Friday, July 20, 2007
Memo to Tehran: Dig deeper
I put this in the category of peace through superior firepower:
American stealth bombers will soon be equipped to drop the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), the gigantic deep-bunker-blasting bomb currently being developed by the Yanks....
The MOP mega-bomb, second heaviest conventional weapon ever built, is said to be able to drill through many metres of earth or concrete protection. Only 20 per cent of the weapon's weight is explosives; the rest is a hardened metal case. The idea is that the MOP will fall from high altitude and strike its target like a supersonic - or even hypersonic - spear, punching through to explode at the correct depth.
There isn't much doubt regarding whose air defence the stealth-bombers might fly through, or what valued targets they might hit with their penetrating superbombs.
The uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz is generally thought to be the main point of vulnerability in the Iranian nuclear programme, where weapons-grade metals could be produced. Most analyses - some even publicly available - reckon Natanz is the big target for the US (or Israel) in the event of a move to cripple Iran's nuke effort.
The question is, why would this news be public? To communicate a point, of course.
Regular readers know that I very much hope that we will not have to bomb Iran to neutralize its nuclear program. However, that country's ruling elites will be more likely to do what we want if they believe there is a good chance we would succeed if we did.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Jul 20, 05:59:00 PM:
Cool, a 'Stealth MOP' to clean-up the bad guys.
I want one.
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Jul 20, 06:44:00 PM:
The Iranian leaders won't buckle. Would you if you were a religious fanatic?
Did Christ buckle? Did the Jews buckle at Masada?
By , at
Fri Jul 20, 09:03:00 PM:
The news should be we've shared one with the Israelis, just in case a rogue state shares something nasty that's used against a US interest or the Israelis.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Jul 20, 09:26:00 PM:
I don't think, DEC, that the analogy holds if our objectives are limited. I think that there is no religious requirement that Iran develop a nuclear weapons program or send weapons to Hamas, for example. I agree that if we demand anything akin to "regime change" the Masada metaphor comes into play.
By Escort81, at
Fri Jul 20, 09:55:00 PM:
I tend to agree with DEC. True religious fanatics and zealots aren't intimidated and don't give up. That's the question -- how "rational" is Tehran? I have asked the same question multiple times on this blog (usually in the form of whether MAD applies).
I think it's likely that Tehran believes that acquiring a nuclear weapon gives it the tremendous leverage it needs to fulfill its wish to become a regional super power in the medium term. The mullahs might be less interested in actually using a weapon to "wipe Israel off the map" (or handing off a weapon for use by proxies; not as likely because the early generation weapons won't be so portable) as they are in carrying a big frickin' stick.
The mullahs may be miscalculating the regional response to a Persian Bomb. They may also be miscalculating the rapidity with which the Iranian scientists can reach the point of a successful test (not a NORK fizzle) -- that it, they have so much domestic political capital invested in the development of "nuclear power" (including the effect or threat of foreign sanctions on the Iranian economy) that a failure to get to a demonstrable endpoint might loosen their grip on power.
TH - explain, what do you mean, "if our objectives are limited"? Aren't our objectives to prevent Iran from having sufficient weapons quality HEU so that a weapon can be constructed and tested?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Jul 20, 10:20:00 PM:
They are quite rational, Escort81. They just have a different agenda. The things that are important to us are not necessarily the things that are important to them.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Jul 20, 10:32:00 PM:
P.S. Right now the U.S. seems to be doing little more than hoping for an act of God to solve the problem. It ain't gonna happen. We better start working earnestly on Plan B, Plan C, and Plan D.
Remember these people KNOW they are going to win. In their view, God is on their side.
By Escort81, at
Fri Jul 20, 10:46:00 PM:
DEC -
Right, rational within their construct, as I like to put it -- that's why I had rational in scare quotes in the post above.
To use an extreme analogy:
There's one mode of rational behavior if you're playing Grand Theft Auto and want to score well.
There's another mode of rational behavior if you want to live in an actual civilized society and follow some Western or Eastern form of the Golden Rule.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat Jul 21, 11:09:00 AM:
The Manhattan Project produced a "bang" in about 4 years.
I believe the Iranian scientists are competent enough to reproduce those results in equivalent time -- particularly since much of the data has been declassified saving them considerable work, and manufacturing technology is better now than it was 60 years ago.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jul 21, 12:26:00 PM:
Which is why I can't imagine why so many 'experts' say that it will take Iran 10 or more years to do the same thing.
By Georg Felis, at
Tue Jul 24, 11:21:00 AM:
Because they’re most probably not just looking to produce “a bomb”, they’re looking to produce a small enough bomb to fit on a missile. The original bomb produced in WWII was 4.6 tons, it took quite a few years to slim it down and power it up, even though I would not consider the modern 3,000 pounds “slim”. Not to mention the first couple test shots to avoid that embarrassing North Korean type fizzle. I would guess they will have 4-5 functional devices before they start bragging. And I don’t want to guess where the test shot will be.
