US wants to sell Israel ‘bunker-buster’ bombs

[G_j]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/facbfdde-b6ac-11d9-aebd-00000e2511c8.html

US wants to sell Israel ‘bunker-buster’ bombs

By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: April 27 2005 00:59 | Last updated: April 27 2005 00:59

The Bush administration has proposed providing Israel with 100 “bunker-buster” bombs capable of destroying underground targets, a move seen as sending a message to Iran to halt its nuclear programme.

The Pentagon on Tuesday notified Congress of the possible sale of 5,000lb GBU-28 bombs, developed during the 1991 Gulf war to destroy Saddam Hussein's hardened command centres. Congress has 30 days to object.

Any deal would be the first sale of the Lockheed Martin-built munition to a foreign country.

In January, Dick Cheney, US vice-president, suggested that Israel might take military action if the US and European Union failed to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions.

..more..

[TheFarseer]

1. What use would they have for that?

Except in an offensive war with Syria or whatever, which I would not want to encourage. They already said they weren't attacking Iran and couldn't even if they wanted to because it's too far away. Palestinians don't have alot of re-enforced bunkers to my knowledge.

[Imagevision]

50. Get real> The US. delivered 500 bunker busters to Israel in

10/04 -- 7-8 weeks ago Cheney announces that "the US may not have to deal with Iran" This piece is ancient history.

[Kagemusha]

2. I hate having to correct people with this but FYI everyone..

unlike what antiwar.com said when it updated last night.. these are NOT NUCLEAR bunker busters. They are conventional bunker busters. Big ones at 5000lb.. but not nukes.

[G_j]

3. mods: sorry this is a dupe

did a search using "bunker-busters" not "bunker busters"
:shrug:

[daleo]

4. How well did these work during Gulf War 1 (or 2) anyway?

I thought these were surprisingly ineffective on hardened command centers during those two conflicts, according to post-war assessments.

I am sure that Iran has buried its nuclear research stuff plenty deep. They may have other intimidation purposes, though. Civilian bomb shelters maybe?

[zipplewrath]

72. They ended the first Gulf War

They are very effective. The first one ever dropped ended the first war. Within a day they surrendered. No one inside the facility hit were ever seen leaving.

[methinks2]

5. WTF???

Just when I think they can't sink any lower . . . :wtf:

[Moderator]

6. kick to combine

[Englander]

7. MSNBC; U.S. may sell bunker busters to Israel

Updated: 7:44 p.m. ET April 26, 2005

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon notified Congress on Tuesday of a proposed sale to Israel of 100 guided bunker-busting bombs, a move that analysts said could prompt concerns about a unilateral Israel strike against Iran.

Israel has requested the sale by the Lockheed Martin Corp. of GBU-28s worth as much as $30 million, the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in a notice required by law for government-to-government military sales.

The GBU-28 was developed for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground and would be used by the Israeli air force on its U.S.-built F-15 aircraft, the agency said.

Israel — believed to be the Middle East’s only nuclear armed state — has denied speculation that it might make a military strike on Iran to prevent it from producing an atomic bomb.

More at;
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7646107/

[xultar]

8. I don't think this is a wise move. n/t

[dbt]

9. I was wondering why Weapons Builder GE would want this made public.

(GE being the parent of the NBC in MSNBC.) Then, I see the bombs are made by Lockheed Martin. Click!

[xultar]

10. In this political climate...sure they want people to know.

This is positive to the Bush Administration.

[Englander]

11. Aye,there's nothing like the prospect...

of Impending Armageddon to motivate the Chimp's
core vote.

[hector459]

22. Spreading shock and awe

We are the greatest providers of WMDs across the globe. And then we wonder why the world is not safe.

We are the only country to have ever dropped a nuke on another country (twice) and Israel is the only ME country to have bombed (unprovoked) one of its neighbors. Go figure!

[Behind the Aegis]

24. education

Which country did Israel bomb "unprovoked." BTW, Israel is not the only ME country to attack a neighbor unprovoked. Iran v. Iraq pops into the mind.

