Pentagon: 30,000 Pound Bomb Too Small

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pentagon: 30,000 Pound Bomb Too Small

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @07:27AM from the go-big-or-go-home dept.

smitty777 writes "According to the Pentagon, the 30,000-pound, precision-guided Massive Ordnance Penetrator GBU-57 bomb is just too small. Concerns around Iran's fortification of their nuclear program facilities has the DoD seeking from Congress something not quite as subdued as the GBU-57, the largest non-nuke bomb operated by the USAF. This 'smaller' bomb just recently won a prize for its ability to cut through 60 feet of concrete. The upgrades will cost $82 million on top of the $330 million spent so far to develop the system. There is some interesting high speed camera footage of the GBU-57 in the video below."

42 of 612 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Typical American motherfuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 07:30 · Score: 0, Insightful

WE NEED MORE POWERFUL DEVICES TO DESTROY THE BROWN PEOPLES ADVANCEMENTS. Only our white anglo leaders are allowed to have advanced technology and power production
Cue The Peaceniks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 07:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

In before the usual hippy dippy commentators come in with the usual "US spends too much on war", "Food not Bombs" bullshit.
It happens with every military related story here, and it is simply redundant It should be modded as such.
Please keep the politics out of it, or perhaps slashdot shouldn't haven't have a military section.
1. Re:Cue The Peaceniks by Entropius · 2012-01-31 07:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why should we? Taking a bunch of my money from me by force to build a bunch of bombs to better threaten a bunch of nutters in the Middle East is inherently political. Discussing the politics of US military spending in the context of this story is perfectly topical.
2. Re:Cue The Peaceniks by somersault · 2012-01-31 07:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes, quiet all you sensible people! We want more feeble-minded, opinionless sheep around these here parts!
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
you're a troll but even so.... by Shakrai · 2012-01-31 07:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

.... it has nothing to do with "brown people" or white superiority. The Chinese have nuclear weapons and you don't see the Western World freaking the fuck out about that. Why is that? Because for all of their flaws the Chinese actually behave like adults in the global community. They don't sponsor terrorism, they don't threaten freedom of navigation on the high seas and they don't have an openly racist high level politician that denies the right of one of his neighbors to exist. If Iran wants to be treated like a grown up perhaps it should start acting like one.
BTW, I like the subject "Typical American". Do you realize that Europe is just as freaked out by the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran as the United States is? Actually it probably bothers them more; we aren't within range of Iranian missiles but most of Europe is.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
1. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by Entropius · 2012-01-31 07:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, their government is rather racist -- toward the Tibetans, at least. They've been working awfully hard to extinguish that culture. China hasn't been threatening freedom of navigation, but have you seen their absurd territorial claims in the South China Sea?
  Iran didn't start shit in the Strait of Hormuz; the US and Israel have been threatening to attack them. They're just responding to that. Actually, that's sort of what's been going on with the Iranian nuke program: we just curbstomped their neighbor in an illegal war, and we're propping up a rather dangerous neighbor of theirs that has an openly racist agenda, that's bombed them before and that, oh -- has nukes. Can't really blame them for wanting some nukes of their own, considering.
  Yes, the Iranian government is, to some degree, batshit -- in the "batshit religious" fashion. Their rationale for wanting nukes is perfectly reasonable (defense against Israel/the US). But they've actually been conducting themselves in a pretty reasonable manner; they've not done anything that a more sanely-led country in their position wouldn't have done, which is to try to use any resources at their disposal to ensure that they don't get their asses kicked.
2. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by mbkennel · 2012-01-31 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "they've not done anything that a more sanely-led country in their position wouldn't have done, which is to try to use any resources at their disposal to ensure that they don't get their asses kicked."
  Why is Qatar/Kuwait/Jordan not getting its ass kicked?
  Maybe they haven't recently threatened to exterminate a whole bunch of people for ideological reasons and build the infrastructure for producing nuclear weapons.
3. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by iggymanz · 2012-01-31 07:49 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Everything you accuse Iran of doing Israel does, and the U.S. gives them billions of dollars in overt and covert aide.
4. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by tripleevenfall · 2012-01-31 07:50 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  We prevent people who have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent from owning firearms, even if they have heretofore committed no crime and have the same general right to self defense as anyone else does. Prohibiting the current regime in Iran from owning nuclear weapons is no different.
5. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by jmorris42 · 2012-01-31 07:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Exactly right. We don't worry about India having the bomb and last time I checked they were 'brown people' too. They are not likely to use one, especially in a first strike.
  We worry about Iran because they are something new, a nuke possessing country who may not be subject to MAD. In the end the 'godless commies' had one thing going for them in the world peace issues of the Cold War. They wanted to rule the world but they didn't really want to 'win' by being the last survivor in a post apocolypse scenario, the party leaders liked the good life and wanted to keep living it, especially since they didn't much believe in an afterlife to be rewarded in for wiping out the enemy in this one for.
  We just don't know if Iran would be so constrained. We pretty much have to take Ajad at his word that he doesn't give a crap if atomic hellfire rains down on him after his rightous jihad of nuking Israel and the US, as we would be fools not to. What we don't know is whether the military structure he commands is equally suicidal. Since guessing wrong, and especially considering the pitiful track record of western intelligence regarding things middle eastern/Islamic, could be a civilization extinction event we probably should err on the side of caution. A country burning off scads of natural gas because they don't consider it valuable enough to capture and use probably doesn't actually need nuke power plants for electricity generation.
  
