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.

91 of 707 comments (clear)

  1. Imagine... by Shikaku · · Score: 4, Funny

    a beowulf cluster of these!

    :<

  2. Wikipedia Article on the MOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Wikipedia Article on the MOP by auric_dude · · Score: 4, Informative
    2. Re:Wikipedia Article on the MOP by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While we're at it, also have a look at this Russian thingy. It's thermobaric, and thus very different in its intended use (not a bunker buster, but what you'd use to clear a large network of caves or underground tunnels with surface exits in one sweep), but of the same magnitude of raw power.

  3. Wow by Slur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. 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)
    2. 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?

    3. 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
    4. Re:Wow by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Though true, what's interesting about this one? I don't mean that entirely as a rhetorical question: it's possible there really is something interesting here. But I haven't seen a good summary.

      Is it just, take a normal bomb, make it really really big, and slog through some tedious but mostly straightforward engineering challenges to get the thing to work? Or is there something that, at a conceptual level, is different when you get to bombs of this size?

    5. Re:Wow by hnangelo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I absolutely agree with that. And I just got modded flamebait for questioning that same conclusion. But that's how it is, let's censor what we don't like.

    6. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      My dual senses of proportion and perspective.

      Peaceful? Who are we talking about again?

      The world's greatest superpower who has nevertheless continually refused to exercise any semblance of the imperialism of its predecessors. Germany, Japan, Iraq, and more are all testaments to the devotion our country has to peace. It ain't a perfect nation, but it's a damned good one.

    7. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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?

    10. 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
    11. Re:Wow by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Leaving aside irrelevant examples from previous generations, what on earth did conquering and then setting up a puppet regime in Iraq have to do with "peace"?

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

      Is it better to live in a violent primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate than a stable advanced secular dictatorship? Do you want to make an argument about freedom being better than security? Because I'm pretty sure that Bush II's regime - your beloved saviors of Iraq - passed a shedload of US laws based on exactly the opposite position.

      Look, I'm going to type this reeeeally slowly to make it easy for you to understand: outside of kiddie cartoons, the enemy of evil is not automatically good. In the real world, it can be evil vs evil.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    12. 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.
    13. Re:Wow by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Funny

      A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

      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?

      Wow, an overlord with -1 troll moderation. Never thought I'd see it : )

      Seriously, it's pretty fucking hard to get that kind of tax system going without a civilization! You need a whole city full of accountants... barbarians could never manage that.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    14. Re:Wow by yabos · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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.
    17. Re:Wow by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what on earth did conquering and then setting up a puppet regime in Iraq have to do with "peace"?

      You mean the same "puppet" regime that has asked us to leave and is busy signing oil deals with China? That's an interesting definition of "puppet" you have.

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

      How about the 2/3rds of it's own population that wasn't Sunni Arab? Or shouldn't we care about them because they are brown?

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

      I guess that depends on if you are a member of Saddam's tribe or happen to be unlucky enough to be a Shia or Kurd. The women who were kidnapped off the street to be raped probably weren't big fans of the "stable advanced secular dictatorship" either.

      In the real world, it can be evil vs evil.

      If you think the United States represents evil then you need to crack open a history book and/or buy a plane ticket to Burma/North Korea/etc.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:Wow by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
    19. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 2, Informative

      "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.

    20. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry but you actually lack proportion and especially perspective.

      Yawn.

      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

      * Engaged in more wars, invaded more countries: most of those coming to the aid of people who were being invaded or attacked, so you're mixing apples and oranges. Most people think what we did in WWI and WWII and the Gulf War and other wars were GOOD things.

      And even Iraq was intended to be for the benefit of Iraq and the Middle East. Our greatest stains of imperialism are in Vietnam and Central America, and I won't defend those; and to some degree, we did the same nonsense in the Middle East, which lead to where we were in 2002. But while those were root causes for where we were in 2002, they were not reasons why we did what we did in 2003.

      * Dropped more nuclear bombs: and in doing so, saved countless lives.