[Save The World]

36. Or Iraq v. Kuwait

eom.

[Zhade]

48. Neither was unprovoked.

We goaded both sides into the Iran-Iraq war, and Kuwait was slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields before April Glaspie, our envoy, gave a wink-and-a-nod to Hussein regarding "dealing with" Kuwait.

[hector459]

37. I don't recall either Iran or Iraq "bombing" any sites in other countries.

But I could be wrong.

[Save The World]

Um, Iraq DID bomb Israel

During Gulf War I and Israel is regularly hit by missiles from Lebanon. Israel was also attacked, invaded and bombed (unprovoked) numerous times by its neighbors, from the day of its founding onward.

[hector459]

38. I would say that was not "unprovoked" the US, Israel's biggest ally,

was attacking Iraq with aerial bombing. I would say that could be considered self-defense or as Israel likes to say "pre-emptive."

[Behind the Aegis]

39. It was unprovoked

Just because Israel and the US are allies is NO reason to bomb Israel. Saddam bombed Israel in hopes of getting her to enter the war, and thus inflaming the rest of the Arab world. So, Israel was bombed unprovoked!

[The Stranger]

40. Ahem, cough, cough . . . Osirik . . .

Was that provocation enough?

[Behind the Aegis]

41. You should check that cough

Ten years is along time to let something like that go. After ten years, they retaliate? That's pretty damn slow. And a weak argument.

[The Stranger]

42. Yeah -- damn those pesky historical facts.

[Behind the Aegis]

43. Yep

Especially when used to justify an attack 10 years after the fact.

[The Stranger]

44. So you admit it was not unprovoked . . .

Maybe we're getting somewhere . . .

[Behind the Aegis]

45. The attack during the first Persian Gulf war..

..was unprovoked. Saying that it was provoked by actions that are ten years old is as stupid as the reasons that W attacked Iraq because 10 years ago they attacked his "daddy!"

[The Stranger]

46. Nonsense.

Blood letting is not something easily forgotten -- and ten years is an historical eyeblink (think about the Germans and the Treaty of Versailles) -- thus the reason to prevent it wherever at all possible.

[Behind the Aegis]

47. Well, then

The attack on the reactor was retaliation for the Iraq backed attack during the first days of statehood of Israel.

Saddam did not attack Israel because of the reactor. He did it to PROVOKE an Israeli response and gather support from other Arab nations to join in the fray!

[The Stranger]

54. Right, of course, Saddam loved Israel.

And the other Arab nations had already joined the fray -- attacking Iraq.

However, this notion of tying the ongoing violence to prior violence (and prior prior violence) may be getting you somewhere on an understanding of the history of the region.

[Behind the Aegis]

57. Uh-huh

No, the other Arab nations were against Iraq, but hadn't done anything other than bitch to the US to protect them. Had Israel sent ONE missile, it would have been open season on Israel and the Arab league would have turned on the US.

As for knowing history of the region, I know it quite well.

[The Stranger]

66. The point here should not be to pick sides or to justify anything and

everything that Israel does. The point here should be to try to understand the whole history of the region, including provocations by all sides, so repeating it can be avoided.

[Behind the Aegis]

70. I can agree with that

And another point should be not blame Israel for everything that happens in the ME or with US foreign policy. And, one should understand the whole history of the region, including that of Israel and the Jews, so that all sides get a fair shake in the region.

[The Stranger]

74. It does not seem that all sides are getting a "fair shake" in the region,

however, with Israel brutally occupying the Palestinians for the last half century, and building ghetto-like Berlin walls through Palestinian villages and refugee camps. Maybe this can be addressed at some point.

Note: Stating these facts does not constitute "blam(ing) Israel for everything," it is merely stating what is recognized as reality.

Also note: It is not necessary to reply to this with some provocation that may have given rise to these actions, as you seem to agree, everyone in the region has now had more than sufficient provocation.

