• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel AF uses new US-supplied smart bomb

Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
198
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Israel Air Force used a new bunker-buster missile that it received recently from the United States in strikes against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, The Jerusalem Post learned on Sunday.

Post's Yaakov Katz analyzes the IDF's next moves

The missile, called GBU-39, was developed in recent years by the US as a small-diameter bomb for low-cost, high-precision and low collateral damage strikes.

Israel received approval from Congress to purchase 1,000 units in September and.... IAF uses new US-supplied smart bomb | Israel | Jerusalem Post

57215999d1493366
 
The Israel Air Force used a new bunker-buster missile that it received recently from the United States in strikes against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, The Jerusalem Post learned on Sunday.

Post's Yaakov Katz analyzes the IDF's next moves

The missile, called GBU-39, was developed in recent years by the US as a small-diameter bomb for low-cost, high-precision and low collateral damage strikes.

Israel received approval from Congress to purchase 1,000 units in September and.... IAF uses new US-supplied smart bomb | Israel | Jerusalem Post

57215999d1493366

If it's high precision then I'm all for it. The 21st century is no place for stupid age weapons like cluster bombs.
 
If it's high precision then I'm all for it. The 21st century is no place for stupid age weapons like cluster bombs.

Whatever. Cluster bombs are highly effective weapons that are both needed and should be in our inventory.
 
not doing a good job of it though

They are doing an extremely good job. If Hamas continually hide amongst one of the most densely populated places on earth, the casualties thus far are minimal.

Paul.
 
If it's high precision then I'm all for it. The 21st century is no place for stupid age weapons like cluster bombs.

Cluster bombs have there use in certain scenarios, though not in densely populated areas.

- Dumb Bombs

They were used to great affect in Desert Storm.

Paul.
 
Last edited:
Whatever. Cluster bombs are highly effective weapons that are both needed and should be in our inventory.

Unsupported :

Cluster bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cluster munitions are opposed by many individuals and hundreds of groups, such as the Red Cross,[16] the Cluster Munition Coalition and the United Nations, because of the high number of civilians that have fallen victim to the weapon. Since February 2005, Handicap International called for cluster munitions to be prohibited and collected hundreds of thousands of signatures to support its call.[17] 98% of 13,306 recorded cluster munitions casualties that are registered with Handicap International are civilians, while 27% are children.[3]

The area affected by a single cluster munition, known as its footprint, can be as large as two or three American football fields [18]. A single unguided M26 MLRS rocket can effectively cover an area of 0.23 km²[4]. In US and most allied services, the M26 has been replaced by the M30 guided missile fired from the MLRS. The M30 has greater range and accuracy but a smaller area of coverage. It is worth noting that for reasons including both danger to civilians and changing tactical requirements, the non-cluster unitary warhead XM31 missile is, in many cases, replacing even the M30.

Because of the weapon's broad area of effect, they have often been documented as striking both civilian and military objects in the target area. This characteristic of the weapon is particularly problematic for civilians when cluster munitions are used in or near populated areas and has been documented by research reports from groups such as Human Rights Watch,[19] Landmine Action, Mines Action Canada and Handicap International. In some cases, like the Zagreb rocket attack, civilians were deliberately targeted by such weapons. [20]
 
not doing a good job of it though

By what measure?

Meanwhile, Israel's enemies fight and immerse themselves among civilians. When Israel rightly attacks these terrorists it is Israel that is condemned.

Simply amazing.

The useful idiots is America and Europe are demonstrating that they have no will to fight and are revealing their distaste of democracy and preferences for totalitarianism.

But this was it was during the Cold War, too. The useful idiots have just found a new partner is all...
 
not doing a good job of it though
:roll:
They COULD have used 2000lb unguided bombs to do the same thing as one of these.
Why do you suppose they didn't?
 
If it's high precision then I'm all for it. The 21st century is no place for stupid age weapons like cluster bombs.

Cluster bombs now have smart technology in them

And we shouldn't be supplying and military hardware to Israel.
 
Cluster bombs now have smart technology in them

And we shouldn't be supplying and military hardware to Israel.
We don't "supply" it, we sell it.
 
We don't "supply" it, we sell it.

Oh yeah, I'm sorry we don't supply it. We merely create it, house it, and transfer ownership of it on reciept of money. That's right....wait a minute!

sup⋅ply
1   /səˈplaɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [suh-plahy] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -plied, -ply⋅ing, noun, plural -plies.
–verb (used with object)
1. to furnish or provide (a person, establishment, place, etc.) with what is lacking or requisite: to supply someone clothing; to supply a community with electricity.
2. to furnish or provide (something wanting or requisite): to supply electricity to a community.
3. to make up, compensate for, or satisfy (a deficiency, loss, need, etc.): The TVA supplied the need for cheap electricity.