      * Has more military bases in foreign countries: always at the request of those countries (unless there's still some bases I am forgetting about as the result of postwar treaties)

      * Undermined international order and stability: says you. I think we're much more stable in the long run. Less order, perhaps, but when that order is represented by the United Nations telling Iraq "if you violate Resolution 687 we'll force you to comply" for 12 years, and in the end refuses to act ... that is an order we can do without.

      But a peaceful nation who refuses to exercise any semblance of imperialism!?

      Shrug. We are not taking over nations to expand our influence (though we did try this in the Cold War and in Central America, it's really not happening today). Today there's a sort of "new imperialism" where we try to control more of the world through politics and economics (and, to a lesser degree, culture) ... though this is hardly new, since it was practiced by France and Britain for centuries. But it's not the sort of thing you appear to be referring to.

  4. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's impossible to say if the second nuke was necessary or if a non-civilian target would have had the same effect.

      It's not like the nukes were dropped 20 minutes apart, there was a 3 day gap. Three days in which the Japanese government chose not to surrender, despite losing a city. Three days of arguing whether or not the US had a new weapon, or if what happened was some kind of insane fluke they could cover with propaganda. Three days of arguing if the US had the capability to do it again. Three days of not attempting to negotiate a surrender. Could it have come in 3 more days? Perhaps, but we'll never know what would have happened if the US had not used a second nuke.

      It's easy to moralize about the use of nuclear weapons in a world where major combat losses abroad in decade long wars cost fewer men than some individual battles of World War 2. It's easy to moralize about the use of nuclear weapons in a world where nuclear technology and weaponry is a fact of life we're all thoroughly aware of. It's easy to moralize about the use of nuclear weapons when it's not you, your family, or your friends fighting every day, potentially dying each day the war continued. It's easy to moralize about the method of ending a conflict which, not two months earlier, had Japan declaring they would NEVER accept an unconditional surrender (they wanted to drag out the fight to be as bitter and expensive for the allies as possible so they wouldn't have to accept an unconditional surrender).

      You can talk about how it was the wrong choice all you want, but in the end, you're all just armchair quarterbacks. We play video games and watch movies that trivialize the most destructive and influential war since the dawn of man. Comedies are made about Nazi internment camps and we put love stories in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

      Frankly, nukes suck, but I'm happier knowing that today, in 2009, we're still using up the supply of purple hearts we ordered in the 1940s for expected losses in the invasion of Japan.

    2. 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.
    3. Re:Hey North Korea! by e2d2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. 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.

    5. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      According to Eisenhower, MacArthur, and most of the other top American brass at that time, even the *first* bomb was unnecessary, since the Japanese, were no longer capable of undertaking offensive action, with their fleet and air forces smashed, their cities mostly rubble. The Americans dropped the bomb while the Japanese leadership was looking for a face-saving way to end the conflict.

      It was a civilian official, the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, who had the ear of Truman regarding the use of the bomb, and it was his advice that Truman took (I paraphrase:) "Drop the bomb to show the Soviets how tough we are."

      But the official story ever since the first bomb was dropped was that the bombings were an act of mercy that saved Japanese and American lives during the (again according to the official story) absolutely inevitable invasion of the Japanese mainland several weeks later, an invasion that could not possibly have been forestalled by a negotiated surrender.

      This version of events has been repeated so many times from so many different sources that it has won out by sheer brute force of neuro-linguistic programming, and thanks to this propaganda, there are legions of liver-spotted veterans in V.F.W. halls across the fruited plain whose blood pressure rises dangerously at the suggestion of that the use of the bomb does not fall somewhere between being either a grim necessity or a sacred duty.

    6. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  5. MASSIVE club thank you! by syousef · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  6. 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.

    3. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2

      Those Western news reports still show much militancy in the civilian population who buy very heavily into their government's propaganda.

      Of course they do. Those "Western news reports" would be pretty boring if they showed a bored, suppressed populace. After all, when was the last time you saw video of average, bored Arabs hanging out in coffee shops? That's right, you don't, you see the screaming nutjobs, because the nutjobs get ratings.

  7. 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 Paua+Fritter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      You bet it does. It sends a strong message to the DPRK military: "Get cracking on your ICBMs, you slackers - what good are your nukes if you can't deliver them?".