[Behind the Aegis]

76. I agree.

And, with constant terrorist attacks, threats from the region, and unbalanced UN resolutions, perhaps we will see more responsibility on all sides.

Note: I don't believe disagreeing with the policies of Israel is blaming Israel for everything. But, to deny there is more than one party involved in the conflict would be prudent.

Hopefully, the same way Israel is supposed to see the world the way others see it, then, perhaps will also see the world as Israel sees it. Compromise has to come from all players in the conflict, not just one party.

on edit: used the wrong word

[0007]

63. You gotta be kidding, 'eh?

Unprovoked?

[Behind the Aegis]

71. Not kidding.

[blogbear]

12. Looks like thugs and their weapons are being 'propped up'

all over..

[Deja Q]

13. But the EU is fearful of Iran too. They'll not raise a peep about this.

[teryang]

14. I don't think that this is the first such sale n/t

[SouthernDem2004]

15. I also thought they sold them some late last year.

[leveymg]

18. We sold Sharon $300 million worth last summer. See below.

Planning and stockpiling for an attack on Iran has been ongoing for years.

http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4083&

<SNIP>
In October 2001, an Israeli delegation came to Washington with a mission to persuade the Bush Administration to authorize preparations for a strike against Iran. Initially, that task was well received but had to wait while the White House dealt with Afghanistan and then Iraq. <http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/english/0,1518,317845,00.html>

Even before September 11, the Israelis had reportedly been trying to convince Russian President Putin to look the other way while action was taken against Iranian missile and nuclear programs, much of the technology for which had been acquired from Russia.

On August 13 2003, The Washington Post reported a full-court press on Bush to support Sharon's plans for a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear installations. Post writer Jim Hoagland described a "grim warning from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to President Bush that Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than U.S. intelligence believes . . ." U.S. intelligence had estimated Iran would need four years to process sufficient weapons grade material. Hoagland wrote:

"Sharon dramatized his forecast by bringing Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant, a three-star army officer who serves as his military secretary, to a meeting with Bush in the Oval Office two weeks ago, U.S. and Israeli sources tell me. Galant showered a worried-looking Bush with photographs and charts from a thick dossier on Iran's covert program."

At that time of their last meeting in Washington on April 14, the two are reported to have again discussed the Iranian nuclear program, and Israeli plans to eliminate it through a preemptive strike on Iranian infrastructure and key personnel. http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=126843&contrassID=2&subcontrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0 [br />
On April 22, "Bush told Republican congressional leaders during a meeting at the White House that it was all but certain that terrorists would attempt a major attack on the United States before the election, according to a congressional aide. The leaders were struck by Bush's definitiveness and gravity, the aide said..." (Washington Post, April 22, 2004).

Sharon's war counsel with Bush had its intended effect. On May 6, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution 398 in a 376-3 vote, calling on the U.S. government "to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." A similar resolution, if passed by the Senate, would hand the launch button to Bush.

On June 1, the U.S. Dept. of Defense announced plans to approve sales of $319 million worth of guided munitions to Israel. Most of this will be covered by U.S. foreign aid to Israel. On September 21, the Israelis acknowledged that shipment would include 500 "bunker buster" bombs, suitable for use against Iranian underground nuclear facilities and command centers. According to Reuters, Israel already possesses a more limited stockpile of F-15 launched GBU-27 or GBU-28 bombs, guided by lasers or satellites that can penetrate up to 30 feet of earth and concrete. http://www.iranexpert.com/2004/israel21september.htm>

On Wednesday, June 2, Sharon told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that he and President George Bush agreed to a series of "strategic understandings" concerning Israel's posture in the Middle East. Sharon said the understandings offered by the Bush administration called for the prime minister to pledge to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank. Reports state that the committees understood that Israel received a green light to finalize preparations for a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear targets. http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_04/8099.html >

<SNIP>

My article, originally at Kerry.com

[teryang]

49. Nice work, thanks

Leave it to DUers to keep track of events in context.

