USA releases footage of a New bomb

RyanTheRhino

RyanTheRhino

Well-Known Member
This bomb is a bunker buster that is capable of travailing 200 feet underground before blowing up.

They said it was for destroying WMDs that are hidden in a well protected facility.

Guess who's nuclear program is in hidden bunkers 180ft under ground.. IRAN
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
RyanTheRhino said:
This bomb is a bunker buster that is capable of travailing 200 feet underground before blowing up.

They said it was for destroying WMDs that are hidden in a well protected facility.

Guess who's nuclear program is in hidden bunkers 180ft under ground.. IRAN
Click to expand...
How wonderful, so now they need only dig down another 30 feet and wait 10 years for U.S. r&D to respond.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
The reality of the Iranian nuclear problem is far different than America's "take them all out" comic book fantasies. We have such faith in our technologies that we actually believe we can solve all problems with them. We can't. Do we honestly believe that we can end Iran's intentions to build nuclear weapons by stirring up the sand? fine, so we disrupt them, and they become more secretive and more earnest in their desire - beyond even that, they will now know our intent and the lengths we will go. Nothing good for us will come of that revelation.
 
RyanTheRhino

RyanTheRhino

Well-Known Member
I am not for it i am just posting what i saw. Personally a country with a nuke is = to any other county. well at least as a deterrent. Ever noticed how we didn't fuck with Pakistan. The whole Osama was found with in sight of a military base was sweep under the table.

I still wont believe hes dead till i see a picture
 
smokinrav

smokinrav

Well-Known Member
Where is the footage?

One thing to understand about US military R&D. When they release the "latest technology" to the public in the form of a video or whatever, you can be double damned sure that the actual level of technology they possess is orders of magnitude greater than what the public is being informed about. They've probably got 500 ft bunker busters in the IDF ordinance stockpiles already...
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
The reality of the Iranian nuclear problem is far different than America's "take them all out" comic book fantasies. We have such faith in our technologies that we actually believe we can solve all problems with them. We can't. Do we honestly believe that we can end Iran's intentions to build nuclear weapons by stirring up the sand? fine, so we disrupt them, and they become more secretive and more earnest in their desire - beyond even that, they will now know our intent and the lengths we will go. Nothing good for us will come of that revelation.
Click to expand...
Our capabilities can swiftly cripple Iran's facilities...in fact, in tandem with Israel, we could pretty much take out all known facilities within a couple of days...

I'm not "for" a strike on Iran, but I do not think that letting them have the bomb is a very great idea either.

Consider the FACT that they have:

1. Helped arm, and orchestrate the Mahdi army in Iraq killing troops.
2. Harbored and allowed Al Qaeda in and out of their eastern border, which also killed troops
3. Utilized Hamas and Hezbollah to instigate unrest, in order to bolster their own presence and further their own objectives.
4. Dispatched troops to Venezuela
5. Been caught in NUMEROUS espionage cases with assassination as an objective
6. Orchestrated embassy bombings in Argentina

I could go on, but the reality is that they are state sponsors of terrorism around the world. It should not be allowed for them to acquire WMD if they cannot prove themselves a responsible nation, and able to assume the role of regional hegemon without resorting to terrorist acts.
 
anotherdaymusic

anotherdaymusic

Well-Known Member
RyanTheRhino said:
This bomb is a bunker buster that is capable of travailing 200 feet underground before blowing up.

They said it was for destroying WMDs that are hidden in a well protected facility.

Guess who's nuclear program is in hidden bunkers 180ft under ground.. IRAN
Click to expand...
LMAO weapons of mass destruction... I cant ever stop thinking about SNL making fun of GBUSH lol
 
C

Coals

Active Member
Hey remeber when we spent trillions to kill Irans mortal enemy, Saddam hussein, sacked his country and left it for the Iranian insurgency?

That was hilarious...
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
Our capabilities can swiftly cripple Iran's facilities...in fact, in tandem with Israel, we could pretty much take out all known facilities within a couple of days...

I'm not "for" a strike on Iran, but I do not think that letting them have the bomb is a very great idea either.

Consider the FACT that they have:

1. Helped arm, and orchestrate the Mahdi army in Iraq killing troops.
2. Harbored and allowed Al Qaeda in and out of their eastern border, which also killed troops
3. Utilized Hamas and Hezbollah to instigate unrest, in order to bolster their own presence and further their own objectives.
4. Dispatched troops to Venezuela
5. Been caught in NUMEROUS espionage cases with assassination as an objective
6. Orchestrated embassy bombings in Argentina

I could go on, but the reality is that they are state sponsors of terrorism around the world. It should not be allowed for them to acquire WMD if they cannot prove themselves a responsible nation, and able to assume the role of regional hegemon without resorting to terrorist acts.
Click to expand...

I've read several geopolitical simulations of various profiles dealing with Iran. Not a one ended well. Firstly, we are far too late to be able to deny them the bomb, we may be able to delay it but in every scenario they will redouble their efforts and be far more devious and hidden in the next round. Now that isn't really the tough part, the tough part is that they will know exactly who their enemy is and exactly what that enemy is willing to do, making us a firm part of any new equation.

Imagine a situation where WE were attempting to have nuclear weapons, imagine that we were fairly up front with our plan and somewhere along the line some other country came along and attempted to destroy our plans, plants, supplies and the like. Do you suppose even for a minute we would say to ourselves "oh, well, we can see that others really don't like what we are doing, so we will stop". No, we would distribute our plants, build in duplicate or triplicate and work around the clock until we had two bombs because two bombs would be all it would take to ensure that no one would ever attack our facilities within our country again. One as demonstration and the other as threat. Note I never said anything about their being entitled to a bomb - I frankly don't think any nation is. I never said that they are not a dangerous country and that they should be left to their own devices.
 
