Slashdot Mirror
30,000-Lb. Bomb On Fast Track For Deployment
coondoggie writes "Published reports today say the Pentagon is rattling swords in the direction of North Korea and Iran by speeding the development a 20-foot, 30,000-lb bomb known as Massive Ordnance Penetrator. This weapon is intended to annihilate underground bunkers and other hardened sites (read: long-range missile or underground nuke development) up to 200 ft. underground. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has overseen the development of this monster since 2007, says it is designed to be carried aboard B-2 and B-52 bombers and deployed at high altitudes, from which it would strike the ground at speeds well beyond twice the speed of sound to penetrate the below-ground target." Reuters has more specifics on the MOP's chances for deployment by 2010, and the detail that the bomb's load of explosives weighs in at 5,300 lbs.
Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) GBU-57A/B
Unfortunately, the US scares me a lot more than North Korea does.
This weapon is pretty much the sequel to the 1940's Tallboy / Grandslam bombs. The bombs designed back then were huge and cumbersome, and were used to destroy hardened targets (sounds familiar...). I was actually wondering when the DoD would come around to re-using this weapon idea for 21'st century warfare. This new weapon will likely be a Tallboy with a JDAM guidance package on it.
I question the wisdom of spending money on such expensive weapons that perform such a singular function as destroying deep, hardened targets. This project seems like the kind of white elephant that the MOAB project was (i.e. another giant weapon that had limited value outside of shock and awe).
For those with historical interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_boy
Actually the OST just forbids warheads in orbit. This lead to the development of the F.O.B.S. by Russia. The SALT II agreement was then instituted, which among other things forbids "systems for placing into Earth orbit nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, including fractional orbital missiles", but that seems targeted at launch vehicles for warheads, which may not include purely passive kinetic weapons.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.
Ehh, why? Do you have any idea what the public services in Sweden are like? No road tolls, free health care and education up to the university level, social services etc. With less taxes, there are less services, which means you need to spend more money to get the same services. The end result is that the poor are left to rot. How is avoiding that uncivilized?
> A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.
Depends. Considering USians can spend that much on healthcare and education, there's not really much difference. They take it away from you one way or another.
> If it weren't for the U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII, Sweden would be speaking German today
No, they wouldnt. Last war Sweden was involved in was 200 years ago. They were neutral in both world wars. One could equally well argue that if it wasnt for the UK and the Commonwealth fighting Japan you guys would be speaking Japanese.
> how's about you get some fucking perspective? Is that too much to ask (he queried, knowing the answer)?
You need to get out of the US and see the world. Or even get out of your white middle class lifestyle and look at the US. It's not all first world love and harmony. Whilst you guys are developing superweapons your literacy rates are 3rd world poor in many areas. Your healthcare system is the worst in the western world. You economy belongs to China. The US is a nice place, but not on the same level as, for example, Sweden.
You have yourself a nice day now.
German? How so? Sweden were neutral. That's where we (Denmark) sent our Jews in WW2 to avoid them being sent to concentration camps.
Afterwards they even managed to keep the Russians out. Sweden has repeatedly shown to be able and willing to spend enough money on defence to keep their freedom. Even now, while the JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon are being held up in budget meetings, because neither the US+allies or the EU can seem to get enough funding together to build a plane, Sweden - a tiny country compared to the US and EU - have built a modern plane of their own.
The "ton" rating they use on nuclear explosives is the TNT equivalent, not the weight. TNT equivalent is an energy measurement (4.184 x 10^9 Joules).
This bomb has 15 tons of mass, but only 2.65 tons of conventional explosives. The Davy Crockett linked by Ihlosi only weighs 51 lbs.
They didn't surrender, so the second one was deemed needed.
Have you ever seen the American casualty count just to take Iwo Jima and Okinawa?
Iwo Jima: 23, 573
Okinawa: 50, 000
Now extrapolate that to an invasion of Japan and you'll see why the US army is still using Purple Heart medals it minted for the planned invasion of Japan. They expected close to 500, 000 casualties to invade Japan and possibly more. Some planners expected it to be be between 1M - 4M American casualties.
Fact is though it was Russia's declaration of war that brought Japan to it's knees. Russian forces combined with American forces would eventually, but not easily, conquer Japan.
But seriously, look into the history of Japan during the war and you'll see why they were such a feared enemy. The bushido code is still alive today, but at that time it was life itself.