You know supply and demand economics isn't based on giving **** away.
 
Oh yeah, I'm sorry we don't supply it. We merely create it, house it, and transfer ownership of it on reciept of money. That's right....wait a minute!
In this context, I take "supply" to be a verb that means "give to".
This differs from "sell to".

And, in "supply and demand", "supply" is a noun that refers to a commodity.
 
And, in "supply and demand", "supply" is a noun that refers to a commodity.

No ****ing ****. Wow...color me surprised. That's why we supplied the bombs to Israel, and we should not be supplying military hardware to Israel. We provide it, that's supplying. This is a stupid rhetoric game you're trying to play for some reason. We should not supply military hardware to Israel, which includes giving it or selling it to them. We should not provide military hardware to Israel.
 
No ****ing ****. Wow...color me surprised. That's why we supplied the bombs to Israel, and we should not be supplying military hardware to Israel. We provide it, that's supplying. This is a stupid rhetoric game you're trying to play for some reason. We should not supply military hardware to Israel, which includes giving it or selling it to them. We should not provide military hardware to Israel.
Get the burr out of your butt. :roll:

There's no reason we shouldnt be selling weapons to Israel or any of our other allies.
 
Beats me. :thinking

During the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2005, Israel received $10.5 billion in Foreign Military Financing—the Pentagon's biggest military aid program—and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms deliveries. The aid figure is larger than the arms transfer figure because it includes financing for major arms agreements for which the equipment has yet to be fully delivered. The most prominent of these deals is a $4.5 billion sale of 102 Lockheed Martin F-16s to Israel.

Foreign Policy In Focus | Who's Arming Israel?
 
Get the burr out of your butt. :roll:

There's no reason we shouldnt be selling weapons to Israel or any of our other allies.

I'm sorry, it's just that I have no patience for childish games, the likes of which you were playing. And there are reasons we shouldn't be selling weapons to Israel. Are we making profit on it? Probably not, then why should I subsidize the Israeli military? I'm not putting my money forth to protect other people. They can work, raise money, and supply their own god dammed military. It's not my place to fund it. Secondly, you know this will get used against civilians at some point and I don't think it should be our place to encourage war against civilians. Israel should fend for itself, it's nothing but a money pit and serves us no purpose. I don't want my money going to them, I don't want my military going to them. If Israel and Palestine have to sit around acting like children, then they can do it without American support of any kind.
 
During the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2005, Israel received $10.5 billion in Foreign Military Financing—the Pentagon's biggest military aid program—and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms deliveries. The aid figure is larger than the arms transfer figure because it includes financing for major arms agreements for which the equipment has yet to be fully delivered. The most prominent of these deals is a $4.5 billion sale of 102 Lockheed Martin F-16s to Israel.

Foreign Policy In Focus | Who's Arming Israel?

It's awesome to is US tax payers to subsidize foreign military. Woot!
 
I'm sorry, it's just that I have no patience for childish games, the likes of which you were playing.
I told you how I interpeted the word, given the context of its use -- and that interpretation is, undeniably, correct.
You can like it or not - I don't care - but either way, get the burr out of your ash.

And there are reasons we shouldn't be selling weapons to Israel. Are we making profit on it? Probably not.
What makes you think that 'we' aren't?
And lets be clear here -- when 'we' sell weapons to Israel, unless it is a sale of items already in inventory, the 'we' that sells them is actually the US company that manufactures said weapons. The profit margin is then based on the terms of the procurement contract.

Secondly, you know this will get used against civilians at some point and I don't think it should be our place to encourage war against civilians.
Killing civilinas in raids against military targets is not 'using them against civilians' and it is not 'making war' against civilians.
So, your concern here is unfounded.

Israel should fend for itself, it's nothing but a money pit and serves us no purpose. I don't want my money going to them, I don't want my military going to them. If Israel and Palestine have to sit around acting like children, then they can do it without American support of any kind.
That might be your opinion, but it doesnt equate to a 'good' (read: rational, supportable) reason.

We have 'supplied' weapons to all of our allies, and have done so for a very long time. Israel is no different than any one of them, and so for your argument to mean anything, you must also then argue against 'supplying' -all- of our allies.
 
During the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2005, Israel received $10.5 billion in Foreign Military Financing—the Pentagon's biggest military aid program—and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms deliveries. The aid figure is larger than the arms transfer figure because it includes financing for major arms agreements for which the equipment has yet to be fully delivered. The most prominent of these deals is a $4.5 billion sale of 102 Lockheed Martin F-16s to Israel.

Foreign Policy In Focus | Who's Arming Israel?
Yes -- the US government sends money to Israel, where it then is used to by US military items from US companies.

That being the case, there is most certainly a 'profit' as the US companies would not sell the items if there were not.
 
Back
Top Bottom