I'm familiar with the enhanced version of this weapon. If you're going to threaten an enemy with attack, the threat must be credible. I believe this weapon fills that narrow purpose of appearing credible.

The bottom line is that I (and many other experts) do not believe it is capable of penetrating deep enough to destroy Fordow. Apparently the Iranians do not believe the threat is credible either as they continue to speed their development of a weapon.

Until it is used against Fordow, we won't know if it's capability matches its VERY PUBLIC advertisement.

I am far from an expert on this bomb however I suspect two or three more down the throat after the first one will vreate some amount of increased damage.
Surely the experts must know if one is good, could two more be better?

When formulating a strike plan, the planners assess the likelihood of success. This strike has been "war-gamed" numerous times. The worst scenario is one where an attack occurs, but the outcome is unsuccessful. Now, open hostilities (war) exists between countries, counter-attacks are certain, and the nuclear sites remain functioning. Additionally, all the leverage of a possible destructive attack has been lost. (This is similar to Carter's failed hostage rescue attempt, minus open hostilities with weapons as it was not an attack, per se.)

Now the US is in a bad spot. Do you attack Fordow and the other sites again now using tactical nuclear weapons? The use of nukes is a HUGE escalation, and one the world will condemn regardless of motives and justification. You've also invited a nuclear counter-attack upon the US homeland.

This is a very difficult strike using only conventional weapons due to the depth of these nuclear facilities. This is precisely why they are located deep underground.

:popcorn: Obama has met a red line he hasn't moved. USA should walk away and reinstate stricter sanctions until Iran pulls back on their nuke program and from the middle east

And of course we and others who have turned timid in recent years have allowed this progress by the Iranians to get hardened as it is.
The days of doing what needed to be done to PREVENT the enemy from gaining momentum and protection.
Today's approach to the bad guys is definitely in favor of the bad guys.

Does anybody....ANYBODY.....doubt nuclear capability from Iran will find it's way to a nuclear involved attack of some kind on USA's home land?

The USA is too fast approaching wimp status. Not because we lack ability and capability. But because our leadership has been emasculated.

Once upon a time the rest of the world knew what they were in for if they tread upon us.

And now we are in the same position. They have learned we are no longer to be feared. Too busy being nice nice to those who would slaughter us at the drop of a hat (or less).

:click:This pretty much nails it ... when all is said and done, preventing Iran from getting a nuclear capability boils down to a presidential leadership issue

Why is there close to 100% reliance/blame put on the U.S. regarding the Iran situation. Did Israel need help removing Iraq's nuclear capability? Or Syria's? Perhaps our technology or our surveillance, but not our execution. Perhaps it would be beneficial to talk to someone who understands their side of the equation. (Just don't lead off with "Why do Jews vote for Obama?") [emoji6]

“Why is there close to 100% reliance/blame put on the U.S. regarding the Iran situation. Did Israel need help removing Iraq's nuclear capability? Or Syria's? Perhaps our technology or our surveillance, but not our execution. Perhaps it would be beneficial to talk to someone who understands their side of the equation. (Just don't lead off with "Why do Jews vote for Obama?")”

To your first question, as the sole remaining superpower (at least for now), other countries expect us to lead, especially countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc. When we abdicate, or do some of the seemingly detached things we’ve done in recent years, they get nervous. On the other hand, the WSJ had an interesting article that made a point I’d not thought of … given US dominance in fracking, in addition to driving the price of oil down and keeping the shaky economy going, the net effect of fracking is to lessen our strategic interest in Middle Eastern oil.

Holman Jenkins: A World Remade by Fracking - WSJ

Israel took out Iraq’s reactor quite efficiently all on its own in 1981. But, that target was located about 15 miles from Baghdad and not a hardened target. Iran took careful note and that explains why they have burrowed everything deep into the ground, and have scattered them in numerous locations. This has long been an area of focus by the US Intel Community and let’s just say, as the previous poster put it so well, even with the MOP GBU-57 it would be very difficult if not impossible to completely take out Fordow and other such sites.

In addition to the sheer military capability, the more important factor is the opponent needs to have some fear you might actually use it. In this case, they have no fear for obvious reasons which, ironically, actually raises the risk to us vs lowering it.

For Israel, an Iranian bomb is a genuinely existential issue. I’d argue it is existential for the US as well … mainly because if Iran gets the bomb, some crazy Ayatollah at some point in the future will not be able to resist the lure of nuclear jihad against the Great Satan. This is especially the case when combined with apocalyptic beliefs espoused by Radical Islam. That is a truly scary mixture.

In short, we definitely have a dog in this hunt even if we don’t want to.

Nice thoughtful post!

Just when I was considering giving up on this site due to the sniping one sentence responses, here you go and restore my faith.

I'll hang a bit longer, but all the racist one sentence responses are juvenile.

Other than a very few posters, it doesn't seem like people want to formulate any original thought beyond a single sentence and share it. So be it...lots of other more active sites with intelligent commentary.

Thanks for the post.