Ex-Obama Aides: US Should Give Israel Bunker-Buster Bombs To Prevent Iran From Getting Nukes

[Purveyor]

Source: Jerusalem Post

The Iran nuclear deal would be far more effective if the United States provided Israel with weapons capable of destroying the Islamic Republic's atomic facilities, two former high-level US officials wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post on Wednesday.

Dennis Ross, the former peace envoy and adviser on Middle East issues to a number of presidential administrations, and David Petraeus, the erstwhile Central Intelligence Agency director and former commander of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, argued in an op-ed that Washington needs to make clear that it will use force against Iran if it breaches "the nuclear threshold firewall" after year 15 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

"Now is the time to make it clear that there will be a firewall between Iran’s threshold status and its having a nuclear weapon," the two men wrote. "Now is the time for the Iranians and the world to know that if Iran dashes toward a weapon, especially after year 15, that it will trigger the use of force. At that point, it would be too late for sanctions to preempt an Iranian nuclear fait accompli."

Earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon upgraded the biggest bunker-buster bomb in its arsenal even as talks continued over Tehran's nuclear program, readying a weapon that could destroy Iran's facilities if negotiations failed.

Read more: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Ex-Obama-aides-US-should-give-Israel-bunker-buster-bombs-to-prevent-Iran-from-getting-nukes-413310

---

[jaysunb]

1. Go home Dennis...you're drunk. n/t

[bluestateguy]

2. Israel can BUY them from us, but we should not GIVE them away

We are already giving them Jonathan Pollard. They want more? They can pay for it.

[truebluegreen]

8. WTF? Selling nuclear weapons? To anybody,

let alone that whack Netanyahu? BAD idea.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

16. Is someone talking about giving Israel nuclear weapons?

Or just some bunker-buster conventional bombs?

I agree we shouldn't sell them any nukes.

But I don't know if Israel has any bombers capable of delivering the biggest bunker-busters.

[cstanleytech]

17. I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume you were tired when you posted this

because its pretty damn clear that the discussion was over the bunker busting bombs like those used against Iraq during the first war which are "NOT" nuclear bombs.

[MosheFeingold]

22. Bunker buster bombs aren't nukes

They are basically giant rods of tungsten steel with a conventional explosive.

I'm not sure why Israel can't make them itself. They are not overly complex and use the same guidance systems as other smart bombs. They are just very, very big.

The delivery system used to drop such beasts is more the issue. To my knowledge, only the B-1, B-2, and B-52 can lift these things off the ground.

[truebluegreen]

25. Thanks. I am slightly relieved.

And I agree with you: why can't Israel build their own?

And for me, my larger point / question still stands: why do we persist in arming Israel (and practically everyone else in the region) when that policy has clearly not worked? Especially with an oxymoronic defensive weapon: if Israel dropped one of those on Iran there would be a war. To prevent a war, I suppose.

[atreides1]

3. Petraeus?

This David Petraeus? The convicted felon, who gave access to classified information to his mistress?

In January 2015, the New York Times reported that that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department have recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for providing classified information to Broadwell. Petraeus had denied the allegations and was reported to have had no interest in a plea deal. However, on Tuesday, March 3, 2015, the U.S. Justice Department announced that General Petraeus agreed to plead guilty in federal court in Charlotte, North Carolina to a charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. An attorney for General Petraeus, Robert Barnett, had no immediate comment. On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years’ probation plus a fine of $100,000. The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested.

[Nuh Uh]

4. Oh Please

Israel has 200 of the fiercest bunker busters known to man. Funny how Israel always depends on someone else to get the dirty work done. Now its if you give us your most powerful weapon we can do this! Please, get serious and open a dialog, much of the world is getting tired of this useless rhetoric.

[bananas]

11. Those aren't bunker busters. nt

[Nuh Uh]

12. I agree

They aren't bunker busters, but with the residual radiation they would leave it essentially accomplishes the same thing.

