Was this a test of the latest version of the U.S. Bunker-Buster?
Assuming that it was an “attack,” the interesting question is whether Israel or the U.S. conducted the attack.
The descriptions of the blast are clearly much more than a missile “shipment;” versus a major munitions depot. Hopefully, it didn’t cause major loss of life.
This second attack, in particular, if confirmed to be an “attack” by Israel or the USA, could be a major event in history – the re-introduction of “pre- emptive warfare” – long banned by International Law. Worse, it constitutes “third party” pre-emptive warfare. Supposedly, Hezbollah is the immediate ‘enemy.’
While there is a somewhat unique public psychological ‘acceptability’ to certain war fighting events; they can easily evolve into “new” global precedents for the general conduct of warfare – without restriction.
The obvious indicator of Israel’s history of “unique” attack(s) is their being evidence of a global public psychological conditioning for the expected attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The current question being whether or not the U.S. will act as the proxy force.
In concert, the world should wonder whether or not there is a new ‘globalist’ warfare mindset; “As-needed Warfare,” via selective surgical military destruction of particular facilities.
In the traditional perspective of war, the effect of re-kindling “pre-emptive warfare” risks creating a license for Iran to launch its own pre-emptive attack on Israel, et al. If that came to pass, the door is also opened to countries such as Syria to join in the fray with a desperate survival mandate – including the use of WMDs.
Right now, Syria can rationally claim that the ‘world’ is obviously intent upon destroying the legitimate government – and prosecuting (killing) its leaders, via selective International Law, anyway. What do they have left to lose?
With the regional political fetish for the destruction of Israel; Israel could face a terrible collective of chaotic and barbaric attacks from all sides.
One certainty before the world is that whoever is holding the political crystal ball isn’t talking. In all likelihood, the crystal ball is seriously clouded by the “fog” of both politics and war.
While there is a somewhat unique public psychological ‘acceptability’ to certain war fighting events; they can easily evolve into “new” global precedents for the general conduct of warfare – without restriction.
The Italians attacked Ethiopia when Hileah Selasseh (sp?) was Emperor. The Italians used poison gas, which was outlawed by the Versailles Treaty. As you recall, the Italians hung Mussolini by his heels. ;)
the re-introduction of “pre- emptive warfare” – long banned by International Law.
When Germany invaded France during WW II, they bypassed the Maginot Line. THAT was pre-empive warfare. But, it was also Hitler's ambition to get back at the French for the loss of WW I. ;)