Bunker Busters are a technology.

>>105660923 (OP)
>we can have nukes, but you cant!
>uh ... just because, OK?

>>105660936
This but unironically.
Nuclear proliferation was a mistake and I hate how the current US president, through his actions, encourages more countries to get nukes.

>>105660936
Did you see the meltdown the Israeli official had when a reporter asked him why Israel should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

>>105661323
Jews are schizophrenic. Israeli Jews are 50 times as bad since they live around other Jews and no longer have to be crypto about their talmudic schizophrenia. There is no one more batshit insane than an Israeli jew

>>105661323
The logic is very straightforward; Israel needs nukes to defend itself, other countries either don't have the right to self defense, or shouldn't be allowed to use nukes for self defense

>>105660923 (OP)
It's very unlikely the bunker busters will even work. The only thing that would reliably destroy the facility is a tactical nuke.

>>105660936
The US has dismantled about 90% of the total nuclear stockpile in the last 30 years.

>>105661364
>Muh tactical nuke
That's not how they work retard.

>>105661456
What I said comes straight from the Pentagon, so take it up with them.

>>105661456
They're probably counting in the fallout covering up the lack of nuclear weapons at the site.

>>105661488
What you said comes straight from some retarded reporter and is Jewish. Take it up with my ass.

>>105661364
>>105661456
going from bunker buster to small nuke is a retarded leapfrog on the escalation ladder
far likelier they send in a ground team if they're not confident that dropping a dozen gbu's will do the job
tactical nuke is just a term made up by insane pentagon hawks who think you can drop nukes on battlefields and somehow not risk a full blown nuclear conflict

>>105660923 (OP)
Do they even know where exactly it is? The entrance tunnels could be kilometers away...
>>105661364
They say they would need two good hits on the same spot
>>105661511
A ground team would be quit the adventure. Iran knows this facility is the main target right after the position of the supreme leader maybe. Komandos are Israels speciality though so they might do it

>>105661444
Can't they just make more if they needed them

>>105662341
Of course.
There's still thousands in the stockpile, but they could make more if need be (though they're not enriching uranium at the past rates).

>>105661323
I didn't. Link?

>>105661299
This
>>105660936
Does it matter if you blow it up with a bomb or slightly bigger bomb?

>>105661456
Literally does. The bunker huster tactical nukes have an on demand yield setting. They're designed for vertical damage rather than horizontal spread

>>105661511
Imagine being genuinely this stupid

Retarded anons itt don't know that bunker busters ARE both nukes and conventional bombs. The B61 Mod 11 is literally a nuclear bunker buster. It's just a more powerful bomb with a tunable payload from 0.3 kt to 340 kt.

Ultimately it doesn't matter whether you use a conventional explosive or nuclear payload to perform a precision strike on an underground target. What matters here is whether they're going to bomb Iran or not. Because it's literally the same fucking outcome
Carpet bomb all over the place exploding defenseless civilians
>>Hehe cute little bombs
>send in thousands of ground forces, stay for years, rape locals, do war crimes, stay in resolvable conflict, purposely leave billions of dollars of equipment behind to arms
>>yassss queen
>precision strike single target with tactical nuke, avoid drawn out conflict and mass casualties
>>OH MY FUCKING GOD THE N WORRRRRRDDDDDD

>>105660923 (OP)
>>>/k/ and >>>/pol/ nigger

If you need 0.5 kilotons instead of 0.1 kilotons to do it, it doesn't fucking matter if you use a tactical nuke or not. You're still bombing the same target with the same intention, still bombing Iran

>>105662606
You're a naive imbecile if you think Russia and China will be like haha bro it's cool there no difference between a nuclear or a non nuclear payload
Aspie fuckwit

>>105662606
>Ultimately it doesn't matter whether you use a conventional explosive or nuclear payload to perform a precision strike on an underground target.
You're the retard here.
>OH MY FUCKING GOD THE N WORRRRRRDDDDDD
Yes, that's exactly what the international reaction would be, dipshit. It doesn't matter if it's an extremely limited, controlled precision strike with minimal casualties--the use of a nuclear weapon in war for the first time since 1945 would cause an unbelievable shitstorm and set an incredibly dangerous precedent.

>>105661348
>don't have the right to self defense

>>105661456
My country still has nukes (don't tell anyone; we were supposed to have gotten rid of them after the military junta collapsed) to use as tactical nukes. Meaning, if a country tries to bring aircraft carriers close to our sea to be able to attack us, we will boil their people alive...
This is the whole point why the first world wanted us to not have nukes, lmao...

>>105662761
>>105662750
Cope and seethe retard. You're literally arguing over the marketing of a bomb. Like using the equivalent bomb using conventional explosives would be any any better

>>105662789
One single weak-ass nuke can destroy an entire fleet in the ocean and cripple the military capabilities of a country. And the best part was... You can't even blame us for using it because we technically did so against a purely military target, in our waters or international waters, with zero direct casualties.

>>105662810
That isn't the problem, the problem is that governments are retarded so 50kt of conventional bombs are ok but as soon as you put one atom of uranium in them they'll chimp out

>>105662810
Whatever you say, bro. Thankfully serious people still consider idiots like you to be crackpots.

>>105662810
>Like using the equivalent bomb using conventional explosives would be any any better
Yes, it would. How dense are you? Even if the yield of the bombs were *exactly* identical, using a nuclear weapon would still cause an international incident, and you have a genuine intellectual disability if you think otherwise.

>>105662822
nobody would blame you for nuking an invading force
and nobody would be suprised wshen the invader then just nukes you to shit, especially if you promised you didnt have any nukes

>equivalent bomb using conventional explosives
every day i think you retards couldn't possibly get any dumber holy fucking shit

>>105662810
>>105662860
Yes, because international relations are heavily based upon norms, and one of the norms they decided upon was a hard line over the use of fission and thermonuclear weapons.
It's like you showed up to a boxing match and went, "why don't they just drop the gloves or start kicking? This is so stupid." Sure, if it was a "real" fight, then yeah, that's a better way to kill the bastard. But the point is that it's a fucking boxing match.
The context of it being "80 years of international relations worth of precedent" is important, because we're explicitly talking about the domain of international relations. If we were no longer talking about the context of international relations, then, yeah, a nuclear-yield makes for a better tool for penetrating underground or heavily-reinforced targets.

>>105661348
Unless the EU and US really steps up their game and helps Ukraine to kick Russia out, the new status-quo will be that nukes aren't just a deterrent for self defense anymore but using them as blackmail in an offensive war is also fair game.

>>105661299
Correct. The US should've listened to von Neumann by the way.