  --
  Democrat delenda est
6. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 07:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Everything you accuse Iran of doing Israel does, and the U.S. gives them billions of dollars in overt and covert aide.
  Israel doesn't deny the Holocaust.
7. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by Shakrai · 2012-01-31 07:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Iran didn't start shit in the Strait of Hormuz; the US and Israel have been threatening to attack them. They're just responding to that.
  By cutting off global trade that countries whom aren't threatening them depend on. Yeah, that makes sense -- Mexico attacks the United States so we seize the Panama Canal and refuse to let Chinese flagged ships use it. That's essentially what they are threatening to do. Actually I'd love to see them try and close Hormuz -- that would bring the Chinese around to our side of this issue. China is far more dependent upon oil from the Arabian Gulf than the United States is. Contrary to popular belief the United States doesn't receive the majority of her oil from the Middle East; most of it comes from the Western Hemisphere.
  As far as the rest of your post, I'm not going to be drawn into an argument on the merits or lack thereof of our policy with regards to Israel. It's interesting that you decline the mention the nervousness of the Arab states that border Iran though. If it was purely about Israel one would think that the Saudis and their neighbors would be cheering the Iranian nuclear program on. Of course they aren't; the prospect bothers them just as much as it bothers the Western World.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
8. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-31 07:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Everything you accuse Iran of doing Israel does, and the U.S. gives them billions of dollars in overt and covert aide.
  Really? I do not recall Israel (or its head of state) ever saying that they intended to exterminate all of the Arabs, or even that they intended to completely destroy another country.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
9. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-01-31 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You sir, are a model Soviet Citizen.
  Give me a citation of Iran threatening extermination of anyone. No, DEBKA will not do as a source.
  Whereas, who are the US and Israel ACTUALLY ENGAGED in exterminating, on a daily basis?
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
10. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by fyngyrz · 2012-01-31 07:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The Chinese have nuclear weapons and you don't see the Western World freaking the fuck out about that. Why is that?
  Because (a) it's too late, and (b) there isn't a damn thing we can do about it because (c) they would fry us where we stand, just as the USSR would, or, come to that, just like we would, if attacked.
  
  They don't sponsor terrorism
  Oh. You mean like when the USA sponsors attacks within other countries without the sanction of those governments.
  
  they don't threaten freedom of navigation on the high seas
  Oh. You mean like when the USA "blockades" other countries and boards other nation's ships by force.
  
  they don't have an openly racist high level politician that denies the right of one of his neighbors to exist.
  No? What about Taiwan / Formosa?
  
  If Iran wants to be treated like a grown up perhaps it should start acting like one.
  Actually, I think Iran is doing exactly the right thing -- from their perspective. They've hardened their nuclear program so as to make it very difficult for anyone to shut it down. If -- essentially because of that hardening -- they succeed in developing nuclear weapons, that'll be the end of any chance of the US attacking them, because the consequences are politically untenable; and it'll settle Israel down, too -- they're not into proactive suicide. As for them attacking Israel with nukes... Israel is already a significant nuclear power. So I doubt it. But if they do, a lot of people in Israel will die, but all of populated Iran will be a sea of molten glass, and the "Iran problem" is solved.
  Do I want to see a nuclear armed Iran? No, not particularly. But then again, it's none of my business, just as our armaments are none of Iran's business. We have no more right to step into Iran's internal affairs than they do ours. And if we DO step in there and attack them for developing a credible nuclear deterrent, then when someone does it to us... we won't have a leg to stand on. Not that this will penetrate into the dim bulbs of the "rah rah" crowd, but there it is.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
11. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 08:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Israel inflates the holocaust, Iran minimises it. Both are half-truths.
  Israel was founded as a modern state on pure, violent terrorism. King David Hotel. They also sponsored and funded the creation of Hamas - to splinter the Palestinian political efforts, and create a spectre of islamic opposition. But Hamas are not religious zealots, like the Lubbavitchers - who throw acid in the faces of young girls on the streets in Israel.
12. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by Linzer · 2012-01-31 08:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why is Qatar/Kuwait/Jordan not getting its ass kicked?
  Easy: because they are client states of the US.
  
