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.

27 of 707 comments (clear)

  1. Hey North Korea! by hnangelo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stop making bombs otherwise we're gonna hit you with the bombs we are making!

    1. Re:Hey North Korea! by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Explain to me please why I should be afraid of a country that's technologically so far inferior to mine that even OUR military can blow the snot out of them? Not to mention that they're half a globe away and have no means to transport any meaningful amount of troops or ordnance anywhere close my country?

      Whether or not they "want" to invade or kill me is moot when they're unable to. The US is able to. Korea is not.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Hey North Korea! by siddesu · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Besides, does it really matter how one dies?

      Apparently, it does, hence the complex international legal treatment of the subject. In general, use of weapons that kill indiscriminately was frowned upon even before the WWII.

      During WWII most warring nations used such weapons to an extent. Regretfully, only those who lost were punished additionally for that. Those who won got a free pass, and that is why we may yet see some WMD usage, especially now that MAD is gone for good.

  2. Re:Wow by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some of our clubs in the past have leveraged highly advanced theortical nuclear physics.

    Now, personally I find this idea pretty impressive, club or not.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  3. Re:Wow by hnangelo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And what makes you think you are not the "mongols" to other nations?

    Peaceful? Who are we talking about again?

  4. Re:Wow by stjobe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "A peaceful and civilized nation"? Is there any nation fitting that description anywhere?

    Sweden, maybe.

    It's certainly not the U.S., what with all the wars it's been involved in in just the last century.

    But you say "allows us" as if the U.S. is exactly what you mean - and the bomb TFA is about is a U.S. weapon - so I must draw the conclusion that you're living under the delusion that the U.S. is "peaceful and civilized", with "the best technology, industry, and economy[!]".

    Please wake up.

    --
    "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
  5. Paranoia and North Korea by Weedhopper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder what what the North Koreas are going to think when they find out about this.

    The tunnel system they had in the border areas is the king showing in their hand. As far as a paranoid North Korean is concerned, that was what assured destruction and kept the US from making the first strike. A nutty concern, of course, but let's face it, those North Koreans are a nutty bunch.

    At some point, they're going to feel really cornered. Then things will get really interesting.

    1. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you really think the generals who run NK really believe their own propaganda about the US invading at any time? They are not nutty, and are actually quite brutally rational. Who else could have gotten sweetheart deal after sweetheart deal from diplomacy? Seriously, look at their history, North Korean diplomats are the Vince Lombardi of the last 20 years. You don't win repeated concessions, break your word, and then go back to the conference table and win again - that's not the actions of a nutbag.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The tunnel system they had in the border areas is the king showing in their hand. As far as a paranoid North Korean is concerned, that was what assured destruction and kept the US from making the first strike. A nutty concern, of course, but let's face it, those North Koreans are a nutty bunch.

      As a guy born in a country whose people were similarly demonized just two decades ago (USSR), I have to chime in.

      North Koreans are not "a nutty bunch". They are people just like me and you, and most of them would rather prefer to be left alone and live their lives in peace. Have a good home, marry a nice guy/girl, have kids, that sort of thing. They most definitely don't dream of nuclear clouds over Manhattan. They might be worried about the kind of thing TFA is about, but mostly because they don't want war (which tends to screw people's lives in a major way, especially when you're on the losing side).

      The "nutty bunch" are the country leaders. And keep in mind that your average North Korean most likely doesn't feel the total, overwhelming kind of love towards his dear Glorious Leader that newspapers tell him he should have. By all accounts from tourists who visited NK, people there know how poor and oppressed they actually are, if not in specific things, then at least in general feeling.

  6. Holey bunkers batman! by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If one of these doesn't do the trick we can make an airplane capable of dropping one, then another on precisely the same spot a minute later. And a third if need be. six hundred feet of penetration! America wins World's Biggest Penatrator award! can you feel that? Take it right in the bunker bab-- sorry. My point is, with this and smart bomb technology at the level America has it, no bunker is safe anymore, not at any depth. This has an immense geopolitical effect. North Korea is going to have to work even harder to hide their programs--and expose them in the process. Iran can no longer feel safe announcing a nuclear bomb should it develope one. And any country that has, in the past, felt less fear of American military might because of conventional equipment being held in deep bunkers will no longer be as eager to put it to the test. With one weapon, America has greatly advanced its interests everywhere the military counts.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by linhares · · Score: 5, Insightful
      nothing like a good arms race to get juices flowing all around. The dinosaurs had this rock for so long because they were peaceful compared to us hairless chimps.

