US wants bunker-buster fast, denies Iran is reason

[NOW tense]

Source: The Associated Press

The Pentagon has awarded a nearly $52 million contract to speed up placement of the bomb aboard the B-2 Stealth bomber, and officials say the bomb could be fielded as soon as next summer.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hveHzEWQMwPC5hnh8mmSzQnuI-vgD9BA2GMO0

[zipplewrath]

1. Many targets

There are many targets around the world, N. Korea was mentioned in that article as well, that have deep and hardened bunkers. Osama himself tends to use caves, for which we would need this kind of weapon. This is almost assuredly driven by inter-service rivalries where the AF is tired of having to say they can't get to certain targets and the Navy Seals stand up and say that they'll get
"to the door".

[NOW tense]

3. I guess you are right.

In the end that is all we know...
Kill! Kill! Kill!

[mckara]

6. Haven't You Heard?

PEACE IS OUR PROFESSION

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[JohnyCanuck]

4. If they want to get Osama,

they just need a bomb that can penetrate 6ft.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. And it's a shovel-ready project.

[shadowknows69]

2. Preparations for the final donnybrook for the control of earth continues unabated.

[tomm2thumbs]

5. they're using it to give Rush Limbaugh a suppository

and as they say, you gotta do what you gotta do

[robo50]

17. Even then, I doubt this device will get all the SH** out of him!

He's so full of it.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Same as when the neocons were running the show

unless they intend to use the bombs to build a new canal in Panama.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

21. I Guess I Don't Follow...

You don't believe these types of weapons are useful?

[mac56]

8. if only we'd had it

back when Cheney was hunkering down in his undisclosed location

[IndianaGreen]

12. Cheney is still running the show

Nothing has changed!

[Ozymanithrax]

14. We have 1 President at the time.

Cheney is not in any position of authority within our government. Obama is in control now. He has been sworn in and everything.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Obama is singing the 'Bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb Iran' duet with McCain

that's what the OP means.

[Ozymanithrax]

18. I havn't heard that. I hope he has a better voice then McCain.

He did that in 2004, according to a report.
Democrats� Obama Ready to Bomb Iran

But that was a long time ago.

I have not seen any stated policy in the news of Obama's intent to Bomb Iran. He has consistantly worked on a policy of negotiation and shown a willingness to talk. He has set, as US Policy, that Israel will not be supported or allowed to attack Iran through US controled Air Space. (Flying over Iraq.) He did this after Biden's statement that the US would not interfer in an Israeli attack on Iranian Nuclear sites.

I would be interested in seeing a report of that policy goal as stated by Obama.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

22. Sometimes...

there are legitimate reasons to bomb a country or organization.

[Flaneur]

23. ...and sometimes there are not.

The history of US foreign interventions since World War II suggests that more often than no, there was no legitimate reason.

Please warmonger elsewhere.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

24. Depends on How Widely You're Defining the Term

though if you're concerned with warmongers, why wouldn't you support programs that would allow us to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of proven aggressors?

[Flaneur]

25. There's a program to rid the US of its nuclear weapons?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

26. There Isn't, Nor Should There Be

[Flaneur]

27. I guess some war mongers are more equal than others.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

32. Let Me Make Sure I Understand You Here...

If I'm not mistaken, your reasoning comes down to this - the U.S. has nukes, therefore every other nation has the right to have them. How you considered for a moment on ill thought out this is? The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the greater the likelihood of an all out nuclear war. Or is this something you simply don't care about because you're more concerned with being "fair" to a nation that has consistently backed groups like Hezbollah and al-Sadr's militia, etc. throughout the Middle East?

[IndianaGreen]

28. Then let's drop the bomb on Israel, who is an aggressor state and has nukes

What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

33. Part of the Problem...

I agree that part of the problem is that Israel has nuclear weapons. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, that's helped fuel an arms race in the region. With that said, considering the track records of Iran and Israel both, I'm far less leary about Israel having these weapons than I am Iran.

[midnight armadillo]

31. Quiz time: when was the last time Iran invaded someone?

The correct answer is in the vicinity of 250 years. So how exactly are they a proven aggressor?