  --
  Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
13. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by Hurga · 2012-01-31 08:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Have a look at his map. http://media.chrismartenson.com/images/US-military-presence-around-Iran.png
  And then consider the US did this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
  In this situation, it would be insane for Iran not to want nukes.
14. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 08:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I thought it was because Qatar, kuwait, and jordan are our bitches.
  Iran is standing up to the US, and in turn is going to get smacked around because how dare you stand up to the US of A
15. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by Wyatt+Earp · 2012-01-31 08:27 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Israel is fighting with Hamas and Hezbollah, you know, Arab groups. While Iranians are not usually Arabs.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_and_ethnicities_in_Iran
16. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by unrtst · 2012-01-31 08:32 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I'd give ya some mod points if I still had them.
  The whole "let's stop nuclear proliferation" is desperately overdue for an honest update. It's barely accurate and, as you pointed out, is really about "it dilutes our own power, and it is scary in the hands of non-allies".
  I'm all for trying to keep other countries from getting nukes, but that's for my completely selfish reasons. If I were Iranian and stuck in Iran, I'd want (my country to have) nukes too. Nuclear proliferation is bad.... for anyone that already has nukes or is protected by a country that has them.
17. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by TubeSteak · 2012-01-31 08:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually I'd love to see them try and close Hormuz -- that would bring the Chinese around to our side of this issue. China is far more dependent upon oil from the Arabian Gulf than the United States is. Contrary to popular belief the United States doesn't receive the majority of her oil from the Middle East; most of it comes from the Western Hemisphere.
  