      Human beings seem to be a poor invention. If they are the noblest works of God where is the ignoblest? - Mark Twain

      There are times when one would like to hang the whole human race, and finish the farce. - Mark Twain

      I have no race prejudices, and I think I have no color prejudices or caste prejudices nor creed prejudices. Indeed I know it. I can stand any society. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being--that is enough for me; he can't be any worse. - Mark Twain

      The human race is a race of cowards; and I am not only marching in that procession but carrying a banner. - Mark Twain

      Such is the human race. Often it does seem such a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat. - Mark Twain

    2. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A nuke might do the job, but there are 2 problems:
      1: Technical: A nuke is actually a fairly sensitive weapon, if the soccer ball is disturbed, the nuclear material goes 'fizzle' and just make a big mess. Going through 61m of concrete at Mach 2 tends to be ... disturbing

      2: Political: Even if the problems in "1" can be taken care of, no nation would ever forgive the US for first use of a nuclear weapon. That would then legitimize a nuclear response by the target nation, kill any coalitions, and forever lend backing to rogue nations wanting to make their own nukes. One of the key factors keeping many nations from being too interested is that fact that the nuclear club, since WWII, has shown the restraint of not actually using them.

  7. Re:Wow by oneirophrenos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sweden is a major arms exporter, selling weapons worth of 1.4 billion USD in 2008. So no, they're not any more "peaceful and civilized" as most others.

  8. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aren't you yanks tired of trotting that argument out every time speaks ill of the US, The USSR did far more than the US in defeating the German war machine but I have never heard a Russian use that argument.

    The US needs to have a world war on their own doorstep before their gung ho attitude dies.

    60% tax uncivilised
    Torture civilised

    Can you see what is wrong here?

  9. Re:Wow by stjobe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

    Is it? How do you figure (he queried, knowing the answer)?

    If it weren't for the U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII, Sweden would be speaking German today, so how's about you get some fucking perspective? Is that too much to ask (he queried, knowing the answer)?

    So, instead of flogging that dead horse, how about you tell us WHY you think the U.S. is entitled to the moniker "peaceful and civilized"?

    Peaceful it sure isn't, as illustrated by 30+ wars and so-called "police actions" in the 20th century.

    Civilized? Debatable, with the rampant flaws in its electoral system, judicial system and social welfare system. Murder on the streets, capitalism ensuring the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Corporate money buying laws, buying politicians, buying all the mom and pop's all over the country. Blatant disregard for international treaties and a will and a way to impose this on unwilling nations all around the globe.

    So, tell us WHY the U.S. should be considered "peaceful and civilized", because I sure can't see it.

    --
    "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
  10. Re:Wow by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry but you actually lack proportion and especially perspective. Simple facts: US has engaged in more wars, invaded more countries, dropped more nuclear bombs on cities, has more military bases in foreign countries, and in recent years undermined the international order and stability far more than any other country in the world: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/26024.html

    Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things to like about USA and I agree with most points for example in this article: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmFlMzViMWZmYjY5ZmUzNDg2N2JiMGMxZDllYjA2MmM= . But a peaceful nation who refuses to exercise any semblance of imperialism!? You must be joking.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  11. Not recon...Diplomacy by P0ltergeist333 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know it's been a long time since America has engaged in it, but it's called diplomacy, not recon. And after he likely completely fails, THEN we can blow the shit out of them righteously, if need be, since we at least tried to talk with the crazy SOB. If the Big Dog can't get N Korea to the table, then no one can. Shoot first and ask questions later (like we (America and it's allies) did in Iraq) is something that Barney Fife would do, and only works in mass market action flicks. You see unlike Iraq, N Korea really DOES have WMD (including chemical and biological weapons), and truly IS a threat to the US and it's allies.

    --
    One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
    1. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by aepervius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You see unlike Iraq, N Korea really DOES have WMD (including chemical and biological weapons), and truly IS a threat to the US and it's allies.

      And NK is still standing on their corner undisturbed, whereas Iraq and Afghanistan were steam rolled. So what does this tell me ? If I was a country which *MIGHT* come in friction with the US, I should develop my own WMD ASAP. Here around we call that escalation, and as far as I can tell, with the current strong arming politic of the US, there is no way to avoid it.

      --
      C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
      visit randi.org
    2. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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, the only argument was whether it was worth invading to get rid of them. Also remember that before 9/11, there was major world pressure to remove the sanctions from Iraq.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They're either buried in the desert or were sold off(Iran I'm looking at you).

      Yeah, right. It's a really brilliant idea to sell chemical weapons to the very country you've been using them on just a decade earlier, and which _still_ hates your guts.

  12. Re:Its just a copy of Grand Slam by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My guess is that this is as much a copy of GrandSlam as the B-2 is a copy of Avro Lancaster, only slightly scaled up.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  13. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by tgd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Educated minds already know.

  14. Re:Wow by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A health care system that would be right at home in Blade Runner is uncivilized. Wake me up when the US moves out of the dark ages with it's health care system (for all of it citizens, not just the ones who have money).

    You're also enormously overestimating the effect of the US on the outcome of WW2 - one of the biggest turning points, and perhaps the fulcrum of change for the whole war, occurred in Stalingrad in 1943. I don't remember seeing many pictures of GIs there.

    While the US was no doubt a welcome ally to have during the second world war that helped to bring it to an end more quickly, you were hardly the shining white knight who saved us all from German oppression.

  15. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by domatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can think of no good ways that they are a direct threat but the fact they would trash the northern half of South Korea in the first half hour of a hot war is one deterrent. They've been training massive amounts of long range artillery of Seoul for years and that would be the first thing to go. They could kill more than a "few thousand". The destruction of of Seoul and their likely ability to overrun the DMZ means they can be very very destructive until we start bringing in the carriers and massing in our own troops. We would also have to do this while managing China's agitation and China IS a real threat.

    Incidentally trashing SK is also good for causing some financial turmoil in the rest of the world's market. So it would cost a bit of treasure. At least for awhile.

    China seems to use NK the same way a redneck likes to keep a slobbering pitbull on a chain prominently on display in his back yard. Sure you can just shoot the nasty thing dead but it won't be the end of it and it isn't much use talking to it. The redneck is the one you have to reason with.

  16. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They have nukes, but no way to deploy them

    ICBMs and bombers aren't the only way to deploy nukes. They have merchant ships don't they? They have an intelligence agency don't they?

    The U.S. military could destroy North Korea and be back by lunch if they pulled no punches

    Thanks for demonstrating just how naive you really are. Unless you purpose using nuclear weapons, please explain to me how we could destroy North Korea and be back "by lunch". They have a 1,200,000 man standing army. I don't care how great our advantages in training/tactics and technology are -- we can't simply destroy them and be back home in time for lunch. We would own the oceans and the skies near/over the battlefield and I'm sure the kill ratio would tilt heavily in our favor -- but it would eventually come down to men with rifles and when that happens there's no way to avoid a large number of American casualties. Unless you think we have some sort of technology that magically negates Mr. Kalashnikov's inventions.

    what we are discussing here is whether or not NK has the ability to do REAL damage to the U.S., which I would define as at least knocking the U.S. off of its perch as the dominant superpower

    NK has the ability to do real damage to at least one critical ally (South Korea) of the United States and perhaps another (Japan). If the United States can't be relied on to defend our friends then we will be knocked off that perch. We enjoy the position that we have because of our relationships with our allies. The United States without allies/basing rights/trading partners is a Western Hemisphere power.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  17. Re:Wow by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Leaving aside irrelevant examples from previous generations

    Why are they irrelevant, if they exactly mirror the same procedures and motivations today? They serve as good examples of how tearing down an aggressive, murderous thugocracy like Saddam's doesn't happen in one day, and it takes years for the people who lived under such a regime to develop a sustainable, democratic replacement. Which is exactly why Germany and Japan are worth mentioning. Did you think that those countries had viable economies and nice warm and fuzzy, efficient, level-headed governments running immediately after they were decapitated for their beligerant, expansionist, slaughtering ways? Why are you so anxious to ignore history, instead of learn from it? Ah, I see. Because history suggests that appeasing murderous totalitarians has a way of costing millions of lives, and you'd love to ignore that.

    Who was Iraq threatening when it was conquered, how, and with what?

    Just ask the guys in the patrolling aircraft who were being shot at every week. You know, the patrols that were being flown to keep Saddam from killing hundreds of thousands of more people in the north and south. How? How about with the long range missiles he continued to build? How about with the large stores of nasty stuff like VX that UN inspectors knew to be there, but which were a complete mystery, in terms of their disposition? Saddam's deliberate policy was to make sure that people in Israel and Iran thought he had a large arsenal of viable, ready-to-use WMDs. His conventional forces took a serious spanking when he invaded Kuwait, and he was desparate to be able to project power in non-conventional ways. A hobbled Republican Guard or not, though, it didn't stop them from firing on the very aircraft he agreed to allow to patrol the no-fly zones, and it didn't stop him from making a public display of sending cash to groups sponsoring terrorist bombers and training facilities (on TV, no less!). And of course it didn't stop him from doing international weapons trade with fine partners like North Korea - especially on missle hardware.

    Also along the lines of "with what" - don't forget the millions and millions in cash skimmed off of the Oil For Food program, and used to rebuild his military (and gold plate the doorknobs in more palaces - but that's more of an assault on good taste, despite starving his own people to do it).

    And also along the lines of "how," of course, was the sustained, deliberate obfuscation of weapons destruction records and the blocking of inspectors at every turn. He wasn't just hiding a few things, he was deliberately making it clear that he was hiding things - because he knew that only the knowledge that he had WMDs and the means and willingness to use them could keep him in power.

    Is it better to live in a violent primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate than a stable advanced secular dictatorship?

    Nice false dichotomy, there. Regardless: the primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate you seem to prefer (though it's not obvious why you like the way the Taliban treats, say, women who teach their daughters to read) was exactly the sort of spot where Al Queda found a happy home, and trained thousands of busy little bomb builders and murderers. The people trained in that environment are exactly the folks who, through connections in Pakistan, reach out to and recruit/fund the charming guys who do things like blow up train stations in London or Madrid. The dictatorship you see as the only other option doesn't really seem to be a problem in, say, Iraq. Or Turkey. It's actually dangerous dictatorships like Saddams (now gone) or Iran's (now getting crazier by the minute, and building nukes) that are the very reason to support democracy in places like Iraq. Because only the people in Iran can shut down the crazy mullahs who run that theocratic horror show, and they need to see that honest elections and a constitutional democracy can work.

    I'm pretty sure

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  18. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Each piece (which, BTW NK has had over 50 years to dig in and fortify) only needs to get off a handful of shots to level Seoul (population 10M) and cause appalling civilian casualties when they have 10,000 of them

    They don't have 10,000 pieces of long range artillery. According to this they only have about 10k-11k total pieces of artillery.

    And that's not counting the nukes, which don't need a fancy delivery system since Seoul is only about 40 km from the border.

    They still need some sort of delivery system, unless you think they can slingshot their Fat Man sized bombs 40 kilometers. Besides, nukes are a moot point. If they use one they lose the war and the regime doesn't survive. I'd be more worried about them using one when it became apparent that defeat was inevitable and even at that I'd be worried about them using it in the tactical sense (put one somewhere in the path of an advancing American/ROK formation and wait -- no delivery system needed) than trying to get one into Seoul.

    And that strategy protects the civilian population of Seoul how?

    Who said they were going to make it all the way to Seoul? Did you pay any attention at all to what I said? They are easier to destroy when they are out in the open conducting offensive operations. They set themselves up to be cut off and make their supply lines vulnerable to American/ROK air power.

    NK doctrine [globalsecurity.org] (warning: pdf) is for a quick and decisive victory with overwhelming force concentrated in small areas

    Overwhelming force concentrations play right into our advantages. Go take a look at military history ranging from WW2 to the Persian Gulf and tell me how well massed force concentrations manage against American air power.

    backed by special ops in the enemy rear

    Their special ops units would be a PITA but are not enough in of themselves to be decisive. I would use them against American/ROK airbases if I was the North Koreans but even that is only going to delay the inevitable -- and special ops won't be much use against aircraft carriers or our bases in Japan.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.