Wimpy mega bomb worries U.S. military

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Wimpy mega bomb worries U.S. military


www.aftonbladet.se

U.S. mega bomb MOP weighs 14 tons and has cost over 100 million pieces to produce. But it still seen as wimpy against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Now requested extra money to make the bomb even more powerful.
An important goal for the U.S. right now is that, if necessary, to reach Iran's nuclear bunkers, in which the West fears that efforts are under way to develop nuclear weapons.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Target Iran? MOP Bomb Fast-tracked
Boeing TO Develop the MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator)
'US bunker-busters can't destroy some Iran nuke plants'




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
I just read this on a Swedish website. Full translation:

"Wimpy mega bomb worries U.S. military


STOCKHOLM. U.S. mega bomb MOP weighs 14 tons and has cost over 100 million pieces to produce. But it still seen as wimpy against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Now requested extra money to make the bomb even more powerful.
An important goal for the U.S. right now is that, if necessary, to reach Iran's nuclear bunkers, in which the West fears that efforts are under way to develop nuclear weapons.

While Iran's facilities have strengthened America's weapons are not really kept up with, fear the military. The focus on bombs that can drill deep into the soil will therefore increase by $ 82 million, according to a request by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) explains.
Primarily it is about the giant MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator - something like "Colossal Penetration play"). Its construction began last year and delivered by Boeing under a contract for 20 copies. The project has cost $ 330 million, equivalent to over 100 million pieces.
Israel

As late as 2009 said that U.S. Air Force to settle for a dozen of the giant bombs, to be able to drill down up to about 60 feet into the ground before it explodes.
The rumors about a military attack on Iran, it has also been mentioned that the U.S. would allow Israel to do the heavy lifting. According to the WSJ thinks, however, the U.S. does not export the bomb."

So US is getting ready to bomb Iran? Why else would they be alarmed about their bombs being to "wimpy"?
I don't like any of this since they probably already have bigger bombs and just want money to other stuff.

Some statements in the threads I put in are also saying "It's not just aimed at Iran. Frankly, it's aimed at any enemy that decides to locate in some kind of impenetrable location.". So guys? Is it nearing WW3? Since now they are talking about bombing Iran in the news.


www.aftonbladet.se
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 28-1-2012 by FejkNick because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-1-2012 by FejkNick because: (no reason given)
edit on Sat Jan 28 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: ex tags



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
So the MOP is 30 000 lbs.

The B-2 can carry at most 50 000 lbs.

So they can make it at least 50% bigger.

The B-52s can carry 70 000 lbs. That means it could be 133% bigger.

Will that be enough?

How long will it take to develop and field it? 2 years?

Or maybe they'll just say to hell with it, we'll use tactical nukes.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
So the MOP is 30 000 lbs.

The B-2 can carry at most 50 000 lbs.

So they can make it at least 50% bigger. Will that be enough?

Or just to hell with it, use tactical nukes already.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)


Good point! I also believe this is the biggest bomb any of their current aircraft can carry. So, they'd either have to develop another aircraft capable of carrying a newer heavier bomb, or use a nuclear warhead on the existing bomb to get the job done!



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy

Originally posted by Vitchilo
So the MOP is 30 000 lbs.

The B-2 can carry at most 50 000 lbs.

So they can make it at least 50% bigger. Will that be enough?

Or just to hell with it, use tactical nukes already.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)


Good point! I also believe this is the biggest bomb any of their current aircraft can carry. So, they'd either have to develop another aircraft capable of carrying a newer heavier bomb, or use a nuclear warhead on the existing bomb to get the job done!


That's true.
The question I'm asking is why are they asking for more money?
Since what you just pointed out is the obvious thing to do if they want to have a war with Iran. But a nuke in the wrong place will render allot of oil useless. Or it would be hard to obtain it and ship it.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FejkNick
 


Why are they asking for more money? Simple, they always do, it's what makes them so profitable.

As for the nuclear warhead option, we are not talking large nuclear weapon here, just a small tactical nuclear warhead will suffice, in place of the much smaller yield conventional explosive warhead.
I bet they'd even claim that the explosion was due to their conventional bomb setting off an Iranian nuclear weapon stored in the bunker they were hitting!
edit on 28-1-2012 by Britguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Yeah a tactical nuke would generate way less radiation than bombing (of any kind) of the Busher nuclear power plant.

US 'bunker-buster' not powerful enough against Iran

The Defense Department has spent about $330 million so far to develop about 20 of the bombs, which are built by Boeing Co., the report pointed out.

The Pentagon is seeking about $82 million more to make the bomb more effective, The Journal said.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
The MOP's penetrating abilities are known - if someone thinks the Iranians have bunkers deeper than it can go then they will need a better penetrator to go after them.

