Pentagon: 30,000 Pound Bomb Too Small 612
smitty777 writes "According to the Pentagon, the 30,000-pound, precision-guided Massive Ordnance Penetrator GBU-57 bomb is just too small. Concerns around Iran's fortification of their nuclear program facilities has the DoD seeking from Congress something not quite as subdued as the GBU-57, the largest non-nuke bomb operated by the USAF. This 'smaller' bomb just recently won a prize for its ability to cut through 60 feet of concrete. The upgrades will cost $82 million on top of the $330 million spent so far to develop the system. There is some interesting high speed camera footage of the GBU-57 in the video below."
No, no, no! (Score:5, Funny)
Light speed's too slow! We'll have to go straight to.... Ludicrous Speed!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh no...we've gone P-L-A-I-D sir!
Re:No, no, no! (Score:5, Informative)
Pray tell me, what kind of aircraft is in th existing arsenal, capable of delivering this turd-of-death?
The B-2 is the intended deployment platform. Each aircraft will be able to carry two of them. They also did their testing with the B-52, introduced in 1955.
Re:No, no, no! (Score:4, Informative)
Point being? (Score:5, Informative)
There's a long and distinguished history in the USAF of delivering massive ordnance bombs via cargo planes (see the daisy cutter [wikipedia.org] and MOAB [wikipedia.org] as examples). If you can open the rear hatch, roll it out, and achieve a margin of error smaller than the blast radius, then you're golden. In today's age of GPS-guided munitions that is a much lower threshold to cross than it's ever been.
Re:Point being? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Point being? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just go over there?
"Hi guys, we heard you're in the Nuclear Fun Club now. We've been there for a good 70 years now, good times, good times. Here's the list of everyone else that's in the Nuclear Fun Club. If any of yours ever go missing and/or get used outside of testing or declared nuclear war, everyone on this list will burn you to a cinder.
"Nuclear Fun Club. You join forever. Seventy years for us. Good times, good times."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No, no, no! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm surrounded by Assholes!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Keep firing assholes!
Re:No, no, no! (Score:5, Funny)
They are not just building the bigger bomb for money.
The are doing it for a SHIT LOAD of money!
Re:No, no, no! (Score:4, Funny)
Indeed (Score:3, Funny)
Somebody set them up the bomb.
Re:No, no, no! (Score:4, Funny)
Light speed's too slow!
That's because your photons aren't MIL-SPEC.
Re:No, no, no! (Score:5, Funny)
A MIL-SPEC photon would have the weight of a neutron.
entirely coincidentally (Score:5, Funny)
Coincidentally, the construction plans for Iran's entirely peaceful nuclear facilities are being modified to require at least 120 feet of concrete covering to protect them from terrorist attacks and tsunamis.
The name of the bomb is "Massive" (Score:4, Funny)
How can you call it "Not big enough?"
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The "she" in "that's what she said" is really annoying in bed. [explosm.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, it's not how large the bomb is, it's how you use it.
I believe the correct way to drop a giant bomb looks something like this [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Cthulhu
Re: (Score:2)
Gnabgib.
Re:The name of the bomb is "Massive" (Score:5, Funny)
And after that will come the Mother In Law Of All Bombs
Re: (Score:3)
Mother of All Bombs... I think the new one should be Father of All Bombs (FOAB)
That name's already taken Father Of All Bombs [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The new bomb should simply be named "Chuck Norris". That'll also ascertain that no-one else can come up with anything bigger, as they won't be able to name theirs.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
From Iron Man 2...
I give you....the Ex-Wife.
prizes? I just want to see the competition (Score:5, Funny)
A prize like the X-Prize or something? A) who hands out prizes for stuff like this and B) where to I apply to be a judge?
Re:prizes? I just want to see the competition (Score:5, Funny)
>> who hands out prizes for stuff like this
The Association of Iranian Concrete Manufacturers
Re: (Score:2)
Proposed Backronyms... (Score:5, Funny)
Let's call it the Mountainous Occluded Fortification Ordinance.
Yeah (Score:3)
And the misconception how to resolve conflicts and disputes between humans efficiently is too big.
Just rev up the volume (and your ego), keep the green buck rolling and feel good about it.