      The day the US military starts dropping these things on nuclear-armed states is the day that millions of Americans move to Canada and Mexico.

    2. 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

    3. 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.

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

      The use of the bomb in World War II was extremely regrettable. Knowing what we do now about the bombs only makes that more apparent. But I don't think Truman or anyone else really knew what those weapons meant for the future of humanity. Hindsight is often 20/20.

      I'm also sure that it is no comfort at all to the hundreds of thousands that died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki that if the bomb hadn't been used then, it would likely have been used later, perhaps in a larger exchange of weapons of greater power. Like the H-bomb. Those hundreds of thousands might have been millions or billions.

      Furthermore, I wonder how many other countries would have spent so much time and effort helping to rebuild and revitalize their former enemies as the United States has done with Japan and Germany.
      The rest of the world does not exactly hold the moral high ground from which to criticize the United States.

      Say what you will about the US, but the US did not fire the first guns of either of the two World Wars.

  8. Barnes Wallis Reinvented...again! by RobHart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Barnes Wallis Reinvented...again! by jstults · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

  9. Translation to metric by johannesg · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  10. Re:Space weapons? by fractoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  11. Re:So, it's time... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

    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;
  12. Well it's not really that much... by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).

  13. Re:Atmosphere Risk? by vipw · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  14. Re:So, it's time... by init100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  15. Re:Question about scalability by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Funny
    "Do not ride the bomb" signs were declared Un American and banned in an executive order signed by President George W Bush.

    No no no, you're thinking too un-Orwellian. The "Do not ride the bomb!" signs were amended to "Do not ride the bomb without waving a US flag".

  16. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and it is exactly why you got on iraq and not on other nations. because war is a question of money, not of rights. iraq had the best return on investment.

    2. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by rayvd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Years of diplomacy (UN inspections and such) were tried with Iraq after the first gulf war.

    3. 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
    4. 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
    5. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    6. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
    7. 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.

    8. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    9. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, a number of ex-Iraqi military officials claimed that Russia flew them out of Iraq and some were moved to Syria.

      This claim was made in a book as well as taped interviews with a couple different people. I'm not sure that it's possible to verify the claims, at the time frame it supposedly happened Iraq was supposedly sending aid to Syria due to a damn breaking and a massive flood whcih was an increase in both air and land traffic from Iraq.

      Here is another link with a little more detail about the claims but it seems to be just as biased. It has a few more references though.

    10. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Rennt · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

    11. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That wasn't diplomacy, that was browbeating. Slight difference.

      What does the phrase "Unconditional Surrender" mean to you?

    12. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by AshtangiMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    13. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    14. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by jonadab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In retrospect, I'm pretty sure Saddam never had any weapons of mass destruction. He wanted people to *think* he had them, for the same reason Nasser wanted to people to think Egypt had the military capability to kick Israel into the sea in 1967. It was bluster. He was conceited enough to think he could get the whole world to back down if he looked sufficiently big and scary. Fundamentally, he made the same basic mistake Japan made at Pearl Harbor: he didn't understand how Americans think. When we see a threat, we don't run away from it. We'd rather send in the troops and neutralize the threat.

      The take-home point is this: even strategies that you think are really clever can backfire if you don't know your enemy. Japan's preemptive "bomb them so they won't enter the war" strategy might have worked against Koreans, but against Americans it was counterproductive. Nasser's bluster (or Hussein's) might have worked against another Arab nation, but it didn't work so well against Israel (or the USA). You've got to know your enemy, or all your cleverness is for naught.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  17. Re:Does it strike anyone as hypocrit... by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  18. Previous British Attempts by Sylvanus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  19. 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.
  20. Re:America's like a super-hybrid by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's one amazing hybrid since the U.S. is older than both Australia and Canada.

  21. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by tgd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Educated minds already know.

  22. Re:30,000 lb bomb? by budgenator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  23. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Umm... no they don't actually. Please inform us. They have nukes, but no way to deploy them. They have a large army, but are incredibly underfunded. The U.S. military could destroy North Korea and be back by lunch if they pulled no punches. Oh and if by "threat" you mean they could kill a few thousand, then we are talking at cross terms here -- ANYONE could do that, 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. I don't think that any one nation, save China (maybe) has the potential to do that. But hey, you are the smarmy "educated"* one. Please "educate" me.