[jayfish]

16. Deja Vu!?

I guess Iran didn't get the message the first time this veiled threat was made. It's a good thing Bush has a fully functioning propaganda division to re-state it.

Jay

[Zynx]

17. Stupid - Israel doesn't have enough F-15's to execute this strike

[leveymg]

19. Most IAF strike craft are F-16s. There are more than 250. See below.

Please don't call others idiots here.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=so02norris

Aircraft. Over the past 30 years, Israel has acquired several types of aircraft capable of carrying nuclear gravity bombs, including F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and more recently, F-16s and F-15Es.

The F-16 has been the backbone of the Israeli Air Force and is the most likely candidate for air delivery of nuclear weapons. From 1980--1995, Israel bought or received 260 F-16s from the United States: 103 F-16As, 22 F-16Bs, 81 F-16Cs, and 54 F-16Ds. In 1999, the Israeli government announced it would buy 50 F-16Is, at a cost of about $2.5 billion. Israel will receive the aircraft over a two-year period beginning in early 2003. Under this contract, Israel has the option to purchase 60 additional aircraft. If it does, delivery would continue through 2008.

Of the F-16s, probably only a small fraction are nuclear certified with specially trained crews, unique procedures, and modifications that enable them to carry nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons may be deployed with assigned squadrons at one or more air bases. Or the weapons may be kept at dispersal bases, such as Tel Nof, where certified planes could be loaded. It is especially difficult to determine which squadrons are assigned nuclear missions and which bases support them. Likely F-16 squadrons are: the 111th, 115th, and 116th at Nevatim (southeast of Beersheba), and the 140th and 253rd at Ramon in the Negev. Other possible squadrons are the 109th, 110th, and 117th at Ramat-David in northern Israel, and the 101st, 105th, and 144th at Hatzor.

Using conventional weapons, eight aircraft from the 110th and 117th squadrons (escorted by six F-15s) destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor outside Baghdad on June 7, 1981, in what was called "Operation Opera."

In January 1994, Israel selected the Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle for its long-range strike and air-superiority roles. It is called the F-15I Ra'am (Thunder) in Israel. Initially, 21 planes were ordered, with a pricetag of just over $2 billion. In 1995, Israel bought four more. On January 19, 1998, the first two Ra'am planes landed in Hatzerim Airbase, flown by Boeing pilots. The plane has greater takeoff weight (36,750 kilograms) and range (4,450 kilometers) than other F-15 models. Its maximum speed at high altitude is Mach 2.5. The plane has been modified to use special radar with terrain-mapping capability and other navigation and guidance systems. The Ra'am can carry 4.5 tons of fuel in its internal, conformal, and detachable tanks, as well as 11 tons of munitions. The last of 25 F-15s were delivered to the Israeli Air Force before May 1999. The F-15Is are assigned to Squadron 69 (Hammers Squadron) at Hatzerim. In the U.S. Air Force, the F-15E Strike Eagle has a nuclear role. Whether the Israeli Air Force has provided nuclear capability to this high-performance plane is unknown.

[Zynx]

29. Yes, and they CANNOT reach Iran - only the F-15 Ra'am have the legs

People tend to forget this when talking about how Israel can do anything it wants airstrike-wise. Most of their aircraft are rather short ranged.

This is the reason I specified the F-15's. Everything else Israel has is totally out of range.

And the F-15's are pushing their own range, especially with a heavy combat load.

[TexasLawyer]

34. Maybe they'll use

the 14 "enduring bases" we've built in Iraq.

[leveymg]

59. So, I guess F-16s can't be refueled in flight? Over Iraq?

What if we had some air defence radar problems the night of the attack, and some unmarked tankers just happened to orbit long enough for the legs out and back? Straight through Lebanon and Iraq into Iran and return.

Naw, couldn't ever happen. Look at how closely we were guarding airspace over NYC and DC on 9/11?