1984 much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its pretty obvious that the miltiary-political-industrial complex is trying to talk us all into war with Iran and now you see one of the many things they plan to gain from it. Plus more power and control of the populace.
Re:1984 much? (Score:5, Insightful)
I had to scroll way too far down for this. All this posturing bullshit, it hasn't even been ten years since Iraq even started, are Americans really so complacent in their need for perpetual war that they'll buy into this shit again? Its just more money that goes to the Department of "Defense" and their contractors. Someone should really name it back to the Department of War, since we haven't really used it for anything remotely "defensive" since 1947 when it was renamed.
Re:1984 much? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:1984 much? (Score:4, Interesting)
We won't have to be talked into anything. Israel will attack Iran sometime this year(almost for sure). And Iran will respond by counter attacking them and most likely US targets in the Middle East. If they attempt to close the straits of Hormuz due to the attack the US will not allow that to happen.
We don't have the do anything, I doubt that Obama will strike first(but I never would have expected the Libya action). I just don't think he will have too... Israel has less of an ability attack Iran in an attempt to shut down the Nuclear program. So an Israeli attack is likely to come before any US actions.
The sad thing is, I doubt that any Military action short of ground invasion will prevent Iran from getting Nuclear weapons over the long term(next 5 years). The program is just too well protected and to distributed throughout Iran to fully disrupt. Slow it down, yeah... stop it totally, no way.
A limited war now will only make a regional Nuclear war more likely in the future. The Iranians feel like they need Nuclear weapons to counter balance Israel and US conventional forces. If we give them a demonstration just how far behind their conventional forces are compared to the US it's only going to make them want Nukes even more.
I don't blame them for wanting Nukes, it's really the only counter to US forces. A Nuclear armed Iran is going to massively destabilize the Middle East. The Saudis would develop Nukes if Iran goes nuclear. Other states might follow. And between Iran and Israel both armed with Nuclear weapons and delivery systems with travel times of around 15 min... I feel it would only be a matter of time before someone pushed the button. We are talking about two states that don't have any communications directly. Iran refuses to believe that Israel has the right to exist. Israel feels that it must strike first to defend itself... Even if a Nuclear first strike isn't intended the likely-hood of mistake or miscommunication is just too high. Imagine what would have happened during the Cuban missile crisis if nether side talked to each other(back channel communications resolved the crisis)... we likely wouldn't be talking about it now. This is the situation that is going to happen once they are both Nuclear armed.
Re: (Score:3)
We won't have to be talked into anything. Israel will attack Iran sometime this year(almost for sure).
In case you haven't been paying attention, Israel began attacking Iran some months ago - a lot of Iranian scientists have been mysteriously exploding, along with at least one major Iranian facility. And what was the real reason Iran was able to bring down that drone, I wonder?
If a foreign power was murdering state employed scientists in the U.S. and blowing up facilities in the U.S. while flying drones in U.S. airspace I'm pretty sure that would count as being under attack.
Prize (Score:2)
It won a prize? Can anybody enter a bomb? Does it need to be a bomb or just something extremely destructive? Can I enter my intestine destroying meatloaf of doom?
Good Lord, people (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good Lord, people (Score:5, Funny)
I guess all the Cialis and Extends commercials, and "get bigger" spam campaigns work well on military brass...
Re: (Score:2)
It's purchasing. They're not working there because of their excessive virility, y'know.
Pillow Talk (Score:2)
What is really needed for this sort of thing.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sequential Bombing System.... where a sequence of bombs is dropped concurrently in short succession. (ie: 4-8 bombs in a 60-120 second interval).
But SBS is a lame sounding name. How can that compete with Mother of All Bombs (MOAB)
How about Bombing On Sequence System (BOSS)
Now the BOSS BOMB has a nice Pentagon expenditure feeling way. Essentially the delivery system should transit from the bomber to target via a cruise delivery system. Which would contain 4-8 war heads each about a 1/4 to 1/2 of MOABs size. The delivery unit would circle target while releasing the individual warheads which would each be guided to their target at about 15-30 second intervals. Allowing the first bomb to detonate and blow a crater while the next bomb hits the new exposed area, so on and so on. Tests would need to be completed to determine the amount of time necessary between individual warhead impacts for optimum penetration.
