data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d4085/d40853c9150cecdf18d18ca8171a0a2835f6b264" alt=""
IRAN??
While complete physical destruction may be desired, for some hard and deeply buried targets this effect isn't practicable with current weapons and employment techniques. It may be possible, however, to deny or disrupt the mission or function of a facility. Functional defeat is facilitated through better data collection and intelligence preparation against the potential targets. The defeat process includes finding and identifying a facility, characterizing its function and physical layout, determining its vulnerabilities to available weapons, planning an attack, applying force, assessing damage, and, if necessary, suppressing reconstitution efforts and re-striking the facility. New more lethal defeat options for Hard and Deeply Buried Targets (HDBTs) like the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, that can overwhelm target characterization uncertainties, are being developed and demonstrated to provide a 10x increase in weapon lethality and improved penetration capability compared to inventory weapons.
2 comments:
What about MOP's armed with small nuclear bombs?
I'm under the impression that the U.S. military has developed "mini" nukes, say one-quarter of the strength of the Hiroshima bomb.
It may also be practical to attack IRGC bases, HQ's, arms/missile facilities with such devices.
Yes, they have mini-nukes but the need for these is yet to be established in attacking Iran's buried sites. Specially as many of these were built under populated areas to use the innocent citizenry as human shields.
Post a Comment