:bounce:

[leveymg]

61. Several F-16 attack scenarios: 1) already mentioned refueling over Iraq

(Comment: this one implicates US as almost directly complicitous in attack, and would be treated as an act of war by the Iranians*)

2) no aerial refueling - out and back distance to Bushehr is about 2000 miles - maximum ferry range of F-16 is 2,600 miles (without extra tanks)(not enough fuel after combat mission to return to Israel - would require landing at alternative airstrip -- Iraq, eastern Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. Israeli ground forces seize remote airstrip, refuel there? (Comment: technically possible, but potential for casualties high and successful extraction of ground forces might prove difficult).(*overflight of American-controlled Iraqi airspace, even without refueling, would probably be viewed by Iran as an act of war by US)

3) one-way sortie avoiding Iraqi airspace - returning Israeli aircraft land in Iraq, surrender to Coalition. (???????)

[PATRICK]

68. They "care" about acts of war???

There are no roadblocks to number one. It is 100% consistent to the blatant agenda with the difference being in letting- or pushing- the Israelis to do the dirty work this time.

Bushco sitting on the sidelines utterly untouchable should make the Israelis very certain they will be the ones holding the bag this time while we come in to the oil fields during the ruckus.

i.e. betrayal of the ally whose grand plan to eradicate the ME threat has been moving in parallel with eh Big Oil Empire. Betrayal- no democracies and instead US dictatorships with hotbeds of violence and resentment. Betrayal- no real help for Palestinian peace. Betrayal- not caring if Israel lives or dies. Except for doofus Wolfowitz there is a strong anti-semitical core(including the Saudis) in this gang not far under the surface.

BOTH the Iranians and Shiite Iraqis think they can play with Bushco. What smart people.

[leveymg]

73. Scenario 4) Israeli air strike on Iran from the Arabian Sea.

Israeli can attack Iran without overflying any third country. Here's how. IAF F-15 and F-16 fighter-bombers fly south from bases near Elat Airport in Southern-most Israel out the Gulf of Aqaba and straight down the middle of Red Sea (1100 nm.) The Red Sea exits at the Gulf of Aden into the Arabian Sea where, over international waters, these planes are refueled by IAF tanker aircraft (yes, they have them), and then proceed northeast another 900 nm until they turn 90 degrees left, flying into Iran near the entrance to the Persian Gulf at the Straights of Hormuz. From there it's a straight line to the nuclear reactor at Bushehr 300 nm northwest up the Iranian coast and on to other targets in Iran.

Approached from the Arabian Sea, IAF F-15s can strike anywhere within Iran, while the shorter-range F-16s can hit targets in the southern half of the country before they have turn around and fly back out to meet circling Israeli Air Force air tankers to fill up before returning to bases in Israel.

Not an easy mission, but not outside the technical abilities of the Israelis. Everyone will feign surprise, particularly in Washington. Aside from Iran, no one can complain about encroachment into their airspace, and Iran will have a hard time justifying to the world any decision to attack U.S. or third country installations in the region on the basis of receiving de facto overflight rights.

This makes it almost too tempting for Sharon to resist. By arming Israel with 600 bunker busters and a whole lot of other guided munitions (not to mention the aircraft to deliver them to targets in Iran), of course, the Iranians would blame the U.S. for all their citizens who are going to be killed by such an attack. Therefore, they may decide to launch their missiles and chemical and biological weapons at US targets in the region anyway.

Such an eventuality would likely signal a wider war with massive casualties.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[leesa]

20. Correction. We will GIVE bunker busters to Israel...and then whine about

her neighbors trying to defend themselves from her.

[Charles19]

55. Why does everyone report this as sold, U.S. is GIVING them to Israel (n/t)

[0007]

64. Just like the big one that Mordechai Vanunu - The Israel Nuclear Scientist

talks about and that is under house arrest for trying to tell the world of its dangers.

[hector459]

67. It's true. We REWARD Israel for spying on us. We are going to GIVE

Israel these bunker busters...you know, the ones the American public paid to have made.