---
Proposed solution to MOAB. Build big ballon under first layer of protection with lots of vents. When MOAB hits it explodes, but instead of crushing your super secret facilitity (that was obviously not secret enough if it's being bombed), the balloon detonates the bomb early and above and allows the pressure to escape through hundreds of vent area.
Bomb two, kills you...GAME OVER
Re:What is really needed for this sort of thing... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
CIA:Iran Prepared to Launch U.S. Terrorist Attacks (Score:3, Interesting)
Will Iran war be Obama's October Surprise? Triggered perhaps by false flag or provoked attack?
Can't kill 'em from an airplane? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet more waste.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so secret... Anyway, what about 2 bombs? (Score:3)
From TFA "secretly submit a request to Congress for funding"; so I guess it isn't a secret now is it?
Anyway, if ONE bomb can penetrate 200ft. and supposedly laser enhanced GPS targeting can allow almost pinpoint accuracy, how deep can two or more bombs go? I know it wouldn't be linear but even an additional 50ft. would be worth something.
Or maybe the air defenses around these installations (they must be the most highly protected items in the whole country) would make getting off more than one too dangerous?
Why not pure fusion? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Laser-initiated fusion is possible as well, perhaps replacing all your large high power equipment with a flux compression ("bomb-pumped") generator. (This is distinct from a "bomb pumped laser", which is a term referring to an x-ray laser powered by an atomic explosion)
The pure-fusion bombs spoken of by NicknamesAreStupid are also known in a few publications as "fourth generation nuclear we
Re: (Score:3)
Not heard such nonsense in a long time. It burns away the actinides, yes, but it does so through fission, which means you get a heck of a lot of fission products, many of which are intensely radioactive and will leave the are severely contaminated a long time. In addition, the strong neutron burst from a fusion weapon will acti
It's never enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
B61-11 ground penetrating tactical nuclear missle (Score:5, Insightful)
It is disingenuous to claim US does not have the ordinance to destroy Iranian underground facilities. It clearly does.
The most important question is not "how" but "why".
Re: (Score:3)
War isn't about military superiority. It's about politics and economics. It simply wouldn't do to nuke Iran with the purported goal of reducing the threat of nuclear warfare.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, their government is rather racist -- toward the Tibetans, at least. They've been working awfully hard to extinguish that culture. China hasn't been threatening freedom of navigation, but have you seen their absurd territorial claims in the South China Sea?
Iran didn't start shit in the Strait of Hormuz; the US and Israel have been threatening to attack them. They're just responding to that. Actually, that's sort of what's been going on with the Iranian nuke program: we just curbstomped their neighbor in an illegal war, and we're propping up a rather dangerous neighbor of theirs that has an openly racist agenda, that's bombed them before and that, oh -- has nukes. Can't really blame them for wanting some nukes of their own, considering.
Yes, the Iranian government is, to some degree, batshit -- in the "batshit religious" fashion. Their rationale for wanting nukes is perfectly reasonable (defense against Israel/the US). But they've actually been conducting themselves in a pretty reasonable manner; they've not done anything that a more sanely-led country in their position wouldn't have done, which is to try to use any resources at their disposal to ensure that they don't get their asses kicked.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"they've not done anything that a more sanely-led country in their position wouldn't have done, which is to try to use any resources at their disposal to ensure that they don't get their asses kicked."
Why is Qatar/Kuwait/Jordan not getting its ass kicked?
Maybe they haven't recently threatened to exterminate a whole bunch of people for ideological reasons and build the infrastructure for producing nuclear weapons.
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You sir, are a model Soviet Citizen.
Give me a citation of Iran threatening extermination of anyone. No, DEBKA will not do as a source.
Whereas, who are the US and Israel ACTUALLY ENGAGED in exterminating, on a daily basis?
Re: (Score:3)
It's kind of like how those insane fuckers from the Tea Party tend to believe that if there aren't Jews in Israel, then the end times can't come because the endtime war has to start with Jews in Jerusalem, etc.
What orifice you pull that nonsense out of?
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:4, Insightful)
They were mostly chased off after the most recent nationalistic revolt in that area but some still remained.
The monument to the crushing of this revolt still stands in Rome.
Can the "Palestinian nation" point to anything like that?