In the Iran-Iraq war Iraq was the attacker.

And really, if nukes can't be trusted to proven aggressors, WTF is the USA doing with a large arsenal?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

34. Quiz time: is an all out military invasion the only way a nation can be an aggressor?

The correct answer is definitely not. Covert means, like funneling money and weapons to organizations that kill people and cause chaos in neighboring countries or providing training to the members of said organizations, are also ways in which a nation can act as an aggressor and this is something that Iran has excelled at. Ask the Lebanese in their experiences with Hezbollah, the Iraqis in their experiences with the al-Sadr's militia, etc.

Iran clearly wants to be a big player in the world. We've consistently seen that their foreign policy is geared towards that end (see the examples above). The idea that they might use the kind of power that possessing nuclear weapons gives in order to extort their neighbors isn't exactly far fetched. We could ignore that, and play the "we ought to strive to make the world more fair - let Iran have nukes!" game, but doing so isn't wise.

[bertman]

9. Recommended so folks will know what is on the agenda for our military. The more I see

and hear and read, the more I doubt that President Obama is up to the task of slowing down--much less stopping--our military from its attempted conquest of the known world.

[Ozymanithrax]

13. The US Military can not set itself the goal of conquering the known world.

Under our constitution, the military is led by civilians who set the goals for the military. They do have pull in developing systems to attack specific types of targets, like the bunker buster bomb. (Which, essentially, is a small nuclear bomb in a hardened shell capable of punching through a hardened structure or a huge amount of dirt.) Such equipment is a tactical concern. The strategic concern of conquering the world is left to civilians. If the military has that as its goal then President Obama would have initiated that policy.

I didn't hear about that. Please post a link to Obama setting that policy in motion.

The US Military can not declare war, take itself to war for Constitutional, Legal, and Economic reasons.

(1) Article 1 of the Constitution gives the sole authority to declare war. But that is a simple and open declarations. Last used in WWII. There are, of course, other ways to get into a conflict.

(2) Treaties, such as the treaty we have with the UN, can take us to war. This is how we became involved in the Korean War. This is the power of the Senate in Article I. This is the reason why President Washington warned us against entangling alliances.

(3) Then there is the War Powers Act. This act allows the President to defend against an attack or to command the military into conflict with a known imminent threat. But it is not open ended, and he must go to Congress for approval within 48 hours.

No where in any of those documents and law can I find authorization for the military to take itself to war.

Now, supposing the military got a wild hair up their ass and decided to go to war, how would they do it. The first thing they have to do is get the military to a conflict zone. It is incredibly expensive to move the military. A Aircraft carrier, alone, costs more than a million dollars a day. That is just 1 Carrier. But every truck, tank, Hummer, etc. needs fuel. You have to pay for regular movement of fuel to the battle zone. The military does not fund itself. Congress alone has the power of the purse. (This is a power of Congress Article I.)

To sum up:
The military can not set as its goal the conquest of the earth. That goal can only be set by the civilian leadership (President Obama) and financed by Congress.

Please, post a link to news stories stating that the President and Congress have set that policy in motion.

[bertman]

16. Substitute the words "military industrial intelligence complex" for military

In my haste I was inaccurate in that aspect. You are correct that it is mostly civilians who set the policy. Although, I will argue that our civilian leadership now depends very heavily on former military officers for advice and information. Yes, when they retire from the military they are technically civilians, but when you spend 25 or 30 years in the military you have a different worldview from most civilians. Then you become an advisor to "x" corporation or to "x" congressional committee, or you are hired by "x" media corporation as an expert, so you inject your bias into whatever group you serve.

Just a note of caution, Ozymanithrax, quoting the Constitution means nothing these days. Congress long ago abdicated its responsibility to oversee and/or approve matters of war and/or covert activities. Nowadays our Congress responds to pressure from lobbyists, many of whom are shills for the corporations who dominate our military-industrial-intelligence corporate complex. The members of the House Intelligence Oversight Committee just recently revealed the degree of knowledge they are allowed to have to "sensitive" high-level intelligence information--very little and very heavily "edited". The Congressional oversight role is now a formality that is observed more in the breach than in any form of "oversight".

