U.S. Studies Military Strike Options on Iran

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I don't think we really need a nuclear bunker buster. Nothing a few dozen regular bunker busters couldn't do anyways. When the military makes plans, they consider every option they can think of.

Except, as has been made abundantly clear by Iraq, the military doesn't make the decisions and this administration repeatedly has slapped down the military leadership and over ruled them on operational choices. The military said they needed 500,000 troops to properly occupy Iraq and Cheney over ruled them and said only 150,000 would be used because it was to politically unpopular to use more then that. The military said they could defeat Saddam with 150,000 but that they couldn't effectively control the country. Cheney said they could and they would. Low, the military was right and Cheney was wrong.

Then there was a number of military operations during the run up to the last election which the administration vetoed. The commanders said they knew of targets, wanted to go after those targets, but the administration didn't want Iraq in the news as that might cost them a close election. Instead the adminstration over ruled the military and told them no big operations until after the election. Does that sound like the commanders on the ground are free to presue military needs or does that sound like screwed up politicians ****ing over the men in uniform for their own political purposes?

[Patroklos]

Yeah, during those administrations we designed whole new generations of holocaust nukes.

What is your point.

As long as nukes are in the arsenel and ARE and option for every country that has them (as France recently pointed out), they should be improved and refined.

If your anti-nuke fine, but don't pretend this is relevant to military planners thinking about how to best deploy the weapons at there disposal to meet a threat. I bet they studied the use of surface detonated nukes as well. And attack dolphins.

[Patroklos]

Be proud!

I am, the cleanest wars in the history of mankind.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I don't think we really need a nuclear bunker buster. Nothing a few dozen regular bunker busters couldn't do anyways. When the military makes plans, they consider every option they can think of.

The NYT article had an unnamed source which claimed they were needed. Supposedly these bunkers have 75 feet of steel reinforced concrete between them and the surface. Supposedly the Russians helped the Iranians design this facility (based upon a massive bunker in Moscow built in the 1970's as the ultimate shelter for the communist elite in the event of nuclear war) and that it was specifically designed so that our bunker busters wouldn't work. Thus the talk of nuclear bunker busters.

[Patroklos]

that might cost them a close election. Instead the adminstration over ruled the military and told them no big operations until after the election. Does that sound like the commanders on the ground are free to presue military needs or does that sound like screwed up politicians ****ing over the men in uniform for their own political purposes?

Were we discussing this. You have been good at poking your head out of that self delusional cloud of anger and Bush bashing recently. Sorry you sank back in

[germanos]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Does that sound like the commanders on the ground are free to presue military needs or does that sound like screwed up politicians ****ing over the men in uniform for their own political purposes?

It's part of the soldier's job to bend over. The militairy is subject to politicians, thank god.

edit: otbot

[Patroklos]

The NYT article had an unnamed source which claimed they were needed.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Why this mockery of journalism still exists, and why people who should no better still rely on this stupid mechanism is beyond me. Is it General Pace, is it Bob the 7eleven clerk, is it the Cookie Monster? Who Knows!

Supposedly these bunkers have 75 feet of steel reinforced concrete between them and the surface.

Excellent, completely inadequate to stop our bunker busters from a decade ago. Russian expertise

[Dinner]

Patroklos stop being two faced on this issue. You claimed that this was completely old hate and nothing had changed since 1979 then I showed you how it had changed just recently by this administration and now you're pulling a red herring out claiming I'm anti-nuke. The original claim you made was that this was exactly the same as since 1979.

It is not because:

1) The US stated policy since 1945 has been that the US will never use a nuclear weapon except in response to a WMD attack. The administration wants to change that 60 year old policy to allow them to use nuclear bunker busters.

2) You claimed that nothing had happened or changed with the idea of nuclear bunker busters since 1979. I showed that a whole new generation of nuclear bunker busters had been pushed through by this administration.

So we have two major shifts. One being the willingness to use nuclear weapons offensively for the first time since 1945 and the second being that the administration ordered custom designed nuclear weapons to deal with bunkers like Iran and North Korea have. I'd say that a lot has changed since 1979 so please be honest enough to quit with the shell games.

[Patroklos]

My claim was that planning attacks on Iran at all levels is nothing new. Or do you think we were still planning on using Corsair fighters and Tartar missiles? OBVIOUSLY we update our plans to include new weapon systems. There is no evidence that these nuke bunker busters were designed specifically for Iran, in fact their development widow probobly predates Bush.

The US stated policy since 1945 has been that the US will never use a nuclear weapon except in response to a WMD attack. The administration wants to change that 60 year old policy to allow them to use nuclear bunker busters.

Not true, the military alwasy made plans for that. There are people who sit in rooms with no other job but to create contigencies and plans for all sorts of outlandish scenarios. Just because it was not a political possiblity does not mean the military was not prepared for when and if it became a posibility.

You claimed that nothing had happened or changed with the idea of nuclear bunker busters since 1979.

Find where I said that and I will give you a cookie. I said military planners consoder all the weapons at their disposal when planning, to include, OH MY GOD, the new nuke bunker busters.

The intensified discussion of military scenarios comes as the United States is working with European allies on a diplomatic solution...U.S. officials continue to pursue the diplomatic course but privately seem increasingly skeptical that it will succeed.

OH MY GOD THE WARMONGER, obvioulsy armageddon is at hand.

One being the willingness to use nuclear weapons offensively for the first time since 1945 and the second being that the administration ordered custom designed nuclear weapons to deal with bunkers like Iran and North Korea have.

So where in the OP article did anyone say a nulear first strike was an option OR that Bush ordered the new nulear bunker busting weapons?

[Patroklos]

The Pentagon has developed tactical nuclear weapons to reach the most heavily fortified and deeply buried bunkers. The idea is to marry a small nuclear bomb with a penetrating bomb casing to create a weapon that can penetrate deep into the ground and then explode with nuclear force. The B61-11, available since 1997, is the current state of the art in the area of nuclear bunker busters.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/bunker-buster4.htm

Yeah, Bush and his evil weapons programs...

The article also goes into conventional bunker busters, which leaves no doubt that a "dozen" would make short work of any Iranian bunker. Which would require one B-2 to deliver.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm

Also a good site to educate yourself.

[Dinner]

OK, then what was the talk about the administration wanting to build anew generation of nuclear bunker busters. Is that currently being designed or not?

[Patroklos]

Just like every weapon catagory in the aresenal, I am sure they are being updated but I don't pretend to know. Nuclear weapons tech is not exactly public knowledge. And so what if they are.

And obviously any weapon system in development is ment for current and projected future threats. So to claim Bush is doing this specifically to facilitate a first strike on Iran is not sane logic. No more than the new Navy sidarm is being designed specifically for the Iranian threat.

Though you have to wonder, besides updating the aviontics and guidence, which is only natural and proper for the military to do, is there really and way to build a better nuke bunker buster?

[Sandman]

A military strike against Iran would be a disaster. Oh, it would probably destroy a lot of stuff and not lose many planes. But the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would become far worse. A single set of air strikes would inevitably degenerate into a sustained, expensive air campaign.

edit: otbot

[Gatekeeper]

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Why this mockery of journalism still exists, and why people who should no better still rely on this stupid mechanism is beyond me. Is it General Pace, is it Bob the 7eleven clerk, is it the Cookie Monster? Who Knows!

Perhaps my memory is off, Patroklos, but I don't recall you complaining too much (ever?) when it was Clinton in office and unnamed sources were being used in stories involving that administration's policies.

Gatekeeper

[Patroklos]

Your memory is off, because I didn't post here when Clinton was in office.

Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 19:02