Pentagon Leak:
US Planning to Use “Mother of All Bombs”
Pat Elder / Military Poisons

(October 18, 2026) — Recent Department of War briefing leaks indicate that the White House has instructed the military to develop strike plans against Iranian energy infrastructure and nuclear facilities. These packages explicitly contemplate the use of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) — the nation’s largest non-nuclear bomb — and revive debates surrounding the B61-12 “tactical” nuclear gravity bomb.

This report briefly evaluates the technical capacities, theater-specific realities, and political-ethical hazards of deploying these munitions. Some military planners express deep skepticism that either weapon can achieve the stated objectives without inducing a catastrophic humanitarian and geopolitical crisis. Others argue it may be worth it.

Let’s contrast the explosive yields, mechanics, and structural target capabilities of the MOAB and the B61-12.

The MOAB (GBU-43/B): Weighing approximately 21,600 pounds, it yields approximately 11 tons of TNT equivalent. It is a conventional, GPS-guided weapon designed to detonate as an airburst a few feet above the ground. It disperses a lethal cloud of aerosolized fuel that combusts to create a massive overpressure wave capable of leveling structures across a one-mile blast radius. In some minds, it is very tempting. The weapon is produced at McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in McAlester, Oklahoma.

The B61-12 Thermonuclear Bomb: The B61-12 is a nuclear gravity bomb equipped with a digital Boeing tail-kit assembly that reduces its circular error probable to under 30 meters. Weighing only 700 to 800 pounds, it features a “dial-a-yield” capability customizable from 0.3 kilotons to 50 kilotons. Unlike the airburst MOAB, the B61-12’s casing allows for ground penetration, turning it into a nuclear earth-penetrator. (Components of the bomb are made in Tennessee, South Carolina, and Missouri, while the finished product is assembled near Amarillo, Texas. The development, refurbishment, and assembly of the B61-12 acts as massive regional financial anchors across their respective states.)

Comparing these yields to the “Little Boy” bomb dropped on Hiroshima (estimated at 15 kilotons) illustrates the immense gap between the two weapons:

• The MOAB is highly destructive for a conventional weapon, yet its 11-ton The Hiroshima bomb was 1,363 times larger.
• The B61-12 at its lowest selectable yield (0.3 kilotons) is equivalent to 300 tons of TNT, making it 27 times more powerful than a MOAB, though still a fraction (0.02) of the Hiroshima bomb. At its highest setting (50 kilotons), a single B61-12 delivers 3.3 times the destructive yield of the Hiroshima bomb.

Cheerleaders for these weapons argue that their sheer psychological and kinetic power could shock Tehran into a rapid surrender or spark a collapse of the Islamic Republic, finally creating a grand victory for Trump.

The White House has focused its rhetoric on hitting heavily fortified underground facilities, specifically the Pickaxe Mountain site (located approximately 1.5 kilometers from the Natanz nuclear complex). However, because the MOAB is an airburst weapon, it does not penetrate earth.

Meanwhile the more attractive B61-12 can penetrate the subsurface.

A critical focus for us must be countering the dangerous allure of the B61-12’s scalable nature. The ability to dial the weapon down to its 0.3-kiloton minimum yield creates an attractive argument for military planners.

Proponents argue that at 0.3 kilotons, the bomb minimizes collateral damage and localized fallout, making it usable as a “clean” tactical option to destroy buried command-and-control bunkers.

The MOAB cannot be deployed via stealth aircraft or standard bombers. Its weight requires it to be pushed out of the cargo bay of a slow, unevasive C-130 transport aircraft. To deploy a MOAB against Iran, the U.S. military must first establish absolute air superiority, completely neutralizing Iran’s air defense networks.

Leaking these strike plans right before the U.S. midterm elections suggests the administration is utilizing high-impact military threats for domestic electoral signaling. National security strategy must not be subverted for domestic political theater.

The MOAB’s massive one-mile blast radius makes discriminating between military targets and nearby civilian populations practically impossible if deployed near urban or commercial zones.

Although designed to penetrate underground to reduce atmospheric fallout, an earth-penetrating nuclear blast vents vast quantities of highly radioactive soil into the air.

We face an unprecedented threat as the administration signals a potential “October surprise” through aggressive, escalatory rhetoric suggesting that greatly escalating the war with Iran is a price worth paying to halt their nuclear program. Trump’s deliberate manufacturing of global chaos and domestic upheaval could be a pretext to destabilize our upcoming elections; by generating widespread alarm—and potentially capitalizing on or staging domestic security incidents—the executive branch may attempt to justify the implementation of a national state of emergency, the invocation of martial law, or the postponement of the election.

Is Pentagon Prepping for Major
Attack After Midterm Elections?
David Swanson / World BEYOND War

(October 16, 2026) — Potential Escalation: Does this military buildup suggest that the Pentagon is preparing for a major escalation against Iran, potentially after the November 3 midterm elections, or could these deployments primarily serve a deterrent purpose?

The U.S. president has indicated desperation and frustration, and has threatened escalation and even nuclear escalation (nothing less would eliminate a whole civilization etc). Continuing the war or ending it as things stand is a political disaster for him. Some leading Democrats and many media outlets, rather than pressing him to end the war, have focused on denouncing what ever deal he might make to do so. Obviously any deal will be worse for Trump and Western oil companies than never having created the war or never having torn up the previous deal.

For the rest of us, and for the people of Iran, and for the rule of law, any deal would be better than more warfare, but when did this president ever care about those things? Of course, he could threaten, but his words lack credibility. Even with a show of force, his lack of credibility, combined with the anger of the Iranian government, could mean that more threats change nothing. So, there is every risk of a major U.S. escalation, relying on U.S. media outlets to pursue ratings and to improve their opinion of a war in proportion to the number of members of the U.S. military killed in it.

• Military Implications:What would a major escalation mean for the U.S. military in terms of personnel, operational commitments, resources and the risk of a prolonged regional war?

It would mean a real struggle in both houses of Congress over both a proposed supplemental spending bill for the war and over the National Defense Authorization Act, with many Congress Members of both parties, but especially Democrats, torn between U.S. public opposition and the militarism of campaign funders, think tankers, lobbyists, media outlets, etc.

• Global Economic Consequences:How could renewed large-scale hostilities affect the global economy, particularly oil prices, international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and global energy markets?

An escalation could fully block the Strait including for fertilizer, eventually leading to famine. It could also, in the long run, further accelerate the non-U.S. world’s shift toward solar and wind energies that cannot be blocked in any waterway — a silver lining, but hardly a compensation to all those who would be killed directly by the war, and hardly a shining commentary on the wisdom of a species that knows what survival requires and won’t move in that direction unless driven by a self-imposed catastrophe.