  Two comments:
  1. Let's not see them close the Straights. Yes Iran would get hammered, but it would take months to reopen that waterway and in the meantime, the global economy would slide into recession. It would be a pyrrhic victory to say the least.
  2. It doesn't matter where [Country] gets its oil from as everyone pays market price, which is highly influenced by world events. See Point #1
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
18. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by twotacocombo · 2012-01-31 09:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Do I want to see a nuclear armed Iran? No, not particularly. But then again, it's none of my business, just as our armaments are none of Iran's business. We have no more right to step into Iran's internal affairs than they do ours. And if we DO step in there and attack them for developing a credible nuclear deterrent, then when someone does it to us... we won't have a leg to stand on.
  So, what you're saying is that it's none of your business if every nation on the globe were to develop nuclear weapons? What you seem to forget is the United States originally developed nuclear weapons for a very specific purpose: to stop the Axis powers. The first and last time we used nukes were on a ruthless, active enemy that attacked us first. Say what you want about America, we have shown incredible restraint in the use of unconventional weapons after 1945, and even then it wasn't a decision that was taken lightly. After all, we have a lot to lose, and our population isn't seen as entirely expendable. Can you say the same about Iran? How about Somalia? The Congo? Do you really feel it's necessary to allow any country to develop weapons of mass destruction, completely unchecked, because it's "none of our business"? In a perfect world, we'd dismantle every warhead in existence and burn the schematics. Allowing yet another nation to obtain the power to obliterate entire cities is moving in the complete opposite direction of where we need to go.
19. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by poity · 2012-01-31 09:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well, one man's client state is another man's ally. Just like China calls Japan and South Korea "American lapdogs" but turn around and call North Korea and Myanmar are brave allies. Or like some would call Syria "Iranian lapdogs" but others call them brave allies against western hegemony. That's all silly though. states align themselves according to their interests, and will dress it up or down to play their game
  If there's one thing that brings perspective and a little clarity, it's that if you zoom out on the map you'll see that Iran has few friends in the region, or around the world, and that's not because of a global conspiracy.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
20. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by tnk1 · 2012-01-31 09:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Standing up to the US? Why do they need to build nukes to stand up to the US? They've stood up to the US since 1980 without nukes. In fact, the only reason anyone really wants to bomb them now is *because* they are building nukes.
  You know, you can be independent and not be bothered by the US by simply being insular and *not bellicose*. Iraq? Insular, but *still bellicose* to a degree even after having their asses kicked in 1991. Iran? Started off by imprisoning diplomatic personnel, and proceeded to descend to supporting terrorist and insurgents. It's also clear that they want a piece of the Shiite pie in Iraq.
  Iran is not harmless, left to its own devices it has goals above and beyond not being bothered by the US. The only reason they seem harmless is because the big guys have them in their sights and the Iranian regime is squirming. You take the pressure off, and they will not suddenly start being nice guys.
21. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by tnk1 · 2012-01-31 09:43 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I don't think Nukes would stop something like Operation Ajax. A CIA Operation to create a coup? Hell, it would make it more likely that we'd try covert regime change.
  We wanted the Iranian government out at the time because they looked like they would support the Soviets. Now, we really only want them out because they are building nukes and being asshats on the world stage. Iran only needs to do three things to be left alone.
  1. Stop threatening to "annihilate" other countries
  2. Stop trying to use terrorist and third party groups to destabilize the region
  3. Stop building nuclear weapons.
  That's it. I mean right now, you can argue that the US looks dangerous, but really, no one in the US wants another war.
  However, you can bet that they we be a lot more inclined to go for it if they are going to do it to keep some crazy mullahs from having nukes. Hell, that's an even better reason that attacking Afghanistan, and we had a darn good reason to attack Afghanistan. All Iran has to do is stop doing that stuff, or at least shut up about wiping Israel off the face of the earth, and people will be happy to go back to forgetting about Iran.
22. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by chispito · 2012-01-31 09:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Israel inflates the holocaust, Iran minimises it. Both are half-truths.
  Israel was founded as a modern state on pure, violent terrorism. King David Hotel. They also sponsored and funded the creation of Hamas - to splinter the Palestinian political efforts, and create a spectre of islamic opposition. But Hamas are not religious zealots, like the Lubbavitchers - who throw acid in the faces of young girls on the streets in Israel.
  Citations please.
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
23. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by jedidiah · 2012-01-31 10:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They were mostly chased off after the most recent nationalistic revolt in that area but some still remained.
  The monument to the crushing of this revolt still stands in Rome.
  Can the "Palestinian nation" point to anything like that?
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
24. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by AK+Marc · 2012-01-31 10:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah, but how many of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis,and how many were from Iraq or Iran?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
25. Re:you're a troll but even so.... by cusco · 2012-01-31 11:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, you can't be independent and left alone by the US if you have resources that the multinationals want. Can you think of a single country in the world that has some important resource that the US isn't fucking with? Well, there's Canada, but even then the US messes with their electoral process, their environmental regulations, and does its best to shove NAFTA as far down the throat of their economy as they will allow. Mexico, Chile, Venezuela, Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Ukraine, anywhere there are resources to be stolen you'll see the US military making the world safe for the multinationals.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
1984 much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 07:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Its pretty obvious that the miltiary-political-industrial complex is trying to talk us all into war with Iran and now you see one of the many things they plan to gain from it. Plus more power and control of the populace.
1. Re:1984 much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 07:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I had to scroll way too far down for this. All this posturing bullshit, it hasn't even been ten years since Iraq even started, are Americans really so complacent in their need for perpetual war that they'll buy into this shit again? Its just more money that goes to the Department of "Defense" and their contractors. Someone should really name it back to the Department of War, since we haven't really used it for anything remotely "defensive" since 1947 when it was renamed.
Can't kill 'em from an airplane? by idontgno · 2012-01-31 07:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Kill 'em from orbit!

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Yet more waste.. by E_Ron.Eous · 2012-01-31 07:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

From the Department of Defense which should be renamed to the Department of Wasting Tax Dollars..
Re:No, no, no! by ForgedArtificer · 2012-01-31 08:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

What does this have ANYTHING to do with a series of Spaceballs quotes?

