Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

D. Spaulding

(391 posts)

2. Once these bombs became a big part of the conversation, it was

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2025, 10:15 AM

Jun 2025

obvious that any negotiated or diplomatic solution was never going to happen
These are some of the most powerful weapons other than nukes. They have never been used in war before. No President has ever unleashed them
The prospect of wielding such massive lethal force and "obliterating" a mountain stronghold, was just too enticing to someone with a fragile ego, and so self absorbed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

4 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

cadoman IronLionZion NickB79 vanessa_ca

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The US military used a 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb for the first time in combat in strikes on Iranian nuke sites [View all] BumRushDaShow Jun 2025 OP

Trump just had to prove that he's the alpha male instead of the historically ignorant fool. Lonestarblue Jun 2025 #1

Once these bombs became a big part of the conversation, it was D. Spaulding Jun 2025 #2

Trump did something similar in 2017 with a 21,600 lbs MOAB weapon on Afghan caves IronLionZion Jun 2025 #5

Gee, I wonder.... ShazzieB Jun 2025 #22

The real threat to the US is in the White House or at Taco-lago. twodogsbarking Jun 2025 #3

Bunker buster bombs are necessary for at least 3 reasons: ancianita Jun 2025 #4

But then Iran has been supplying Russia with weapons (drones, etc) to attack Ukraine BumRushDaShow Jun 2025 #6

I see. Makes sense. I've also read that Russia gets some weapons from China, too, and that Russia ancianita Jun 2025 #13

China hasn't actually been "at war" with anyone except some border skirmishes here and there and their practice drills BumRushDaShow Jun 2025 #15

Exactly. It's more short/long term profitable to be the supplier country than the warring country. ancianita Jun 2025 #16

China is busy with their "Belt and Road" initiative BumRushDaShow Jun 2025 #17

Yep, that's the name of it. ancianita Jun 2025 #18

China profits in the background manicdem Jun 2025 #19

Bunker buster bombs are needed to stop Iranian attacks on Israel once and for all, ancianita Jun 2025 #7

"once and for all" speak easy Jun 2025 #8

Of course, no reprisals or vengeance - Maine-i-ac Jun 2025 #12

With B-2 bombers hitting deep underground centrifuges, Israel could at least get some respite from the 15 ancianita Jun 2025 #14

Thank you for putting this in perspective question everything Jun 2025 #20

Lunatics. Passages Jun 2025 #9

He wanted to use nukes, but they wouldn't let him. malthaussen Jun 2025 #10

if they build it the war will come stillcool Jun 2025 #11

Well strike up the freakin' band and have a parade. The US built a giant bomb and exploded it. twodogsbarking Jun 2025 #21