October 13, 2009 10:05 AM

Pentagon Wants Colossal Bunker-Buster Bomb

(AP)  The Pentagon is speeding up delivery of a colossal bomb designed to destroy hidden weapons bunkers buried underground and shielded by 10,000 pounds of reinforced concrete.

Call it Plan B for dealing with Iran, which recently revealed a long-suspected nuclear site deep inside a mountain near the holy city of Qom.

The 15-ton behemoth - called the "massive ordnance penetrator," or MOP - will be the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and will carry 5,300 pounds of explosives. The bomb is about 10 times more powerful than the weapon it is designed to replace.

The Pentagon has awarded a nearly $52 million contract to speed up placement of the bomb aboard the B-2 Stealth bomber, and officials say the bomb could be fielded as soon as next summer.

Pentagon officials acknowledge that the new bomb is intended to blow up fortified sites like those used by Iran and North Korea for their nuclear programs, but they deny there is a specific target in mind.

"I don't think anybody can divine potential targets," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "This is just a capability that we think is necessary given the world we live in."

The Obama administration has struggled to counter suspicions lingering from George W. Bush's presidency that the United States is either planning to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities itself or would look the other way if Israel did the same.

The administration has been careful not to take military action off the table even as it reaches out to Iran with historic talks this month. Tougher sanctions are the immediate backup if diplomacy fails to stop what the West fears is a drive for a nuclear weapon.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently said a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would probably only buy time. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has called a strike an option he doesn't want to use.

The new U.S. bomb would be the culmination of planning begun in the Bush years. The Obama administration's plans to bring the bomb on line more quickly indicate that the weapon is still part of the long-range backup plan.

"Without going into any intelligence, there are countries that have used technology to go further underground and to take those facilities and make them hardened," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. "This is not a new phenomenon, but it is a growing one."

After testing began in 2007, development of the bomb was slowed by about two years because of budgetary issues, Whitman said, and the administration moved last summer to return to the previous schedule.

North Korea, led by Kim Jong Il, is a known nuclear weapons state and has exploded working devices underground. The United States and other countries have offered to buy out the country's weapons program. The Obama administration is trying to lure Pyongyang back to the bargaining table after a walkout last year.

Iran is a more complex case, for both diplomatic and technical reasons. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claims its nuclear program is peaceful and meant only to produce energy, but the West suspects a covert bomb program that may be only a year or so away from fruition.

"I don't really see it as a near-term indication of anything being planned. I think certainly down the road it has a certain deterrent factor," said Kenneth Katzman, a specialist on Iran and the Middle East at the Congressional Research Service. "It adds to the calculus, let's say, of Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il."

Details about Iran's once-secret program have come out slowly and often under duress, as with last month's surprise confirmation of the hidden underground development site near Qom.

That revelation came a month after the Pentagon had asked Congress to shift money to speed up the MOP program, although U.S. and other intelligence agencies had suspected for years that Iran was still hiding at least one nuclear development site.

The MOP could, in theory, take out bunkers such as those Saddam Hussein had begun to construct for weapons programs in Iraq, or flatten the kind of cave and tunnel networks that allowed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to escape U.S. assault in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, shortly after the U.S. invasion in 2001.

The precision-guided bomb is designed to drill through earth and almost any underground encasement to reach weapons depots, labs or hideouts.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 80 Comments
by jrichards111 October 14, 2009 6:14 PM EDT
Ok, so I just looked at the map of nuclear-armed states in the "Nuclear Armed World" interactive and....wow CBS, really? Can't you find someone to design a map WHO ACTUALLY KNOWS GEOGRAPHY A LITTLE BIT??
1)Spain is not France, I thought that one would be pretty easy.
2)Why the hell is YUGOSLAVIA on that map?? Yugoslavia has not existed for 17 years. You guys knew that, right?....RIGHT??
What kind of morons run this "news" agency? How are you supposed to accurately report world news when you can't even find the right countries on a map?? On the positive side though, at least you remembered not to label Russia as the USSR, good job guys! /s
Whoever designed that map should be promptly fired.
Reply to this comment
by rwsmith29456 October 13, 2009 5:30 PM EDT
Can it blast out Taliban in rock caves under deep mountains? If so, I'm all for it.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 13, 2009 4:38 PM EDT
by Marc_1986 October 13, 2009 3:52 PM EDT
@hungry

I disagree. Leaving Israel on their own will lead to the complete decimation of Jordan/Syria/Lebanon if they attack.