Besides, does it really matter how one dies? it doesn't matter if it was by a club or a nuclear weapon. You're still dead.
The US has repeatedly violated the Geneva Convention as well as free trade with Canada(although that's hardly on the same level). The USA was happy to sign those treaties to look good but as soon as it prevents them from doing something they want to do, they are happy to violate it.
F*** YEAH!!
Even north koreans don't respect their government, they fear it. That is a wholly different proposition. Displacement of the North Korean government would probably cause less civilian violence than Iraq because their population is largely of the same ethnic origins. Violence in Iraq is largely sectarian, not just "terrorists" as the US government would have you believe.
However, that doesn't mean the actual act of displacing DPRK's governemnt wouldn't require violence. They are one of the most heavily armed countries in the region. Although an exact figure is not known for military spending, it's believed to be a large percentage of their GDP even in comparison to countries like Iraq and Israel.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
I agree with most of your comment. However, I take issue with this statement:
Shoot first and ask questions later (like we (America and it's allies) did in Iraq)...
I seem to remember something about ten years and 17 UN Resolutions
. I also remember GWB giving Saddam the option of leaving Iraq peacefully before moving in.
The difference between N. Korea and Iraq is that nearly every country in the area wanted Saddam taken out. No one in the area of N. Korea wants the area to be glowing in the dark.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
After all these years, you still live by that fallacy. Try reading the USMOVIC and UNSCUM quarterly report, try paying attention to foreign news media pree 2000 and try paying attention to the leaders in the US.
The entire world thought Iraq maintained its WMD programs and he left the appearance of doing so on purpose. He has said during interviews that he feared attacks from neighboring countries was his reasoning behind it. Not what makes the rest of the world different from the US is that they tackled the problem differently, France used the UN sanctions to scam secret and lucrative oil deals hidden within the UN oil for food program which is one reason why they were objectionable to an invasion (they would lose billions). Russia claimed they were contained and not a problem, Germany was the same with the exception of the UN inspector Hans Blix who contrary to reports submitted to the UN security council under his department, claimed that Iraq had no WMDs but then again, who do you believe, the guy who is anti war and stated something different when war seemed eminent or the guy who spent the better part of ten years claiming Iraq wasn't cooperating, munitions declared destroy were being found, dual use materials were being discovered which weren't reported as per the agreement, chemical processing components actually used in WMD manufacturing were being used in "other chemical processes" at other plants despite a declaration of destruction.
It wasn't until after the war when popular opinion became that there was no WMDs. You can't rewrite history.
But Saddam Hussein was doing his best to convince the world that he did have WMDs. Unfortunately for him, he succeeded. Before the invasion, no one argued that he didn't have any WMDs...
Sorry, but despite the Neo-Con belief that reality is whatever they say it is, this is total fiction. Colin Powell's PowerPoint show didn't change the fundamental position of the U.N. Security Council or the opinion of many Americans.
From Wikipedia (and yes there are foreign press sites to back this up):
"While Colin Powell's statement to the UN may have been accepted as 'proof' by many in the U.S., this was not the case in Europe, where there was widespread skepticism of any links between Iraq and al-Qaeda."
Powell has since expressed shame over the incident.
Ask me about my sig!
It wasn't until after the war when popular opinion became that there was no WMDs. You can't rewrite history.
The fact is that the UN believed that there was not enough evidence to support an invasion. When the US invaded (unilaterally), surprise, surprise, there was no evidence that the invasion was warranted either. Nobody is trying to rewrite history here, you are ignoring it
That wasn't diplomacy, that was browbeating. Slight difference.
What does the phrase "Unconditional Surrender" mean to you?
This is really a reinvention and extension of 1940's British technology. ... It was used with devastating effect against the German U Boat pens, canals, bridges and viaducts where the "earthquake" effect of a deep explosion undermined foundations.
Those U-boat pens had nothing on the massive, layered earth and concrete protection of modern 'hard and deep' targets: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/natanz-imagery.htm
Oh, blah. Japan was already blockaded, utterly defeated, and teetering on the brink of the stone age when it was nuked. The nukes just provided a convenient excuse for them to surrender.
They were NOT GOING to surrender. We would have had to firebomb them or invade if we didn't use the nukes. The entire historical record, including statements from Japanese generals, show this.