[TexasLawyer]

21. GBU-28 Bunker Busters---1.5 metric tons of depleted uranium

From the article:

“One could be suspicious that these bombs could be used for an Israeli attack on Iran,” Isaacs said, noting that the bunker-busting bombs in question were non-nuclear, which limited their ability to dig far underground.

The bomb may not be nuclear, but it looks like it IS radioactive. Here's some further info on the GPU-28 "Bunker Buster":


The Pentagon Steps Up
its Use of
Radioactive Munitions

by Marc W. Herold

Departments of Economics and Women's Studies
Whittemore School of Business & Economics
University of New Hampshire

http://www.cursor.org/stories/uranium.htm

<snip>

The widely-used Lockheed Martin GBU-28 5,000 lb. 'bunker-buster' bomb with a BLU-109 penetrator head carried only by the Air Force's F-15E's and B-2s, contains 1.5 metric tons of depleted uranium, compared to only five kilograms in the 120 mm shell. According to the GBU-28 Bunker Buster animation on USA Today the warhead is "classified".6 The 30 mm PGU-14 armor-piercing cannon shell contains 4,650 grains <0.66 pounds > of extruded DU, alloyed with 0.75 weight percent titanium.7 The Olin Corporation is the sole maker in the U.S. of DU antitank rounds, and its foundation funds "research" which purports to show that DU has no harmful health effects.

<snip>

[AngryAmish]

26. On last time - DU is not dangerous because it is radioactive

DU is dangerous because it is a heavy metal.

[TexasLawyer]

32. DU's radioactivity is dangerous to humans

and so is the chemical toxicity as a heavy metal, so we're both right.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/weapons/DepletedUranium.html

The Weapons of American Terrorism:
Depleted Uranium

Radioactive depleted uranium (DU) is 1.7 times heavier than lead. When a DU-tipped shell smashes at Mach II into a tank or armored personnel carrier it ignites and instantly burns its way through the heaviest armor. Then it burns alive the men inside.

The impact and ignition also vaporizes the depleted uranium, creating an aerosol of radioactive heavy-metal particles. These particles soar upwards with the heat column of the flaming tank. From there the radioactive dust can travel as far as 190 miles (300 kilometers) on the wind.

When inhaled or ingested, the depleted uranium particles cause chemical and radioactive damage to the bronchial tree, kidneys, liver and bones. Cancer often results, and the effects include genetic damage.

<snip>


**************

http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=79&num=13342

Breathing Uranium Oxides: Global Medical Crisis of Depleted Uranium
By John Lewallen

Nov 5, 2004, 16:04


I begin my report on the health effects of uranium munitions with a heartfelt personal appeal: stop using uranium munitions now!

<snip>

As has been known by the U.S. military since 1943, when the inventors of the atomic bomb described uranium vapor as an agent of chemical and radiological warfare, breathable uranium is a horrific weapon with both chemical and radiological toxicity. Extensive testing of uranium munitions show that from ten to seventy per cent of the uranium vaporizes on impact, in particle sizes ranging down to the microscopic.

<snip>

[AngryAmish]

56. That is wrong

Du is radioactive, so is many, many things. DU emits alpha radiation, which is very weak. The layer of dead skin on your skin stops it.

This is not to say it is not a dangerous heavy metal.

[Megahurtz]

23. Shit.

n/t

[Roland99]

25. Paving the way to the Rapture with them.

[lebkuchen]

27. Why don't we sell advancements in renewable energy to Israel?

[kwyjibo]

28. As if they weren't successfully killing people already..

now it'll be easier!

[jpak]

30. There's a reason why ChimpCo has been quietly filling the Strategic

Petroleum Reserve these last 5 years....

[TexasLawyer]

33. Oh yeah...

He's even been filling the SPR as fast as he can during this period of high oil prices.

When oil is over $50 dollars a barrel one would think that it is politically risky to be taking our own U.S. oil off the market(production royalties owed to the U.S. government taken "in-kind" from producers holding MMS leases, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico) .

I guess there's no free press to call him on this, though.