Last, but not least, there are many high-ranking individuals in our military who are in favor of the dominion of our CHRISTIAN nation over the rest of the world. Sometimes their influence is muted by those who are not "dominionists" but there is lots of evidence that these super-christians have power far beyond their actual numbers.

[Ozymanithrax]

19. They are not mentioned or empowered to do such by the Constitution.

The Military Industrial Complex would still need the President and Congress to initiate and fund conquering the world.

What the Military Industrial Complex wants to do is make lots of money for their investors. They don't need a war to do that. We have built whole generations of weapons systems, and replaced them, without those systems ever firing a shot in combat. War isn't necessary, only a willingness to waste money. Conquering the world, even if such a thing were possible outside a cartoon, comic book, or bad Science Fiction would be counter productive. You have one world government they won't need an endless and every increasing array of weapons against a threat. The Military Industrial Complex requires a lot of threats and a lot of customers to keep their investors happy. The best thing for them is the rumor of war.

[bertman]

29. The Military Industrial Intelligence Complex already has the President and Congress doing

exactly what they want. We sent the message in 2006 that we wanted the war in Iraq to stop. Congress keeps passing funding to keep the war going ("support the troops" and all), then we elected a Democratic majority and a Democratic President and we get an INCREASE in defense spending.

The CIA, NSA, DHA pretty much do whatever they want and tell Congress about it later--if they feel like it. Otherwise, some intrepid reporter (rare these days) or whistleblower has to alert us to the misdeeds or we'd be totally in the dark.

No, they don't need a war to get more weapons systems, but anytime it looks like we might get a "peace dividend" we get a war instead. After the Russian threat died we had to settle for a couple of pesky little short wars--well, tactical exercises, really--Grenada and Panama. But when you have no big bad enemies the American people start to wonder why we are pumping hundreds of billions into the already bloated military-intelligence machine, so there has to be a REAL THREAT conjured up. VOILA! the Mad Dictator steps onto the scene--yes, our former ally against Iran--Saddam Hussein. When he was given the green light by our Ambassador to Iraq that we would not view him as a threat if he invaded Kuwait, the big dummy stepped right into that big old smelly cowpie and became the NEW ENEMY. Remember the million man Iraqi Army, the Republican Guard, the thousands of Russian T-72 tanks? And they stood up to our military for about six hours.

It only took about ten more years to get another good war going under the guise of stamping out a pesky little band of muslim jihadis who were blamed for invading the U.S. mainland and killing 3000 Americans. And, lo and behold, while we're ramping up to invade the Graveyard of Empires, we learn that the Mad Dictator has nuclear weapons and he's going to use them against the United States if we don't stop him right NOW!

You see, Ozymanithrax, sending advisors to Guatemala and Columbia and Africa and Indonesia just ain't the same as having a real war to train the troops and give the generals, admirals, and defense contractors their upward mobility and endless profitability. So, we will be looking for a new adversary if and when we decide we've brought democracy to Iraq and Vietghanistan. My money's on another oil-rich nation that might view itself as a worthy opponent of the Great Imperialists to the North.

And when that time comes, our Congress and President will be just as compliant as they were in 2002 and 2003 and 2006 and still are in 2009. Being an empire doesn't mean you have to have control over everybody all the time. But if you have bases all over the world--we do--you can influence their behavior in a big way. Unfortunately, it costs BIG MONEY and that's what's really killing us.

[change_notfinetuning]

11. to paraphrase Nixon - Peace with BOMBER! . . . When bunker-busters talk,

countries listen. Terrorists? They couldn't give a shit!

[Duende azul]

20. Wow. That´s what Peace Nobel Prices are awarded for....

Not enough waging war on two countries. No, seems you have to show you will continue the efforts to be price-worthy.

[PinkOwl]

30. It doesn't hurt to have it in stock

Although it probably would be unwise to use it this year or next. The Iranian threat is real, but not that imminent. I have mixed views on this one.