So be it.

It's not our concern.

We've got out own problems.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 13, 2009 4:37 PM EDT
by Marc_1986 October 13, 2009 3:51 PM EDT
Well at least we agree that brute force is (and was) needed in Afghanistan.

I do not wish to stay in Iraq permanently; I honestly think that had the troop numbers in Iraq remained the same, that by the resolution Bush made (leave by 2011?) Iraq would have had a great chance to become a stable, democratic society.

The problem is that no force will be able to truely beat Al Qaeda, you and I both know this. You're fighting an ideology. Should have just bombed the place back to the stone age.







Iraq is a muslim / islamic society. They DO NOT WANT a "democracy". They want a theocracy. When it's all said and done, Muqtada Al Sadr will eventually be the "Grand Ayatollah" just like they have in Iran - the OTHER major Shiite society in the mideast. Mark my words - it won't be tomorrow, it won't be next year, but it WILL happen. And when it does, the hatred against America, the invasion and occupation, etc, etc will all be used to inflame the people of Iraq against us, while firming up his grip on power. It's happened before.



And you can't bomb an entire nation to the stone age. For every terrorist you kill, you're going to kill 50 innocent civilians. That's not what America is all about.
Reply to this comment
by zoopster1 October 13, 2009 5:26 PM EDT
@hungry,

Iraq has no business even being a country. Their borders were defined not by their people, the way ours were. They were drawn by the British in 1921, as part of the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. Iraqi "nationalism" was and is a fallacy, a myth created by Saddam Hussein and other similar despots to prop up their regimes. But it's not real.
by dnatech October 13, 2009 4:22 PM EDT
by fedup12 October 13, 2009 1:26 PM EDT
Yes we can plant some evidence of something these people did to deserve the bunker buster.

It has to be more convincing this time than the ice cream trucks and Bagdad Disney land that the Bush Regime said were WMD launchers and labs.

That ship has sailed. Manufacturing a war is going to be harder now..... But not impossible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Spoken like a true American. The sickness and evil continue...
Reply to this comment
by bubbadubba October 13, 2009 4:03 PM EDT
Stupid thing, I only posted once.
Reply to this comment
by p94932 October 13, 2009 4:03 PM EDT
its a work of art, a masterpiece - good hunting!!!
Reply to this comment
by bubbadubba October 13, 2009 4:02 PM EDT
<<.a 30,000lb bomb made for destroying a bunker with 10,000lbs of concrete. weak. Who is going to reinforce a bunker with a mere 5 tons of 'crete? and $52 mil? right. more like $520 mil. makes no sense>>

I don't fault you for not understanding engineering or explosives but let me give you an example.
Tim McVeigh and the 2 ton Oklahoma bomb.
"It was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11 attacks in 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen?block radius,destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage."
That homemade bomb was nothing compared to military grade explosives.
Hope that helps.
Reply to this comment
by bubbadubba October 13, 2009 4:02 PM EDT
<<.a 30,000lb bomb made for destroying a bunker with 10,000lbs of concrete. weak. Who is going to reinforce a bunker with a mere 5 tons of 'crete? and $52 mil? right. more like $520 mil. makes no sense>>

I don't fault you for not understanding engineering or explosives but let me give you an example.
Tim McVeigh and the 2 ton Oklahoma bomb.
"It was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11 attacks in 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen?block radius,destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage."
That homemade bomb was nothing compared to military grade explosives.
Hope that helps.
Reply to this comment
by bubbadubba October 13, 2009 4:02 PM EDT
<<.a 30,000lb bomb made for destroying a bunker with 10,000lbs of concrete. weak. Who is going to reinforce a bunker with a mere 5 tons of 'crete? and $52 mil? right. more like $520 mil. makes no sense>>

I don't fault you for not understanding engineering or explosives but let me give you an example.
Tim McVeigh and the 2 ton Oklahoma bomb.
"It was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11 attacks in 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen?block radius,destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage."
That homemade bomb was nothing compared to military grade explosives.
Hope that helps.
Reply to this comment
See all 80 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook