saddam, Saddam used WMD's against it. To this time, the mullahs still had some of the Shah's
chemical weapons in their possession. Even then the Iranians refused to use them in retaliation.
But why let get facts into the way, if the same old fearmongering and fantasy can be used to funnel more money to the military-industrial complex. The
whole thing is like a ghoststory. A story which is told by the older kids to frighten the younger ones. This particulary story is floating around for
the last 30