Question: to demonstrate this overwhelming new weapon, did the USA have to actually drop it on two Japanese cities?
Yes. They were not going to surrender after the first one, by their own statements.
Wouldn't dropping one in the entrance to Tokyo Bay have done the same job?
Nope. Not only did we need to show the power, but show that we were willing to drop it on civilians, and do it more than once.
Well, that's ancient history. How many sovereign nations has North Korea invaded recently?
If we let them, they very well might invade ROK, and they actively threaten Japan regularly. And I only advocate attacking DPRK if they demonstrate they are likely to attack (either Japan or ROK, most likely).
It's like Iran. Almost NO ONE in government, of either party, is in favor of attacking Iran, UNLESS and UNTIL they are directly threatening us or our allies. Same thing with DPRK.
If your counter is "Only because they're being forcibly prevented", then that only serves to highlight that North Korea can be forcibly prevented from empire building.
We've only slowed them down: we have not stopped them, obviously, since they've made progress on their nukes and rockets and have engaged in illicit nuclear arms trading.
What's stopping the USA?
Our principles. We have had many chances to engage in empire building, from WWII through Korea and Central America and the Middle East, and we've not done so, because we don't want to.
Sorry but you are just poorly informed, which is not surprising since this issue has been avoided by the media and politicians ever since 1945. Japan has already made several attempts to surrender before the bombs were dropped, and under pretty much the same terms as those that were eventually accepted: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
"Proportion" a 20-foot, 30,000-lb bomb
Yes, that's the idea. Do you have a problem with the math? That size bomb is needed for this sort of application. It is proportional.
"Perspective" American
Nope. Historical. The Mongols overran peaceful countries and took them over. The U.S. has NEVER done that. Ever.
If you think about it carefully, I think you will find that you missed hnangelo's point.
If you re-read what I wrote, and understand it, then you will find I did not.
We seem to butt heads a lot, so understand that I am not trying to flame you. You make the case for WMD sound like it was a slam dunk. I have read the intelligence reports, and worked in related fields through the 90s and into 2002-3. There was considerable debate as to the WMD validity, even in our own intelligence communities prior to the war and from the late 90s. The intelligence report to congress included this debate, but the administration played down the debate and spun it to look like the WMD was a much more likely case than it really was. Unfortunately for all of us congress for the most part simply accepted the Cheney/ Rumsfeld spin. You are correct in asserting that it wasn't until later (there still is no after for this war) that public opinion became that there were no WMDs.
First, I don't trust the USSBS conclusions. The US Army Air Force had a lot of incentive to show that the non-nuclear strategic bombing worked, and it's one survey's opinion lacking a good deal of modern scholarship. Further, the Japanese had incentive to hold on and see how the next accepted strategy (make invading the Home Islands prohibitively expensive) worked.
Second, the US knew that the Japanese were interested in a peace based on the status quo, and evacuation (on Japanese terms) of Japanese-occupied areas, with Japan to try its own war criminals. The Allies did not find this acceptable, and it would likely have resulted in massive casualties in China, the East Indies, and other highly populated Japanese-held areas. Heck, Unit 631 released plague-bearing rats in Manchuria as they moved out.
Third, the US knew that any attempts to negotiate something the Allies might possibly accept were being shot down by the Japanese government. The Japanese asked the Soviets about being a go-between for proposals, and never followed up on that. The Japanese ambassador to the Soviet Union urged the Japanese government to accept any possible terms, including the Potsdam Declaration ones (which were the ones imposed), and was told not to pursue that. Read Downfall, by Richard Frank, for a good account of what the US knew at the time.
Fourth, my best estimates are that the Japanese were killing between one hundred thousand and two hundred thousand Chinese civilians a month, in various ways. I have no reason to believe this was much diminished in 1945. That means that about two months of additional occupation of China would cause roughly as many deaths, likely more, as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This does not count other highly populated areas.
Fifth, the Japanese were singularly unprepared for winter, having massive economic disruption and crop failures. Any delay in Japanese surrender was going to kill a whole lot of Japanese, and I've seen precisely no claims that the Japanese were going to surrender almost immediately as a result of US action without the nukes. Remember that any areas occupied by the Soviets were in real trouble because of this.