Re: (Score:3)
I see this as advocating "regeime change" in favor of an indigenous majority. This is a position the United States has backed as doctrine - with actual force, not mere expressions of support.
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is Qatar/Kuwait/Jordan not getting its ass kicked?
Easy: because they are client states [wikipedia.org] of the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, one man's client state is another man's ally. Just like China calls Japan and South Korea "American lapdogs" but turn around and call North Korea and Myanmar are brave allies. Or like some would call Syria "Iranian lapdogs" but others call them brave allies against western hegemony. That's all silly though. states align themselves according to their interests, and will dress it up or down to play their game
If there's one thing that brings perspective and a little clarity, it's that if you zoom out on
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought it was because Qatar, kuwait, and jordan are our bitches.
Iran is standing up to the US, and in turn is going to get smacked around because how dare you stand up to the US of A
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Standing up to the US? Why do they need to build nukes to stand up to the US? They've stood up to the US since 1980 without nukes. In fact, the only reason anyone really wants to bomb them now is *because* they are building nukes.
You know, you can be independent and not be bothered by the US by simply being insular and *not bellicose*. Iraq? Insular, but *still bellicose* to a degree even after having their asses kicked in 1991. Iran? Started off by imprisoning diplomatic personnel, and proceeded to
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We prevent people who have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent from owning firearms, even if they have heretofore committed no crime and have the same general right to self defense as anyone else does. Prohibiting the current regime in Iran from owning nuclear weapons is no different.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Have a look at his map. http://media.chrismartenson.com/images/US-military-presence-around-Iran.png [chrismartenson.com]
And then consider the US did this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax [wikipedia.org]
In this situation, it would be insane for Iran not to want nukes.
Re: (Score:3)
That's exactly backwards. When someone has levelled a machine gun at you, wishing for a knife to threan him with is insane. Continuously threatening him even without a knife is also insane, of course.
When someone can kick your ass, has positioned himself to kick your ass, and has just recently kick your neighbor's ass, a sane person plays nice, and waits for him to lose interest.
But I think that's also looking at it backwards: there are plenty of sane people at the top in Iran, and they simply don't feel
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I'd love to see them try and close Hormuz -- that would bring the Chinese around to our side of this issue. China is far more dependent upon oil from the Arabian Gulf than the United States is. Contrary to popular belief the United States doesn't receive the majority of her oil from the Middle East; most of it comes from the Western Hemisphere.
Two comments:
1. Let's not see them close the Straights. Yes Iran would get hammered, but it would take months to reopen that waterway and in the meantime, the global economy would slide into recession. It would be a pyrrhic victory to say the least.
2. It doesn't matter where [Country] gets its oil from as everyone pays market price, which is highly influenced by world events. See Point #1
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly right. We don't worry about India having the bomb and last time I checked they were 'brown people' too. They are not likely to use one, especially in a first strike.
We worry about Iran because they are something new, a nuke possessing country who may not be subject to MAD. In the end the 'godless commies' had one thing going for them in the world peace issues of the Cold War. They wanted to rule the world but they didn't really want to 'win' by being the last survivor in a post apocolypse scenario, the party leaders liked the good life and wanted to keep living it, especially since they didn't much believe in an afterlife to be rewarded in for wiping out the enemy in this one for.
We just don't know if Iran would be so constrained. We pretty much have to take Ajad at his word that he doesn't give a crap if atomic hellfire rains down on him after his rightous jihad of nuking Israel and the US, as we would be fools not to. What we don't know is whether the military structure he commands is equally suicidal. Since guessing wrong, and especially considering the pitiful track record of western intelligence regarding things middle eastern/Islamic, could be a civilization extinction event we probably should err on the side of caution. A country burning off scads of natural gas because they don't consider it valuable enough to capture and use probably doesn't actually need nuke power plants for electricity generation.
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:4, Informative)
Anyhow, rather sure when Russia and China were developing the bomb a lot of freaking occurred, but as no one was in a position to stop them, nothing came of it. Also, there are also several 'brown' nuclear powers currently existing who behave rather 'immaturely' and are verging on war, but we don't hear talk of taking their nukes away.