--
The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
Re:No, no, no! by ColdWetDog · 2012-01-31 08:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

If you're hell bent on remaining outside of the control of the evil US-USSR-China axis, then it would be an excellent idea to shut up and not threaten hell fire and brimstone on everyone else.
Otherwise you appear psychotic and dangerous to the psychotic and dangerous ruling triumvirate. Yapping and nipping at your heels like a rabid Chihuahua only works if you're cute.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
It's never enough. by Beelzebud · 2012-01-31 08:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

When your business is to wage war, there is never enough.
B61-11 ground penetrating tactical nuclear missle by WaffleMonster · 2012-01-31 08:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is disingenuous to claim US does not have the ordinance to destroy Iranian underground facilities. It clearly does.
The most important question is not "how" but "why".
Re:No, no, no! by Moryath · 2012-01-31 08:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

Crap, did we wander into Congress again? ;)
In a slightly serious side note... someone PLEASE get the Joint Chiefs of Staff some goddamn viagra so they can go back to comparing dick sizes rather than having to argue and waste taxpayer money on who has bigger munitions...
oh, please. by fyngyrz · 2012-01-31 09:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

So, what you're saying is that it's none of your business if every nation on the globe were to develop nuclear weapons?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm an American; my legitimate control ends where the country's borders and maritime boundaries lie. If you're inside them, or use weapons against the population or the infrastructure inside them, you're my problem, and I support a workmanlike mechanism to wholly terminate your ass. I might, depending on the nature of your incursion, support going further and eliminating your ability to do it again. I would not, by the way, support paying for medical care or rebuilding your infrastructure. You aggress, in my opinion, the consequences are entirely your responsibility.
You stay out, or behave within, you're not my problem. Someone comes inside your borders, assuming you're from some other country, that's *your* problem, and *you* need to deal with it. If you can't, then you may go the way of history. You can, *they* may go the way of history. Either way, my legitimate role is to have breakfast and read about it in the paper. I might feel regret, I might feel enthusiasm, but I would *not* feel the urge to intervene.

What you seem to forget is the United States originally developed nuclear weapons for a very specific purpose: to stop the Axis powers

I have not in any way forgotten it, in fact I'm somewhat of a student of WWII, which means I know a considerable bit more about it than most people. However... yes, so? What's your point?

The first and last time we used nukes were on a ruthless, active enemy that attacked us first.

Well, other than over a thousand US nuclear weapons detonations, most of which dropped various amounts of fallout on the entire planet, yes. So?

Say what you want about America, we have shown incredible restraint in the use of unconventional weapons after 1945, and even then it wasn't a decision that was taken lightly.

Yes, so? Has Iran used nuclear weapons? No. Has Israel used nuclear weapons? No. Has France? No. Has England? No. Has the USSR? No. They all have them; yet no one has used them (well, except us, and I'm not saying that was a mistake, either.) So what's your point?

Can you say the same about Iran?

I don't say anything about Iran. I'm not an Iranian citizen. I don't concern myself with things they say about us, and I don't expect them to concern themselves with things we say about them. Also, what you're trying to do here is an exercise in "what if", which is bullshit. Iran has done nothing to make me think they are a threat to my country; ergo, I don't worry about them. I worry more about the loonies here that want to go in, and based on events that only exist in their imagination, do some terrible damage to some other sovereign country, thus setting a legitimate stage for other countries to come and do the same to us. National borders are what they are for a reason; violating them is a VERY bad idea.

How about Somalia? The Congo? Do you really feel it's necessary to allow any country to develop weapons of mass destruction, completely unchecked, because it's "none of our business"?

Yes, absolutely.

In a perfect world, we'd dismantle every warhead in existence and burn the schematics.

No, we wouldn't. We'd use them as excavation tools, space drives, anti-asteroid devices, and so on. And there is no such thing as a perfect world anyway.

Allowing yet another nation to obtain the power to obliterate entire cities is moving in the complete opposite direction of where we need to go.

Buddy, wherever you got the idea that *you* know what direction *we* need to g

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Point being? by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-01-31 10:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why not just go over there?
"Hi guys, we heard you're in the Nuclear Fun Club now. We've been there for a good 70 years now, good times, good times. Here's the list of everyone else that's in the Nuclear Fun Club. If any of yours ever go missing and/or get used outside of testing or declared nuclear war, everyone on this list will burn you to a cinder.
"Nuclear Fun Club. You join forever. Seventy years for us. Good times, good times."

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend t by chrb · 2012-01-31 13:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Since when did Holocaust denial become a reason for the United States to attack another nation state? I thought the attitude of the U.S. people was supposed to be more along the lines of : "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
I actually find it quite distasteful to use the Holocaust as an excuse for a war that would result in the deaths of millions of people. And it appears I'm not the only one. Obscene: Using the Holocaust to Justify War With Iran .