[cstanleytech]

18. No, they arent because the average nuclear bomb wont necessarily destroy a hardened target

thats underground and that could leave the facility still in operational condition even though the surrounding area might be devastated.
For a hardened facility thats underground or hardened aboveground even you need a weapon specifically designed to penetrate deep enough to destroy it.
As for the US providing them to Israel, I dont see the need to do that and besides Israel has probably stolen enough knowledge from the US and other countries that if they want to that they could probably design and build their own.

[Statistical]

27. Nukes can be used to destroy hardened underground target ...

The US researched it extensively. We even designed bombs like the B61 to have lay down capability for good contact with ground before detonation. The shockwave is comparable to a massive earthquake. The pressure of the shockwave far exceeds anything that even the most hardened bunker can handle.

Now Israel shouldn't use a nuke to prevent a country from acquiring nuclear weapons for very obvious reasons.

[cstanleytech]

29. Sure they can but if its hardened properly that doesnt mean they will and in this case it could

still leave Iran with the capability to develop nukes.
So rather than using nuclear weapons or traditional bunker busters (which is the topic) the best way to reduce the threat is the way Obama is trying which is diplomacy.

[boomer55]

5. They already have nukes they don't need these

[think4yourself]

6. This needs to be stressed 24/7 n/t

[Statistical]

28. Really?

I mean Israel shouldn't be attacking anyone but if they did you would prefer they use a nuclear weapon with all the radioactive fallout it would entail over a conventional weapon.

[karynnj]

7. Dennis Ross is a neo con and Petraeous a Bush guy

[MBS]

14. Thank you for confirming about Ross

I was sure that had to be the case, but thanks for confirming it. (I already knew about #$% Petraeus).

[BillZBubb]

9. Dennis Ross is an Israel fanboy. He might as well be on their payroll.

Petraeus is a joke.

No, the United States shouldn't be giving Israel anything.

[bananas]

10. That's probably a good idea. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. To deter a hypothetical action in 15 years' time, you want to give a hugely powerful bomb now

to another country, and let them decide what to do with it for 15 years, over any change in their government, or a change of situation in the region?

I think there are plenty of weapons in the region now. Adding to them for something that may or may not happen 15 years in the future looks reckless.

[jtuck004]

13. Because all it takes to stop those bad guys is another good country with a big bomb.

It has worked so well in the past.

[thebighobgoblin]

15. So Israel's allowed to keep Nukes...

...but Iran's not?

[cstanleytech]

19. If you dont trust Israel with them why would you think letting Iran get them would be a better???

[thebighobgoblin]

31. Don't come at me with that bullsh*t

Israel's going to keep its nukes and nobody here's going to call them out on it. Never mind the fact that when Israel gets attacked by a handful of terrorists they bomb the entire southern half of a sovereign country. Iran's going nuke because it's surrounded by countries that hate it. Not that I'm a lover of the Ayatollah but the Islamic revolution is a result of colonial puppetry gone awry. In the same way that China gained its independence and nationhood with a less than ideal government that was deemed counter to the interests of the West, Iran's pretty much doing the same. They're pursuing nukes because they know that the United States wouldn't dare invade them once they actually get them.

[cstanleytech]

32. Maybe a US invasion was possible 10 years ago, I doubt but lets say it was possible.

Now though? After Afghanistan and the disaster in Iraq there is no way in hell that the US could build the international support for it and besides Israel is enough of a problem with its nukes and letting another country in the region thats as unstable as Iraq get nukes in that area is just asking for a shitstorm to hit the world.

[leftynyc]

20. Edited: Whoops wrong thread (n/t)

[geek tragedy]

23. Two sterling voices of peace there nt

[ShrimpPoboy]

24. Whether it's us or Israel that fires it

It will be our war. It's not like having Israel pull the trigger would give us cover.

[Marrah_G]

26. Why, so they can blow up even more Palestinians?

[Beta Male]

30. Bibi's Interference didn't work, AIPAC's shills weren't effective...

so now they want the ability to monkey-wrench the deal via direct military force while avoiding the sanctions that would come from using their nukes.

I'm thinking.....NO.