Panetta & Pentagon admits their "bunker buster" bombs cannot penetrate Iran's underground facilities

[Douglas Carpenter]

Haaretz: The futility of attacking Iran
By Reuven Pedatzur

Published 03:42 09.02.12

Senior American defense officials told The Wall Street Journal that even the largest bomb in the hands of the American military, the one known as the "bunker buster", is not able to penetrate and destroy those of the Iranian nuclear installations that are buried deep underground. Panetta admitted that the Americans do not possess the means of penetrating facilities like the underground uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, near Qum. This is where the problem lies. Some of the nuclear facilities in Iran, especially those that are critical for the continuation of its nuclear program activities, are located deep below the surface and protected by reinforced concrete fortifications. This makes the task of destroying them almost completely impossible. In Israel, those involved have ignored the limitations of these bombs that are supposed to annihilate the nuclear sites; but ignoring this will not solve the operational problem that those planning the attack will have to deal with.

If Israeli Air Force planes succeed in reaching the targets and in dropping bombs on them with great accuracy, but they are nevertheless not destroyed, this would pose questions about the justification of a military operation. If those critical sites are not annihilated, the Iranian nuclear program will be postponed only for a relatively short period.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-futility-of-attacking-iran-1.411840

[zoechen]

1. Don't worry

The pentagon and Boeing are working on better penetrators.

[zipplewrath]

5. Currently their blocked

Publicly, they are blocked from developing the weapon they want, basically a small nuke that penetrates deeply and denotates underground. The nuclear remain contained underground, but the destruction goes well BELOW the point of detonation as well.

Of course, that's what is publicly being stated. One never knows what is being developed in secret.

[zoechen]

7. Just this...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-21/pentagon-s-new-bunker-busters-not-for-iran-or-any-one-country-.html

[riverwalker]

8. paging Dr. Freud

"The huge weapon, dubbed the "Massive Ordnance Penetrator"....."

[zoechen]

9. It's just math

I dont think that we have a problem with building the bomb that is needed.

This is just an opinion, I am just comenting I things I see.

[zipplewrath]

10. Here's the math

That bomb was listed as "5300 lbs of explosive". The nukes they'd need to reach some of these targets are just under 1 kiloton. Even considering that the explosive probably isn't TNT (which is the basis of measurement of nuclear weapons) the equivalent yield is still probably somewhere in the 3-4 ton, not kiloton. That's about 2.5 orders of magnitude too small. The MOP is the biggest penetrator to which we admit, and Panetta is suggesting that even THAT won't get there.

[Blue_Tires]

6. I predict a profitable year for Boeing...

[dipsydoodle]

2. Sounds like time for Plan B

[madokie]

4. I've got one of those

and back in my youth I've bored many a hole with one. Still use mine sometimes as I can bore a 2 inch hole through two 2x4's fastened together in the time it takes me to round up my big electric drill and necessary cords and with a lot less energy used. When you're my age one has a tendency to think about the more practical way of doing things rather than the societal correct way

[dipsydoodle]

11. Me too

along with a set of auger bits in a canvas wrap. I've also got a tenon saw , made in Sheffield using German Steel which makes it pre-WW1, and an original Stanley "Yankee"spiral ratchet driver.

One thing I've got which I've never had cause to use is an enormous curved chisel with a 1/2" shaft designed for fitting locks to church doors.

[madokie]

18. Imagine that :-)

I remember that in some professions a yankee was a must have tool. I still love mine.
No telling what the worth would be for the brace and the bits, drill bits, for those who don't date this far back

splchk

[madokie]

3. Panetta is correct on this

[bemildred]

12. As physicists have been telling them for what, thirty years now? nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. pretty much everyone has been telling them this for some time

[Gold Metal Flake]

13. Oh. Well, in that case, I, for one, welcome our new Iranian overlords.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. one kick because it is so important

[gratuitous]

15. Questions about the justification of a military operation? Only for terrorist sympathizers!

If violence doesn't work, the only solution is more violence! The only tool we know how to use is a hammer, ergo, every problem is a nail.

[Rex]

17. Well shit!!! Let me dust off the ol' checkbook.

How many trillions should I write this for?

[grantcart]

19. Israel has already said that any destruction from a raid would only last about 2 years and that the

new facilities would be beyond reach.


There is no tactical reason for a raid on production of the bomb making facilities as it would be much much easier to take out the missle factory and storage sites once they were under way.

The reason that Israel hasn't attacked already is that they know that once you have a bomb you still have to have a delivery system and Iran is completely vulnerable on that score.

There will be continued pressure, there will not be an attack, IMO.

[IDemo]

20. If it isn't plainly obvious that regime change is the only real mission nowadays..

Bunker busters and nukes aside, it's control of the territory and resources and the elimination of unfriendly governments that is at stake.

That, and the ka-ching of the cash register for the defense industry.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. kick - because this is a piece of infor that I suspect most of the public does not know

[Kwarg]

22. Military experts predict

That any Israeli strike would include Airborne troops to enter and neutralize underground facilities

[bemildred]

23. You got a link for that? nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. actually no one is suggesting anything of the sort - given the geography it would be almost impossib

given the limited numbers that could be used in an Airborn assault on geographically isolated multiple deep earth and heavily protected sites - the chance of success would be minimal facing a situation in which they would be vastly outnumbered and hundreds of miles inside of hostile territory.

A number of of military experts have agreed that only a total occupation of Iran could actually eliminate any ability of Iran to develop nuclear capabilities - but that is a whole a whole different matter and absolutely no one is recommending that:

In testimony to the Senate Armed Services committee in April 2010, then-Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright said that strikes would, at best, only delay the Iranian nuclear program for a few years, while at the same time solidifying Iranian domestic support for the regime and removing any hesitancy that may have existed over the necessity of obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Asked by Sen. Jack Reed whether the only way to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear capability was “to physically occupy their country and disestablish their nuclear facilities,” Cartwright answered: “Absent some other unknown calculus that would go on, that’s a fair conclusion.”

Cartwright’s comments echoed those of retired Gen. Anthony Zinni from a speech at the New America Foundation in September 2009. Zinni said that he liked to respond to advocates of strikes on Iran with “And then what?”
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/10/the_neocons_big_iran_lie/singleton/