A

allSmilez

Active Member
the ruiner said:
our capabilities can swiftly cripple iran's facilities...in fact, in tandem with israel, we could pretty much take out all known facilities within a couple of days...

I'm not "for" a strike on iran, but i do not think that letting them have the bomb is a very great idea either.

Consider the fact that they have:

1. Helped arm, and orchestrate the mahdi army in iraq killing troops.
2. Harbored and allowed al qaeda in and out of their eastern border, which also killed troops
3. Utilized hamas and hezbollah to instigate unrest, in order to bolster their own presence and further their own objectives.
4. Dispatched troops to venezuela
5. Been caught in numerous espionage cases with assassination as an objective
6. Orchestrated embassy bombings in argentina

i could go on, but the reality is that they are state sponsors of terrorism around the world. It should not be allowed for them to acquire wmd if they cannot prove themselves a responsible nation, and able to assume the role of regional hegemon without resorting to terrorist acts.
Click to expand...
abso-fucking-lutely
 
The Ruiner

The Ruiner

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
I've read several geopolitical simulations of various profiles dealing with Iran. Not a one ended well. Firstly, we are far too late to be able to deny them the bomb, we may be able to delay it but in every scenario they will redouble their efforts and be far more devious and hidden in the next round. Now that isn't really the tough part, the tough part is that they will know exactly who their enemy is and exactly what that enemy is willing to do, making us a firm part of any new equation.

Imagine a situation where WE were attempting to have nuclear weapons, imagine that we were fairly up front with our plan and somewhere along the line some other country came along and attempted to destroy our plans, plants, supplies and the like. Do you suppose even for a minute we would say to ourselves "oh, well, we can see that others really don't like what we are doing, so we will stop". No, we would distribute our plants, build in duplicate or triplicate and work around the clock until we had two bombs because two bombs would be all it would take to ensure that no one would ever attack our facilities within our country again. One as demonstration and the other as threat. Note I never said anything about their being entitled to a bomb - I frankly don't think any nation is. I never said that they are not a dangerous country and that they should be left to their own devices.
Click to expand...
Reading war-game outcomes is not a coordinated barrage of airstrikes. I know exactly what you mean, but I don't think for a minute that it would be an actual war. We could literally just bomb their known facilities in a couple, or a few days...and probably set them back for years, or for good. Frankly, we have done everything else BUT rain destruction upon their facilities, it's time for a different approach.

I don't believe it's too late to deny them the bomb, and I don't think that they would have to resources to keep rebuilding, especially since any of those kinds of materials going to Iran would be heavily tracked, making it easier to take out any future endeavors on their part. As far as being "part of the equation," we write the equation - that's something Iran hasn't quite grasped, or maybe it's just Khamenei.

Iran has not been upfront, that's just not accurate...they are probably one of the LEAST upfront nations in the world. Thus, they have reduced themselves to a reputation of state-sponsored terrorism and over-the-top rhetoric. The rest of the middle east does not want to see a nuclear Iran, that is another MAJOR component of this issue, because we cannot afford to lose allies over allowing Iran to emerge as a regional hegemon with a propensity for terrorism that possesses WMD's. Just imagine what kind of shit we would be in if there WASNT a strong enough contingent in Pakistan to allow the US the presence we have there...potentially catastrophic. Now imagine those regional nations form a coalition and attack Iran...we are the only SANE way that this can be averted. Whether or not it seems "right" in the minds of many, it is simply the clearest route to take if there is no change in course from Tehran.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
Reading war-game outcomes is not a coordinated barrage of airstrikes. I know exactly what you mean, but I don't think for a minute that it would be an actual war. We could literally just bomb their known facilities in a couple, or a few days...and probably set them back for years, or for good. Frankly, we have done everything else BUT rain destruction upon their facilities, it's time for a different approach.

I don't believe it's too late to deny them the bomb, and I don't think that they would have to resources to keep rebuilding, especially since any of those kinds of materials going to Iran would be heavily tracked, making it easier to take out any future endeavors on their part. As far as being "part of the equation," we write the equation - that's something Iran hasn't quite grasped, or maybe it's just Khamenei.

Iran has not been upfront, that's just not accurate...they are probably one of the LEAST upfront nations in the world. Thus, they have reduced themselves to a reputation of state-sponsored terrorism and over-the-top rhetoric. The rest of the middle east does not want to see a nuclear Iran, that is another MAJOR component of this issue, because we cannot afford to lose allies over allowing Iran to emerge as a regional hegemon with a propensity for terrorism that possesses WMD's. Just imagine what kind of shit we would be in if there WASNT a strong enough contingent in Pakistan to allow the US the presence we have there...potentially catastrophic. Now imagine those regional nations form a coalition and attack Iran...we are the only SANE way that this can be averted. Whether or not it seems "right" in the minds of many, it is simply the clearest route to take if there is no change in course from Tehran.
Click to expand...

"and probably set them back for years, or for good" - this is exactly my point. The "probably" is not good enough. If we do not take out every ounce of nuclear material we will probably not have a chance to do so again.

One of the biggest problems we now have in considering such a preemptive strike is Israel's 1976 "operation Opera" a highly sucessful attack on a single nuclear facility. We believe that if Israel could do it, then so can we. We somehow believe that we can know of the location and strength of every nuclear facility in Iran. We can't and there are dozens of them now. Israel is directly threatened by a nuclear Iran and it has not set about such an endeavor most likely out of the same fear that I have written about. Israel may well attempt such a strike but it will not change how Iran feels about Israel and so will not be as catestrophic as an attack from the U.S. I agree with your sentiment about Iran but our wanting to do something simply does not translate to our being rationaly able to do a thing and that is what you are arguing. We must and therefore we can is a dangerous attitude when one is tinkering with nuclear capability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top