The difference here is that Iran does NOT YET have the nukes and so can be stopped from joining 'the club'. If they somehow manage to make it to the field testing stage, (my guess is) interest in intervention will fade rapidly by several powers to the point of just stern lectures...albeit Israel might take a different response. The seem to potentially have the most to fear.
Personally, I don't see this so much a race issue so much as a "let's stop nuclear proliferation, it dilutes our own power, and it is scary in the hands of non-allies'.
- - - -
Wonder why they just don't drop two bombs if they can't reach deep enough. Are the bombs not precision guidable, or is hitting rubble mitigating the penetration capability?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because (a) it's too late, and (b) there isn't a damn thing we can do about it because (c) they would fry us where we stand, just as the USSR would, or, come to that, just like we would, if attacked.
Oh. You mean like when the USA sponsors attacks within other countries without the sanction of those governments.
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do I want to see a nuclear armed Iran? No, not particularly. But then again, it's none of my business, just as our armaments are none of Iran's business. We have no more right to step into Iran's internal affairs than they do ours. And if we DO step in there and attack them for developing a credible nuclear deterrent, then when someone does it to us... we won't have a leg to stand on.
So, what you're saying is that it's none of your business if every nation on the globe were to develop nuclear weapons? What you seem to forget is the United States originally developed nuclear weapons for a very specific purpose: to stop the Axis powers. The first and last time we used nukes were on a ruthless, active enemy that attacked us first. Say what you want about America, we have shown incredible restraint in the use of unconventional weapons after 1945, and even then it wasn't a decision that was taken lightly. After all, we have a lot to lose, and our population isn't seen as entirely expendable. Can you say the same about Iran? How about Somalia? The Congo? Do you really feel it's necessary to allow any country to develop weapons of mass destruction, completely unchecked, because it's "none of our business"? In a perfect world, we'd dismantle every warhead in existence and burn the schematics. Allowing yet another nation to obtain the power to obliterate entire cities is moving in the complete opposite direction of where we need to go.
oh, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm an American; my legitimate control ends where the country's borders and maritime boundaries lie. If you're inside them, or use weapons against the population or the infrastructure inside them, you're my problem, and I support a workmanlike mechanism to wholly terminate your ass. I might, depending on the nature of your incursion, support going further and eliminating your ability to do it again. I would not, by the way, support paying for medical care or rebuilding your infrastructure. You aggress, in my opinion, the consequences are entirely your responsibility.
You stay out, or behave within, you're not my problem. Someone comes inside your borders, assuming you're from some other country, that's *your* problem, and *you* need to deal with it. If you can't, then you may go the way of history. You can, *they* may go the way of history. Either way, my legitimate role is to have breakfast and read about it in the paper. I might feel regret, I might feel enthusiasm, but I would *not* feel the urge to intervene.
I have not in any way forgotten it, in fact I'm somewhat of a student of WWII, which means I know a considerable bit more about it than most people. However... yes, so? What's your point?
Well, other than over a thousand US nuclear weapons detonations, most of which dropped various amounts of fallout on the entire planet, yes. So?
Yes, so? Has Iran used nuclear weapons? No. Has Israel used nuclear weapons? No. Has France? No. Has England? No. Has the USSR? No. They all have them; yet no one has used them (well, except us, and I'm not saying that was a mistake, either.) So what's your point?
I don't say anything about Iran. I'm not an Iranian citizen. I don't concern myself with things they say about us, and I don't expect them to concern themselves with things we say about them. Also, what you're trying to do here is an exercise in "what if", which is bullshit. Iran has done nothing to make me think they are a threat to my country; ergo, I don't worry about them. I worry more about the loonies here that want to go in, and based on events that only exist in their imagination, do some terrible damage to some other sovereign country, thus setting a legitimate stage for other countries to come and do the same to us. National borders are what they are for a reason; violating them is a VERY bad idea.
Yes, absolutely.
No, we wouldn't. We'd use them as excavation tools, space drives, anti-asteroid devices, and so on. And there is no such thing as a perfect world anyway.
Buddy, wherever you got the idea that *you* know what direction *we* need to g
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I recognize it, all right -- but I also recognize whose responsibility it is to nip them, as you put it. When you start to think that it is your job to be the world's cop, when you do NOT have the same social outlooks as the rest of the world, you're asking to have your ass handed to you. I am not in the least interested in telling some Muslim how many wives
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:4, Informative)
it's all bullshit. The minute they launch any rocket at Israel or Europe they seal their fate and become a glass desert in 1 day.
You are accusing them of being suicidal.
I live in a Europe and I am not freaked out at them having nukes. Brown people in Pakistan have them already, what's the difference?
Iran never invaded anybody and never toppled any foreign government while the US army and the CIA did, multiple times.
Re: (Score:3)
OMG, you are buying into this complete irrevocable nonsense hook line and sinker.
USA isn't attacking Iran (and it's attacking Iran) because of any kind of 'nuclear threat'. It isn't attacking Iran because the rulers there kill their own people. It isn't attacking Iran because of Israel either.
It's attacking Iran because Halliburton and Co. and others need to make more money and because Iran has oil and that oil needs to be traded with US dollars and various companies need to get their cut.
Syria's government
Re: (Score:3)
I am truly impressed by the amount of replies to the troll.
Wait that should say distressed....
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything you accuse Iran of doing Israel does, and the U.S. gives them billions of dollars in overt and covert aide.
Israel doesn't deny the Holocaust.
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Israel inflates the holocaust, Iran minimises it. Both are half-truths.
Israel was founded as a modern state on pure, violent terrorism. King David Hotel. They also sponsored and funded the creation of Hamas - to splinter the Palestinian political efforts, and create a spectre of islamic opposition. But Hamas are not religious zealots, like the Lubbavitchers - who throw acid in the faces of young girls on the streets in Israel.
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Israel inflates the holocaust, Iran minimises it. Both are half-truths.
Israel was founded as a modern state on pure, violent terrorism. King David Hotel. They also sponsored and funded the creation of Hamas - to splinter the Palestinian political efforts, and create a spectre of islamic opposition. But Hamas are not religious zealots, like the Lubbavitchers - who throw acid in the faces of young girls on the streets in Israel.
Citations please.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend t (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when did Holocaust denial become a reason for the United States to attack another nation state? I thought the attitude of the U.S. people was supposed to be more along the lines of : "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
I actually find it quite distasteful to use the Holocaust as an excuse for a war that would result in the deaths of millions of people. And it appears I'm not the only one. Obscene: Using the Holocaust to Justify War With Iran [huffingtonpost.com].
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything you accuse Iran of doing Israel does, and the U.S. gives them billions of dollars in overt and covert aide.
Really? I do not recall Israel (or its head of state) ever saying that they intended to exterminate all of the Arabs, or even that they intended to completely destroy another country.
Re:you're a troll but even so.... (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong, they have in fact threatened to destroy Iran (Persians, not arabs)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A quick google search shows that indeed Israel does openly [haaretz.com] threaten [dailystar.com.lb] other countries. I haven't heard the specific threat to exterminate all Arabs, but threatening to invade another country, is of similar severity, in my opinion. The difference between US/Israel vs. Iran is that the US and Israel often back up their threats with actual force.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Iran uses proxies.
Iran itself hasn't been a nation on it's own for awhile.
Although previously it was part of the last big Muslim empire to menace Europe. If the Iranians by the way of the Turks haven't invaded anyone for awhile it's primarily due to lack of opportunity and the sorry state of the Ottoman Empire in the end.
People like to forget why Vlad Dracula was vicious enough to inspire Bram Stoker to turn him into a vampire.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. We call these particular energy weapons "fusion devices." You let me know when a human-caused chemical reaction gets to 100 MT, lol. (reference is to the Soviet's Tsar Bomba [wikipedia.org], which was tested at a low (!) yield of ~50 Mt but was designed for 100Mt in actual use.)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, kill a lot of innocent people for the wrongdoings of their leaders, great job.
I'm guessing you are just trolling though, no sane person could actually want that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should we? Taking a bunch of my money from me by force to build a bunch of bombs to better threaten a bunch of nutters in the Middle East is inherently political. Discussing the politics of US military spending in the context of this story is perfectly topical.
Re:Cue The Peaceniks (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, quiet all you sensible people! We want more feeble-minded, opinionless sheep around these here parts!
Re: (Score:2)
Please keep the politics out of it.
Yes, please do.
Re: (Score:3)