A Small Detail

I think this is mostly good advice, except for one thing: Israel has no use for the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. That weapon can only be deployed from a B-2 stealth bomber. Israel does not have any B-2 stealth bombers. We do not plan to sell them any B-2 stealth bombers, and for a pretty good reason: as much as we all love Israel, and I certainly do, it has a history of reverse engineering American military technology and occasionally selling that technology abroad. It's perfectly understandable that they do this, given their position and the threats that they face, but we can't afford to pass them the B-2.

It's not as easy as just handing them a great big bomb, in other words. We'd have to hand them the delivery system as well, and teach them how it works, and doing that once basically means giving up our exclusive understanding of the technology involved. If Israel wants to develop and deploy its own bomber that can handle the MOP, that's fine: there's no real problem with giving them this bomb, which is based around conventional explosives. They could, for that matter, probably develop their own version currently. Still, for now, the best thing is to try to ensure a serious-minded President is in office in 2017: then we can handle the bombing ourselves, if we need to do so. I suspect that an air campaign isn't the right answer in any case. Exactly what I do think is the right solution I won't publish in the clear, but there's a better way to approach this than trying to bomb the sites with gigantic explosives.


raven said...

Obama has backed Israel into a corner- there is no buffer left, it is now simply a matter of timing. They cannot absorb a nuke attack. They have an enemy who has constantly reiterated the desire to destroy Israel, that is actively pursing the means.
So there will be a strike on Iran, by the Israeli's. They have no other choice but death. Will the US, pledged to defend the Iranian program, attack Israel? I don't have a clue, but if I were running Israel I would do my best to have an attack capability in place to hit DC. Just in case. Things are getting very complicated these days, the old problem sets and borders are shifting and blowing away faster than the hidebound political class can comprehend. They are busy running around in the magazine, smoking crack and lighting sparklers, and none of them has the slightest idea of how it could come back and bite them.

Tom said...

Why hit DC? What would that do to further their aims?

Grim said...

Should they decide to hit Iran, for example, and a certain American President threaten to shoot down Israeli warplanes over Iraq. Hitting DC might not be the right mode, though an ability to raise a credible threat that would deter even this President could be wise.

But, again, the fact that this is a plausibly wise thing for Israel is a good reason not to give them the B-2.

Tom said...

The counter-strike and economic fallout would be devastating to Israel, though not as much as a nuclear attack, I suppose.

raven said...

After a certain point, actions are free of consequence- what I mean by this, if certain annihilation is the result of an action, then an additional action involves no greater penalty.
Same reason murderers don't worry about gun violations.

An ability to hit the US would be a strong deterrent to the US hitting Israel, especially if targeted on the homes of the US elites.

The point here is that the situation has changed in a fundamental way- the US Gov. has apparently gone from supporting Israel , to supporting Israels arch enemy. We are no longer talking about cross border terrorism, but the survival of a nation.

The chances of this flustercluck ending in a worldwide nuclear exchange is significant- I am more concerned about it now than at anytime since the height of the cold war.
We have a ruling class of self destructive politically correct fools who hate their (former) countrymen, a psychotic regime pursuing nukes and delivery systems,a China expanding into SEA, a world wide economic crisis, bands of homicidal torturers running free in a MENA in flames, a flood of young Muslims overrunning western Europe and it's arsenal,a completely unsecured southern border, and a military that is being purged for political purposes. And a hyper armed domestic collection of police agencies, and a umbrella of surveillance over all. And "climate change" is our most pressing problem.

DLSly said...

"We'd have to hand them the delivery system as well, and teach them how it works, and doing that once basically means giving up our exclusive understanding of the technology involved."

Reminds me of the Microsoft anti-trust suit brought by Clinton. Once Windows' codes were revealed for any & all - in the name of a fair market, of course - the proliferation of viruses, Trojans, and every subsequent Ill-intended computer *disease* on the current internet landscape is more than breathtaking. It's a study in good intentions & gold bricks.
This situation is no different with the exception of the possibility that there was never any "good intentions" with which to make even one guilded brick.

Ymar Sakar said...

Compared to what, the chinese reverse engineering the tech Clintons gave them or the Iraqis throwing away M1A1/2 abrams tanks to ISIL which was funded and trained by Hussein O's black ops?

Anonymous said...

Actually why I am rather surprised there is not an "Operation Blow up the Syrian Airforce" and "Operation Blow up all those Daesh tanks" I mean I can not really see a downside other than cost and waste of tanks.