Sixth, the Japanese government was preparing to throw the entire local population into invasion defense. Schoolgirls were being trained with bamboo spears. The civilian casualties in an Allied invasion would have been extremely high, vastly greater than those from the nuclear bombings. Note that "Allied" here includes the Soviet Union, which was making plans to invade the northernmost home island. They weren't very good at this oceanic invasion stuff (compare the problems invading the Kuriles islands), but they would have made a fairly large part of Hokkaido into a battlefield.
These are some of the reasons why I think the nuclear bombs were the right thing to do. Dropping them probably resulted in a net lessening of Japanese civilian deaths, and virtually certainly a lessening of overall civilian deaths. There was perhaps a better course of action, but we can't be at all sure of that even now, and I don't criticize historical decisions unless I know something would have been better.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Debate towards the validity of the WMDs isn't really the issue here. It's the concept that is incorrectly repeated that only the US thought they were there or that it was real that I am concerned with.
I'm not saying that there wasn't skeptics, I'm saying that every major government in the world had intelligence stating that Iraq most likely did have WMDs or has failed in their disarming obligations pressed from the previous war. About the closest to denial at the time before war was eminent would be Russia who said they have seen no creditable evidence one way or the other but then in turn signed onto the UN resolution 1441 stating that Iraq had not complied with thier obligations under the armistice agreements ending the 1990 war. Russia was pushing for increased intense inspections citing that Iraq was contained and not a threat.
The problem was that no government would claim that Iraq had no WMDs nor did they attempt to until after war was eminent or already started. The governments that did were knee deep in scams surrounding the sanctions implemented by the UN in an attempt to force compliance. Stating something contrary 6 months later does not mean you were against it 6 or 8 months before yet people want to pretend that earlier positions were never present. Now, I admit that this doesn't make it a slam dunk for the case of WMDs but it wasn't blindingly obvious that they weren't there at the time the war was being pushed. Had those claims been made 6 months earlier or a year earlier, war would have not been an option.
In fact, I believe that if the oil for food scams wouldn't have been perpetrated by France and the corruption in the UN wasn't prevalent, that Iraq would have satisfied his obligations long before war was an issue too.
First off, let me make point you to what I actually said:
N. Korea (sic) truly IS a threat to the US and it's allies.
You attack an ally of the US, and you are attacking the US... period.
Chemical weapons:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUST32127420090618
Don't like Reuters?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3440771.stm
Don't like the BBC?
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2009/07/20097165415127287.html
They have had the ACTUAL (not imagined, like Iraq) capability to build and explode a nuclear device.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/25/north-korea-hiroshima-nuclear-test
Last, but certainly NOT least Delivery technology: (from Wiki)
# Nodong-1 â" larger and more advanced Scud modification. Liquid-fueled, road-mobile missile with a 650 kg warhead. First production variants had inertial guidance, later variants featured GPS guidance, which improves CEP accuracy to 190â"250 m.[43] Range is estimated to be between 1,300 and 1,600 km.
# Nodong-2 â" further improved variant of the Nodong-1, successfully tested in 2006. Range is estimated at about 2,000 km.
# Taepodong-1 â" two-stage Scud-derived missile. Has been tested with a satellite payload in 1998. The satellite failed, but the missile apparently flew without significant problems, therefore it is North Korea's longest-ranged operational missile with its 2,500 km maximum range. According to some analysts, the Taepodong-1 could have an intercontinental range of nearly 6,000 km with a third stage and a payload of less than 100 kg.[44][45]
# Musudan-1 â" a modified copy of the Soviet R-27 Zyb SLBM. No tests of this missile have ever been made, but it is known to be operationally deployed. Most probably it is used as a first stage to the Taepodong-2. The missile, also known under the names Nodong-B, Taepodong-X and BM25, has a range of 4,000 kilometers.
# Taepodong-2 â" North Korea's domestic ICBM attempt. First test occurred in 2006, when the missile failed 40 seconds after launch. On April 5, 2009, a space booster variant was launched with a satellite on board. As with in 1998, the satellite itself failed to reach orbit, but the missile flew several thousand kilometers before falling in the Pacific Ocean. Estimates of the range vary widely â" from 4,500 to 10,000 kilometers (most estimates put the range at about 6,700 km).
I'm not going to bother with multiple citations, since if you haven't started investigating on your own, then you're a zealot, and no amount of facts will convince you.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF