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.
a beowulf cluster of these!
:<
Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) GBU-57A/B
If the average "Please do not ride the bomb" sign is approximately 1 ft square, would this sign be scaled to 20ft square on a bomb this size? Is the sign always proportional to the payload?
A hundred thousand years of human technology, and we're supposed to be impressed at the latest version of the club. Wake me up when the human race does something impressive.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Personally, I'm still sniggering at it being called a "penetrator". Compensation much? Especially given that for hardened targets deep underground, kinetic bombardment is probably a more appropriate approach.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Stop making bombs otherwise we're gonna hit you with the bombs we are making!
Evidently, the North Koreans have underground tunnels straight out of LOTRs.
Big job, big bomb.
Kill the mole people!
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
You don't understand - you call it your club, the enemy calls it his "Massive Ordinance Penetrator". We both know what you're really referring to and referring to it as heavy as a club, or a massive penetrator doesn't change the fact that you need little blue pills.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
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.
I sure hope they are not going to MOP the floor with an unfriendly neighbouring country.
+ 3.14 Transcendental
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.
To sell it as a tool to avoid asteroids to destroy Earth, more politically correct... and Hollywood can make a movie too.
Dear
30,000 pounds is 15 tons. That's 1000 times less than even a very small nuke.
This is really a reinvention and extension of 1940's British technology. Barnes Wallis (of the bouncing "Dam Buster" bomb fame) designed a 5 tonne bomb (Tallboy) in 1943. The larger 10 tonne bomb (Grand Slam) was introduced in early 1945. It was dropped from a Lancaster bomber (by 617 squadron - the Dam Buster squadron) from about 20,000 ft and was close to sonic (320 m/s) when it hit the ground. It was designed as a penetrator, only detonating when well underground. 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. The Grand Slam used 4,144 kg of explosives (Torpex)which is considerably more than the heavier bomb proposed by the US DoD with an earth penetration design depth of 40m. I would imagine that the higher impact speed of the US bomb requires a much stronger casing, but I am surprised at the small ordinance load. It is interesting to note that (as with much British technology) design data for the Grand Slam was shared with the US and a US version was made, but not (as far as I am aware) used in WWII. RobHart
it's a 30,000 lb bomb with 5,000 lb of explosives, that hits its target (after being dropped from very high altitudes) over twice the speed of sound. What exactly do you think kinetic bombardment is?
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
...during WW2 ? I'm quite sure I've heard something about Lancasters modified to carry 10000kg bombs against big German u-boot & V2 bunkers. Those bombs were also ment to penetrate whatever they hit and explode. They were called "Earthquake bombs", there were two types: "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam".
Personally, I'm still sniggering at it being called a "penetrator". Compensation much?
Um ... no. You realize "penetrate" has meaning completely separate from sexual acts, right?
Especially given that for hardened targets deep underground, kinetic bombardment is probably a more appropriate approach.
I see. Maybe the Pentagon should hire you instead.
This is important since all the receiving parties are using the metric system, and you wouldn't want them to be confused about this.
"Published reports today say the Pentagon is rattling swords in the direction of North Korea and Iran by speeding the development a 6 m, 14968 kg 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 61 m 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-2.21 and B-53.638 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 2404 kg.
30,000 pounds is 15 tons. That's 1000 times less than even a very small nuke.
Err ... no. _Very small_ nukes go down well into the sub-kiloton range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
"Granted, this doesn't seem that difficult"
I think you are missing the signifgance of the 200ft claim that others have pointed out.
"whenever I see a statement from the military (any military) I automatically question its truthfulness."
Agreed, but the only reason to lie about such a "game changer" would be if the US knew, (say via supercomputer sims), that this avenue of bunker busting research was a dead-end. It seems unlikely but if it was the case then the "200ft" lie would be a tempting red-herring for other nations BBB's (Bunker Busting Boffins).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
Um ... no. You realize "penetrate" has meaning completely separate from sexual acts, right?
[Beavis and Butthead style laughter]
You said "sexual".
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
They should write it's power output in terms of sun, in which case it looks really puny next to nuclear. For example, the Tsar Bomba (largest human utilized explosive device, which was detonated at half the possible yield to prevent fallout) actually got into whole number percentages:
"Since 50 Mt is 2.1*10^17 joules, the average power produced during the entire fission-fusion process, lasting around 39 nanoseconds, was about 5.4*10^24 watts or 5.4 yottawatts. This is equivalent to approximately 1.4% of the power output of the Sun.[9]" (Wikipedia).
A 30,000lb bomb with no explosives. An inert device.
Basically, a bullet from space.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Yes, yes I do. Likewise, you realise that my sense of humour (like most people here) thrives on double entendre, especially where the second meaning is sexual in nature? As for the Pentagon hiring me, nah. If they actually used something I did to kill someone I'd be pretty sad. :(
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
P.S. Penetrate. Like with a penis. Heh. Hehehehehh.
...heh.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
This kind of bomb is pure stupidity. Remember the MOAB? Pure stupid. This is macho jock thinking, military style. "Mine's bigger than yours!" Pure political bullshit.
We already have bombs big enough to destroy almost anything above ground. As for underground targets - well, I've been convinced by a number of people that even a nuke may not take out a hardened underground bunker if it's buried 100 feet or more. Both Korea and Iran have terrain in which a bunker might be much deeper than 500 feet.
Follow the link, and read the first sentence: "the Pentagon is rattling swords". That one phrase in the first sentence sums it all up.
Well, I guess they have to make up for other inadequacies in some way.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Let them fix their economy first; military whatevers are not the solution to that.
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.
In any case I see no reason not to bomb the NK rulers to ashes. That seems the only language that they understand. The only problem I can see is that the defenders of democracy and human rights in Kremlin and in Beijing have nukes at their disposal and they seem to be good friends with Iran and NK which means that US military would have t o deal with all of them at once which I doubt it will dare do.
Ever heard of a kinetic penetrator? It is a type of ammunition used in the main gun of tanks. It contains no explosives, but rather a very dense, arrow-like projectile which uses its high speed (and thus its kinetic energy) for all its destructive power. Kinetic energy weapons are generally weapons that rely solely on their kinetic energy for their destructive power.
Other more sci-fi types of kinetic energy weapons would be rail guns and coil guns.
Just what is a "civilian bunker"? Does someone sell tickets to wars and battles now, and the civilian bunkers are where all the spectators sit? I see two possibilities here. Either, A: you have no idea what you are talking about, or B: you didn't say what you meant to say. Please, if there is a third possibility, educate me.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I don't think the Pentagon can win this "arms race" the conventional way. Even if they develop this ordinance, all the Iranians or N. Koreans have to do is add a few meters of armored concrete on top of their existing underground structures. Sure, expensive, but it doesn't compare to the R&D cost to develop a larger ordinance, including guidance and.. well, at a certain size it will become impossible to deliver to destination.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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
It's a club with wheels!!
Quack, quack.
30000 lbs ... how many obese Americans does it take to reach 30000lbs? Can you fit this many on a jumbo jet?
Simple math would have given you the answer. Assume a very modest 200 lbs per person, 150 people would weigh 30000 lbs. That many will easily fit on a jumbo jet, with plenty of space left.
America's what would happen if you put Australia into a blender and then mixed it with Canada.
Quack, quack.
There are stories that are coming from Burma/Myanmar in which North Korea is helping them to create their own production line. This same country that has done all that it can to hold its citizen back in terms of education, had Russia bring in a 10MW reactor.Burma's explanation for it: Nuclear Medicine. That country is nearly 50 years behind in primary medicine and they are claiming that they want a monster reactor for Nuclear Medicine. Well, nice. Of course, the reactor is being buried in the hillside with Russia and North Korea's help. And apparently, North Korea has been busy helping these ppl. That is why NK absolutely did not want us to board that ship. Apparently W's admin KNEW that Burma was doing this and did nothing about it.
Now, we may be forced down the road to either blow nukes or blow a conventional bomb to destroy these bunkers. Which would you prefer that we do?
What does bother me, is why are we talking disarmament? China is actively building new launch vehicles and there is overwhelming evidence that they have started up new production lines of nuke warhead. They are KNOWN to have at least 600 warheads, but there are some indications that they have over 1000.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Evelyn Waugh - Letter to His Wife - 31st May 1942
No.3 Commando was very anxious to be chums with Lord Glasgow, so they offered to blow up an old tree stump for him and he was very grateful and said don't spoil the plantation of young trees near it because that is the apple of my eye and they said no of course not we can blow a tree down so it falls on a sixpence and Lord Glasgow said goodness you are clever and he asked them all to luncheon for the great explosion.
So Col. Durnford-Slater DSO said to his subaltern, have you put enough explosive in the tree?. Yes, sir, 75lbs. Is that enough? Yes sir I worked it out by mathematics it is exactly right. Well better put a bit more. Very good sir.
And when Col. D Slater DSO had had his port he sent for the subaltern and said subaltern better put a bit more explosive in that tree. I don't want to disappoint Lord Glasgow. Very good sir.
Then they all went out to see the explosion and Col. DS DSO said you will see that tree fall flat at just the angle where it will hurt no young trees and Lord Glasgow said goodness you are clever.
So soon they lit the fuse and waited for the explosion and presently the tree, instead of falling quietly sideways, rose 50 feet into the air taking with it 1/2 acre of soil and the whole young plantation.
And the subaltern said Sir, I made a mistake, it should have been 7 1/2 not 75. Lord Glasgow was so upset he walked in dead silence back to his castle and when they came to the turn of the drive in sight of his castle what should they find but that every pane of glass in the building was broken.
So Lord Glasgow gave a little cry and ran to hide his emotions in the lavatory and there when he pulled the plug the entire ceiling, loosened by the explosion, fell on his head.
This is quite true.
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.
At some future time, we may need those. Obviously once used, they will be worthless. The reason is that all other countries will change their tactics. At this point, it allows us to hit bunkers hard that are holding ICBM/Nuke Tipped. That is needed for countries that have 500+ bunkers, rather than 10.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I always thought the 2012 thing was a hoax. but not anymore.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Yeah, you're right. And 9/11 didn't happen, neither did NK's nuclear tests, nor their missile test. But Kimmie is a reasonable guy, he wouldn't do anything stupid. And those nice well adjusted al Qaeda guys, they just want to be loved.
It's actually a copy of the Ho-229/Go-229, only slightly scaled up. *SCNR*
Politics, threats, aggression, cowardice, and war are as much part of what makes us human as cooperation, kindness, and empathy. It's the struggle between the two that makes us human and drives progress. Without one or the other, we'd be mindless drones or breeding rabbits.
Inquiring minds want to know.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
LOL....I can see N Korea launching one of these from a plane......it will be like the Coyote dropping the anvil from a balloon. Geez......North Korea & Iran spending tons on crap like these, while 99% of their country starves.
This thing is supposed tp go through 60m of 5000psi reinforced concrete, then explode. In a room full of gas centrifuges spinning at over 100K rpm the explosion would be redundant.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Please STFU and read a book. May i suggest the following:
"June 22, 1941" Soviet Historians And The German Invasion - Vladimir Petrov
800 Days On The Eastern Front: A Soviet Soldier Remembers World War II - Nikolai Litvin
The 900 Days: The Siege Of Leningrad - Harrison E. Salisbury
The End Of The Third Reich - Vasili I. Chuikov
From Stalingrad To Pillau: A Red Army Artillery Officer Remembers The Great Patriotic War - Isaak Kobylyanskiy
The Great Patriotic War - Peter G. Tsouras
Harvest Of Despair: Life And Death In Ukraine Under Nazi Rule - Karel C. Berkhoff
Island Of Fire: The Battle For The Barrikady Gun Factory In Stalingrad November 1942 - February 1943 - Jason D. Mark
Ivan's War: Life And Death In The Red Army 1939-1945 - Catherine Merridale
The Last Six Months: Russia's Final Battles With Hitler's Armies In World War II - S.M. Shtemenko
Moscow 1941 - Stalingrad 1942 Recollections Stories Reports - Vladimir Sevruk
The Road To Berlin: Continuing The History Of Stalin's War With Germany - John Erickson
The Road To Stalingrad: Stalin's War With Germany Volume I - John Erickson
Russia At War 1941-1945 - Alexander Werth
The Russian Front 1941-1945 - Bob Carruthers and John Erickson
The Russian Version Of The Second World War: The History Of The War As Taught To Soviet Schoolchildren - Graham Lyons
The Siege Of Leningrad 1941-1944: 900 Days Of Terror - David M. Glantz
Stalin's Guerillas: Soviet Partisans In World War II - Kenneth Slepyan
Stalingrad: How The Red Army Triumphed - Michael K. Jones
Tank Rider: Into The Reich With The Red Army - Evgeni Bessonov
Through The Maelstrom: A Red Army Soldier's War On The Eastern Front, 1942-1945 - Boris Gorbachevsky
The Unknown War - Harrison E. Salisbury
Voices From Stalingrad - Jonathan Bastable
Without Vodka: Adventures In Wartime Russia - Aleksander Topolski
Writer At War: Vasily Grossman With The Red Army 1941-1945 - Anthony Beevor and L. Vinogradova
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
So... we can use a jumbo jet full of fatasses as a kinetic bunker-buster?
I was amused to see that Reuters, of all organizations, reports that 21,000-pounds is equal to 9.5 million kg. I guess it's safe to assume that someone who went to a US high school made the conversion.
(It's actually 9.5 million g, or 9500 kg.)
How could there be any sexual connotation to a massive penetrator exploding deep inside their hidden tunnels? I mean really, this is serious business we're talking about here.
So is this better than the "Rods from God" ballistically launched sub-orbital titanium rods (as large as a telephone pole I've heard) at penetrating bunkers?
They don't need a billion dollar manned bomber to deliver it (only a $10 million ICBM). Delivery time is faster too. Accuracy I'm not so sure about. Probably more impressive watching it come down as well (how many weapons would you see that had a reentry trail behind it AND lived to talk about it afterwards?).
five second kinetic penetrator
Hey, that was my nickname in high school!
Fixed that for you ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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)?
The USSR and UK bore the brunt of WWII. Esp. the USSR. They are the ones who actually went out and fought the Germans en-masse, developed much of the technology, and did most of the manufacturing. The USA was "the arsenal", but it's debatable if Germany would have been victorious over the UK and the USSR even if the USA didn't step in. The British navy controlled the seas, and the USSR was too big, too cold, and there were too many of them. They also fought tenaciously.
The US involvement in WWI was late in the game, and after Germany was doomed. Like when the USSR declared war on Japan in 1945.
You talk about fucking perspective - you'll find it in history books.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
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.
Citation needed. I say that because it appears the parent post has ignored the United States Army Air Forces' own Strategic Bombing Survey, which produced a report that stated, among other things, the following (boldface emphasis mine):
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion (of Japan) had been planned or contemplated.
Further, it is clear that leaders in the US had signs of this before the Strategic Bombing Survey was completed. Japanese codes had been cracked, and messages were being intercepted. The Allies knew that the Japanese ambassador in Moscow had been ordered to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had been talking about surrendering a year before that, and the Emperor himself had started suggesting in June of 1945 that alternatives to fighting to the end should be considered.
Since the parent post claims it was Russia entering the war that "brought Japan to its knees," I can't forget to mention the following interesting fact: the Russians had agreed to declare war on Japan 90 days after the end of the European war. The actual date of the end of the European war meant that the Russians were due to declare war on Japan on the 8th of August of 1945.
Oopsie! Damn facts get in the way of a good justifyin'!
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
Just think though, with a few strategically placed drops of these around the world, ....we should be careful not to let these get into the wrong hands!!!
I wonder if you could CRACK the exoshell the earth is made of...and break it in 2?
They do it with buildings, just take out a few pillars properly, and the whole thing comes down
why do people always seem to make newer and bigger bombs. i say if you want to make a bomb make a Fluorine bomb. that way you can really and metaphorically drop the F-bomb on people.
Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
maybe I'm naive, but i'm pretty impressed that somthing can get thru 10s if not 100s of feet of concrete.
HOwever, - do we have independent verififcation of pentagon claims ?
maybe the thing doesn't really work, like Postol's study of patriot missles in teh 1st gulf war.
I know it's been a long time since America has engaged in it, but it's called diplomacy, not recon
Yeah, how many decades of failed diplomacy with North Korea or Iran do you possibly need? I would say that at some point, when someone says they are going to blow you away, and that their God will destroy you, you just have to take them at face value.
With that said....
Frankly, I don't even think South Korea is worth America's defense. But, if you want to put American cities on the nuclear table to protect the independence of South Korea, thanks to the efforts of W, we are now closing in on technologies needed to intercept their missiles. I've even written about that previously Here.. And, from a conventional standpoint, North Korea has the economy of Vermont, in this little mashup here It's their northern ally, China, that is the problem.
This is my sig.
I doubt it's a weapon to repel pirates.
Please, check out what North Korea really is.
First off, there's really no need for the USA to involve itself in another war with China to defend South Korea. South Korea is arguably simply not worth it. I've argued that previously on my own site.
Secondly, North Korea has the economy of Vermont. Every Satellite picture shows an army that is in shambles, a Navy that is barely afloat, massive prison camps, little electricity, not enough food, and that's North Korea. If it were just them, we could flatten them from the air with impunity, and probably shoot down all of the nukes as they were in the air. It's China that is the problem. North Korea is just a loony Chinese puppet and so you have to really view any action against North Korea as an act against China. That killed 50,000 Americans in the 1950s, and a replay would probably kill a lot more.
I just don't think South Korea is worth it. Samsung makes some good screens, but its not worth Chinese nukes coming down on my head.
This is my sig.
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!
What relevance does "skepticism of any links between Iraq and al-Qaeda" have to the belief by most people pre-2003 that Saddam Hussein had WMDs?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
it's a 30,000 lb bomb with 5,000 lb of explosives [ ... ]
A few years ago it would have been impressive, but since the "crisis", 30 000 lb is, like, what, 100, maybe 150 kg ? Ok, it's gotten a bit better now, make it 200...
It's like when I had to go shoot a few scenes in Italy a few years back and I came to a toll booth on the highway and they asked for a few million lira. So I went "eeep, millions ! what am I going to do ! I'll never be able to afford this ! I'll be stuck here ! and I won't be able to ship my shots ! and .. uh wait, that's 3 euros (or whatever it was at the time), never mind.
Those stupid low scale units are *really* annoying.Get with the times already.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
30,000 lbs? Does it have to explode at all when dropped from a plane?
90% of their airfields, grid electricity, command and control, fixed missile launchers and rail lines would be down.
After that it gets ugly, and as long-term as Kim is stubborn.
I just hope our first target is that affront to architecture, the Ryugyong Hotel.
TFA says the bomb hits at twice the speed of sound. I always thought terminal velocity was about 125 mph though I did some reading and it turns out that terminal velocity depends on density. Well duh, I mean a packing peanut isn't very dense and falls much slower than a pencil, but somehow I thought all these years without thinking about it that 'terminal velocity' for reasonably dense things was a constant. I just never thought about it, but now I feel quite stupid. Anyways, the point I was getting to was that maybe they should drop slugs of metal from space with a heat sheild or something to prevent them from burning up in the atmosphere. That would be kewl, huuhuhuh
...
Don't need a huge bomb, Hit the ventilation and entrance shafts, as well as communication links with existing 500 pounders vs. 5,000+ pounders.
Otherwise useful for mining coal.
Her lips were softer than a duck's bill, but her quacks
The real question is: Can I get this as a killstreak in Call of Duty 6?
...it is designed to be carried aboard B-2 and B-52 bombers...
Do we use the B-1 for anything?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
So... we can use a jumbo jet full of fatasses as a kinetic bunker-buster?
Ummm ... Wan't that what they use on the WTC?
Too soon? :)
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Now that the word is out of the capabilities everyone will just build 600 feet underground. Back to the drawing board bomb makers!
The original post states that the bomb would hit the ground "well beyond twice the speed of sound". I would have thought that even a sleek, heavy object would reach terminal velocity due to air resistance before reaching such speeds. Assuming that it were dropped from 30,000 feet, how fast would it be moving when it hit the ground? (Assuming that it was about 3 ft in diameter and 20 ft long from the information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator) Thanks!
Is a bomb like this actually more effective than precision targeting an underground bunker's entrances/exits, exposed infrastructure intakes, and carpet bombing the surrounding area, including aerial delivery of mines (to inhibit continued egress/ingress, repair, rescue, etc)?
I also wonder if you couldn't deliver some kind of acid or other caustic solution that would eat into a bunker, but I suppose that might not be practical.
"Granted, this doesn't seem that difficult" I think you are missing the signifgance of the 200ft claim that others have pointed out.
Quite possibly. In my mind, all you've got to do is make it 30,000 pounds and BOOM! But perhaps it's more complex than that - I dunno, I've never done anything close to building a bomb.
Agreed, but the only reason to lie about such a "game changer" would be if the US knew, (say via supercomputer sims), that this avenue of bunker busting research was a dead-end. It seems unlikely but if it was the case then the "200ft" lie would be a tempting red-herring for other nations BBB's (Bunker Busting Boffins).
Either that or it's running behind schedule, and they want to intimidate our adversaries now. I recall certain members of the military stated that we wouldn't go to the moon in hundreds of years (this was about 6-12 months before we did). Misinformation is just part of military planning and execution.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Likewise, you realise that my sense of humour (like most people here) thrives on double entendre, especially where the second meaning is sexual in nature?
It wasn't funny. It's a normal name for this type of munition, and the jokes have all been done decades ago. But whatever, to each his own.
As for the Pentagon hiring me, nah. If they actually used something I did to kill someone I'd be pretty sad. :(
Wouldn't you be more sad if the Pentagon couldn't hire good people and your friends and family died because of it?
If the U.S. had killed Osama when we had the chance, long before 9/11/2001, I think that would've been a very good thing.
Killing people in this world, for our defense, is unfortunately necessary. That's not to say everything the Pentagon does is good and right, of course. But killing is not all bad.
Without capitalism you have the poor and the rich party elite. The rich directly enact the laws.
Pick any developed nation with a relative lack of capitalism, China, Cuba, North Korea, USSR, etc., and tell me how they are/were doing.
All of them to some extent have capitalism flowing underneath the official communist economy. Some have only a little like North Korea and they are hurting. China is doing well because of a large capitalistic economy under the communist veneer.
Notice also you don't see protests for rights in NK, but you do in China. Capitalism goes hand in hand with freedom because capitalism is freedom.
Unfortunately people can and do abuse their freedoms, but they can be dealt with individually.
In Korea, only old people use conventional weapons.
No sig today.
Penetration: 130 ft (40 m) of moderately hard rock
They can only get it within 40m of the stage? And only for moderately hard rock? If they just had some Floyd fans deliver the payload they could save themselves a lot of trouble.
My webcomic
Now, if it had a couple thousand more pounds, we'd have a bona fide 16 ton weight.
Too bad he Pythons never thought of it exploding, though...
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
>Any such implosion in the value of the dollar would seriously screw with the US economy.
.. :-)
.. so the ripples would spread to the rest of the world if the US economy cratered. But .. and this is a good but, why is it that China, while holding such large US denominated debt is also initiating foreign exchanges in yuans ? you dont actually think they're stoopid enough to devalue their US reserves do you ? .. or will they be dumping them in an orderly fashion since US currency is devaluing as we speak ? By the way, who do you think it would benefit to devalue such a large amount of IOUs ?
There. Fixed that for ya
OK, ok
Orbit to ground bombing (AKA "Rods from God") has been explored by the science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle. Project Thor is just a concept for now but it seems like it would work at least in theory. Here are a couple pictures, pic 1, pic 2, and a second article The Rods from God .
I think you missed my point. I wasn't comparing the systems in USA and Sweden and saying the USA is better (except to the extent that the overall taxes are lower) - I think they are both bad and unfair. Still let me answer some of the points:
Sweden has many government services.
Well, it better. If I put 60% of my money into something I would expect to get at least something back. However, are those services worth it to you? Would you buy those same things if you had the money you earned and you had a choice of what to buy with it instead of that choice being made by the government? Maybe in Sweden everybody agrees on what their money should be spent on and don't want any personal choice in the matter (except voting for those who spend it for them), but I very much doubt it.
In the USA somebody who is rich and doesn't do any paperwork easily goes over 50% when its all added up
It is unlikely that anybody in the US is paying over 50% and only the people in states with high taxes such as California are getting close to that. In my state, which has no state tax, even the wealthiest will pay at most 30% in federal income tax and social security, and the rest (sales, property, inheritance taxes etc) obviously depend on the individual circumstances .
My property taxes are HIGH and the work over the last 20 years put into my house by MYSELF is costing me a ton of money everytime I have to let the city inspect and rate my house every 5 years. Oh, they NEVER lower the value; I buried the pool I DUG with a shovel and I'm STILL paying for it.
Ok, and I agree that this is a horrible situation and it should end. What's your point? You seem to argue in favor of taxes one moment and then against them the next.
Many college grads have a house worth of debt now; where in other nations college is subsidized.
Yes but you have to look at the both sides of the equation. Aren't people who don't go to college, who don't send their children to college or perhaps don't have any children being victimized by being forced to pay for other people's education? Why shouldn't those who use a service pay for it, as opposed to everybody.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Obviously the total mass of the bomb puts an upper limit on its "TNT equivalent", assuming that whatever explosives it contains are roughly equivalent to TNT. My point was that this bomb is much less powerful than even the smallest nuke. Its use won't have any global geological or climatic implications.
"Daisy Cutter".
The imagery is rather bow-wow-chicka-bow: our device will penetrate deep down to the secret chamber where the goods are kept.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
We wanted to have a fairly large ground force in the oil fields in case any trouble breaks out. I might have been OK with that, but being lied to about WMD's, made me think it was a bad plan. No one ever came out to the good using this strategy. If the goal was to get rid of WMD's, we'll then we have succeeded. I wonder what the real goals are? Before you make war on someone, there has to be a goal. In WWII the goal was simple, unconditional surrender. That is why we succeeded. There may yet be something like that behind the scenes, I don't know? Did Bush study game theory or read The Art of War? If he didn't then he failed to listen to his generals. I really think that happened, otherwise why would Colin Powell and some of his other best cabinet members have quit?
I think this OK within the OST guidelines, but how could another power know that there were nukes there or not? The Russians tolerated spy satellites but they are a little higher up. I think KEW's in space are a bad idea because it would make everyone nervous and could lead to something we really don't want. The KEW's could work in a very high flying plane too. We may already have that.
How many terrorist attacks have there been on US soil? Statistically you're more likely to get hit by a fossilized Twinkie.
Quack, quack.
They have a 1,200,000 man standing army.
Your point that N Korea has a large army is an important one but numbers aren't everything. The Iraqi army in the first gulf war had about 550,000 soldiers, decent equipment, and time to dig in and still got thoroughly stomped. Granted it's not the same situation but the US military lately has been scary effective in conventional conflicts. It's the asymmetric conflicts that cause problems for our conventional military.
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.
I have no real expertise on the Korean situation but given the results of recent conventional conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would put my money on the US military in a romp unless the Chinese got involved on the opposing side. I think the N Koreans could do a lot of damage to the South until the US mobilized but without support from the Chinese the N Koreans would be in for a serious ass whipping. The US already has significant military assets in place in Korea though perhaps only enough for a delaying action. The biggest obstacle is that the US military would have to disengage in Iraq and/or Afghanistan to mount a serious campaign.
Unless you think we have some sort of technology that magically negates Mr. Kalashnikov's inventions.
It's called an armored personnel carrier. Seriously, the only big threat the North Koreans themselves pose to the US is if (big if) they can make effective tactical use of a nuclear weapon, either against a city or massed armed forces. Yes, there would be troop losses but I strongly suspect the numbers would be highly lopsided after an initial N Korean assault.