And making new weapons costs money

There's nothing magical about that - the next generation of penetrator is already under consideration and will likely be smaller and rocket propelled to get extra speed and penetration and be able to be carried on more aircraft.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Explanation: I posted about this pure propaganda in another forums thread on this exact same subject HERE! [ATS]

And since the newest variant is the B61 Mod 11, deployed in 1997, which is a ground-penetrating bunker buster may [an assumption based on my own best guess ok ] have the mass of about 1 ton [usually 2/3rds that mass for standard B61 nuke] then the B-2's could carry 22 B61 Mod 11's and the B-52's could carry 30 B61 Mod 11's.

If the B61 Mod 11 has greater mass than I have assumed then of course the above numbers would decrease accordingly and this is just a maximized for effect hypothetical.

Personal Disclosure: It's propaganda because they want more money for what can already be done!



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Can already be done... with NUKES.

Have you not noticed they are trying to do the same thing WITHOUT nukes?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Explanation: Yes and here is why that is fail ...

Ahem ...


Originally posted by Vitchilo

Well I remember seeing a pentagon document back in 2006...

It was a presentation done to the Pentagon about hitting Iran's nuclear facilities with bunker buster nukes. And it said it was all safe for civilians because the nuke went off underground...

Apparently the Pentagon called BS on that and developed the MOP. Now it seems it won't do the job... so hopefully it's not back to ``Plan A with nukes``.


... and from my post directly above that post of yours in that seperate 2nd same issue thread ...


Since there is going to be a high potential for nuclear fallout even if conventional weapons could do the job [which apparently they can't
:shk:
] then using a nuclear bunker buster to do the same job better is a no brainer!


And from this thread above ...


Personal Disclosure: It's propaganda because they want more money for what can already be done!


Make sense now?


Personal Disclosure: Follow the CA$H Flow ok!
Oh but your already know about how corrupt the Federal Reserve Bank is and Zionism etc!
Never mind ...my bad! :shk:



edit on 28-1-2012 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to add missing link to 2nd same issue thread.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
The impediment to dropping a nuclear weapon on Iran is political, not practical. Thats why they are looking to a conventional weapon that can achieve the same objective.

Not even fox news could sell deploying an actual nuclear weapon to prevent the potential development of one.

Israel might do it themselves but I can't see the USA doing it.
edit on 28-1-2012 by justwokeup because: typo



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I don't understand the point in making war machines and weapon systems. It's expensive, and too complicated.

In my honest opinion, inserting small groups of men & women trained from children up to be assassin-like spys within every nation on the planet is a much better solution.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by FejkNick
So US is getting ready to bomb Iran? Why else would they be alarmed about their bombs being to "wimpy"?
I don't like any of this since they probably already have bigger bombs and just want money to other stuff.

Some statements in the threads I put in are also saying "It's not just aimed at Iran. Frankly, it's aimed at any enemy that decides to locate in some kind of impenetrable location.". So guys? Is it nearing WW3? Since now they are talking about bombing Iran in the news.

www.aftonbladet.se
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 28-1-2012 by FejkNick because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-1-2012 by FejkNick because: (no reason given)


I think its more along the lines of showing the Iranians that even their new, previsouly undiclosed locations, are not protected enough to avoid a bomb hit. The knowledge that the facility wont be completely protected can go a long way into showing the Iranian government that they are still vulnerbale to attack and hopefully chnage their course on the nuke program and comply witgh IAEA / NPT requirements.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
I just know this, its better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it. I dont know to much about iran but i have seen first hand what can happen when your religion gets in the way of what should be done.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
So the USA is going to drop a nuclear weapon on Iran so Iran cant develop nuclear weapons? Hmmm maybe Iran needs to develop nukes to prevent this kind of attack.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Actually, it's already WW3, we just haven't actually hashtagged it as such.

And, please... a 14 tonne bomb? As if that was ever going to be enough. Develop a newer, bigger, better one for Iran, then nuke Iran and use the new one on N Korea/ Syria/ Nigeria/ Poland/ Greenland/ Christmas Island.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
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 in the 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....

online.wsj.com...

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 to accomplish.

www.salon.com...

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 under Islam.

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 years.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Bah, why make a bigger bomb when you can just drop two of them or three. If you were to bomb the same place 3 times with one of these bombs it would get to it's target. You just have to space out the bombs enough...like maybe 3 minutes apart.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Now it turns into a childish battle. "oh no their bombs are bigger than ours..." Wah, wah, wah, cry me a bleepin river. Is this how they plan to convince the american people? Doesn't that take money? Aren't you supposed to be CUTTING the military budget? Cry babies, one and all...





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join