[NNN0LHI]

31. This same story gets reported every six months or so. Look

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8C117F99-C20E-4738-A15B-0BF683A1B21B.htm

US to sell Israel 5000 smart bombs

Tuesday 21 September 2004, 17:29 Makka Time, 14:29 GMT

The United States will reportedly sell Israel nearly 5000 smart bombs in one of the largest weapons deals between the allies in years.

As part of the deal, Israel will receive 500 one-tonne "bunker-buster" bombs that can destroy 2m-thick concrete walls, 2500 "regular" one-tonne bombs, 1000 half-tonne bombs and 500 quarter-tonne bombs, the daily said.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/09/mil-040921-voa01.htm

Haaretz: Israel to Get 5000 US Smart Bombs, Bunker Busters

VOA News
21 Sep 2004, 12:40 UTC

An Israeli newspaper says the United States plans to sell Israel nearly 5,000 smart bombs, including 500 one-ton "bunker buster" bombs that can penetrate two-meter thick concrete walls.

The Haaretz newspaper reported Tuesday that funding for the $319 million weapons deal would come from the U.S. military aid to Israel.

[0007]

65. Measuring the temperature of water is like taking the pulse of

public opinion. Can't be too hot!

[PATRICK]

69. It sounded familiar

They must still be filling out the UPS tracking and shipping forms.

[Imagevision]

51. Englander you took the words out of my mouth --amen!

[Imagevision]

52. umm..no one recalls Cheney saying Israel mey deal with Iran?

yeah, about two months ago -- plus it would make Israel look strong and almighty and powerful like the US.!!!

[chlamor]

35. U.S. Set to Sell Bunker-Busters to Israel

US set to sell bunker-busters to Israel

Wednesday 27 April 2005, 2:58 Makka Time, 23:58 GMT  


The Pentagon has notified Congress of a proposed sale to Israel of 100 guided bunker-busting bombs, a move that analysts say could prompt concerns about a unilateral Israel strike against Iran.

Israel requested the sale of the Lockheed Martin Corp GBU-28s, worth as much as $30 million, the Pentagon's Defence Security Cooperation Agency said in a notice required by law for government-to-government military sales.

The GBU-28 was developed for penetrating hardened command centres located deep underground and would be used by the Israeli Air Force on their US-built F-15 aircraft, the agency said.


Israel - believed to be the Middle East's only nuclear armed state - has denied speculation that it might make a military strike on Iran to prevent it from producing an atomic bomb.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AA10F81F-9924-4B0D-8E61-8B0F1FF4FDFD.htm

[Rex]

53. McWar

What would Cheney do?

[Zerex71]

58. Now why would the Israelis need bunker-busting bombs?

Think about it. They don't need them for the Palestinian problem. Which country might have bunkers that need busting? And why now? These are the kinds of questions that JOURNALISTS are supposed to be asking, but never do.

Also, just as a point of reference, even though this might be the first time this particular munition has been sold abroad, FMS (foreign military sales) account for quite a huge chunk of change in the defense industry. LockMart and their ilk sell arms to foreign countries all the time. Israel, for example, loves their F-16s.

[chlamor]

60. kick

:kick:

[CWebster]

62. And they complain about the Russians? nt

[Chicago Democrat]

75. Well that's just common sense...

Yahhoooooo!!!! I WANT A GREAT BIG SUV!!!!!



(PIG SOUNDS)

[cambie]

77. AngryAmish is right,

external Alpha particles don’t penetrate the top layer of skin, they don’t even travel more than a few inches in air. However a little further reading reveals:

“Alpha particles create a high concentration of ions along their path, and can cause severe damage to internal organs and tissues when they are inhaled, ingested or are present on the skin. Once these particles get into the body, damage can occur since there is no protective dead skin layer to shield the organs and tissues. Internal exposures are not limited to the intake of large amounts at one time (acute exposure). Chronic exposure may arise from an accumulation of small amounts of radioactive materials over a long period of time.”


http://www.orcbs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/16rm_exposure.htm