I suppose this is a lesser evil next to the, "Nuke them before they nuke us," mentality.
Truth, Just Us, And Hatred For All Mankind!
Wouldn't you be more sad if the Pentagon couldn't hire good people and your friends and family died because of it?
If I felt my country was actually under threat of military invasion, I'd be the first person to sign up. It's far more likely that my work would be used to invade another country for economic or political reasons.
Killing people in this world, for our defense, is unfortunately necessary.
Killing people who are hiding in a bunker half a world away in a bunker isn't defense.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
> there was widespread skepticism of any links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
That's a separate issue.
What the other poster said is essentially true: before and during the initial stages of the US invasion, Saddam's regime did their level best to convince the world (and their own citizens) that they were a force to be reckoned with, and that included a concerted attempt to convince the world that they did have weapons of mass destruction.
One could argue that we should have known better, on the grounds that exaggerating your own military capability is a standard modus operandi in the Arab world. (For example, before the six-day war, Nasser had the world convinced that Egypt was the dominant military power in the middle east. Once the actual military action got underway, however, it rapidly became obvious that in fact the dominant military power in the region is Israel.) Based on this line of reasoning, you could say that we should have known Saddam was inflating his capabilities. Certainly we figured it out quickly enough once the war broke out.
But when the other poster says that Saddam "was doing his best to convince the world that he did have WMDs", he's not making this up, and anyone who was paying a modicum of attention at the time should remember it.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
How about the fact that we have a security alliance [wikipedia.org] with Japan and that the mission of defending South Korea has a UN mandate [wikipedia.org]?
Read the text of the 1960 security treaty with Japan. Neither party is actually required to go to war to defend the other. It's a feel good treaty that gives the USA basing rights.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/1.html
South Korea's defense being a UN Mandate, perhaps the UN could take up the matter in a security council meeting. Perhaps a stern letter to North Korea would work.
Do you also think that we have no obligation to defend Australia, New Zealand or our NATO allies?
Australia fought with the USA in World War II and most of its other wars in the Pacific. You can think of Australia as a key strategic ally in the Pacific, that anchors that ocean in the same way the UK is a key strategic ally in the Atlantic. The USA, UK and Australia have had a REAL military alliance and partnership and so of course the USA should defend Australia.
NATO expansion was a mistake.
This is my sig.
Also, they don't use TNT in bombs, so I wonder what the "TNT equiv" load would be for this.
If I felt my country was actually under threat of military invasion ...
So 9/11 is OK with you? (I know you don't mean that, but that appears to be what you are saying, and I don't understand it.)
I'd be the first person to sign up. It's far more likely that my work would be used to invade another country for economic or political reasons.
No, it's really not.
Killing people who are hiding in a bunker half a world away in a bunker isn't defense.
When that bunker is being used to house a nuclear warhead on top of missile pointing at ROK or Japan or Hawaii ... yes, it is.
Do you honestly believe that warfare in future will be nations fighting each other? A modern nation is far too delicate, immobile, vulnerable and tied to world commerce to ever commit to a nuclear war. Nations today are like fat kids at an internet cafe, if you will. They're all too content, too soft, and sitting too close to one another, to ever get into fisticuffs.
It's interesting that you bring up 9/11, because that event epitomises the future of war as I see it. Small ideologically driven extremist groups, often well funded by wealthy private entities, striking at the civilian infrastructure of relatively peaceful nations. The book (not movie) 'The Sum of All Fears' describes a frighteningly plausible example of such a scenario.
I wouldn't worry so much about a superpower with nuclear ICBMs - North Korea is about the only country with both the will and the means, and that means is rapidly crumbling. I'd worry about a smartly dressed guy walking into the foyer carrying a nuclear bomb in a briefcase.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Do you honestly believe that warfare in future will be nations fighting each other?
Erm. That is what YOU implied, not me.
It's interesting that you bring up 9/11, because that event epitomises the future of war as I see it.
So it's odd you said you would only work for the Pentagon if we were under threat of "military invasion."