    *Note: Fox News does not count as education

    --
    To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  24. 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.

  25. Re:So, it's time... by LaminatorX · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  26. 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.
  27. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    That artillery wouldn't last very long if a shooting war broke out. We know where a lot of it is and the remainder would reveal itself as soon as they fired the first volley. Between counter-battery fire and US/ROK airpower those artillerymen would have a short and exciting life once the shooting started. The destruction of Seoul isn't very likely -- it wouldn't escape undamaged but it wouldn't be a modern day Dresden either.

    their likely ability to overrun the DMZ

    This will sound counter-intuitive but we actually want them to overrun the DMZ. We pulled the bulk of our forces back from the DMZ many years ago. The current plan calls for a counterattack into North Korea to cut them off/go after Pyongyang rather than meeting them at the DMZ and fighting for every inch of ROK soil. It's easier to destroy their forces if they are out in the open conducting offensive operations. As Patton said during the Battle of the Bulge, "Let's have the guts to let the Krauts go all the way to Paris. Then, we'll cut them off and chew them up."

    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.

    ROFL! That's the best analogy ever :)

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  28. Re:So, it's time... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.
  29. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by mkeeler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Supposedly by next year NK will have icbms which could launch a nuclear warhead to California. Me here on the east coast is safe, but there are 26 or so million people living on that coast who I am sure do not want to be at the mercy of that lunatic dictator. There are other countries that have the capability to hurt as just as much. The difference is that they are not fanatical like North Korea. Until the fascist dictator is gone (including all his descendants) North Korea will pose a threat. Even after they are gone, there will have to be a major political revolution and cooperation with other countries in order for them to not be a threat. On another point, I think North Korea has showed just how powerless and useless the United Nations really is. When dealing with non-cooperative nations diplomacy and sanctions do nothing but to spur more hatred and make them more resilient. Military force is the only way to MAKE them understand and cooperate.

  30. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by necro81 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh and if by "threat" you mean they could kill a few thousand, then we are talking at cross terms here -- ANYONE could do that

    If they understand a few things about America, then they realize that they really can do damage by killing a few thousand - look at all the idiocy we inflicted upon ourselves after al Qaeda killed a few thousand of us.

    And it's not like North Korea needs to do it themselves to gain a strategic advantage from it. It is true they have nukes, but no (conventional) way to deploy them. But our borders and shipping routes are pretty porous, and there are plenty of non-state actors out there that could smuggle a weapon in. A single blast to a major American city would do lots of damage well beyond just the death toll.

    Knocking us off the pedestal by overwhelming force is not the only possible or fruitful goal.

  31. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unfortunately, educated minds do not run our government!

  32. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by mspohr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You seem to be under the same cowboy delusion that sold us an easy win in Iraq 'with flowers for the liberators'. Your appalling lack of geopolitical (not to mention military) knowledge is remarkable but unfortunately all too common in the US.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  33. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree with most of the above, but massed "human wave" attacks against even moderately developed economies are obsolete. They've never been a great idea in the past century, but now they are downright suicidal. Cluster munitions are designed for exactly this scenario, as are tactical (not strategic) nuclear weapons, as are various unmanned ("drone") weapons some of which are not public knowledge. We can't keep NK from doing damage to SK and JP, and we also can't keep guerilla forces in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan from doing significant harm to our troops there. But if NK forces decided to storm the DMZ, probably not even 10% would make it through alive. I don't believe even Kim Jong Il would be crazy enough to try this, and most people in SK seem to agree . . they seem to feel reasonably confident, more than I would in their shoes but not totally without reason, that NK has no reason to attack, and every reason not to, and the warlike posture of its leadership is mainly for domestic consumption (much like the anti-Israel rantings of various leaders in North Africa that will never be in a position to harm Israel, but can't win elections unless they promise to).

  34. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by jackbird · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That artillery wouldn't last very long if a shooting war broke out.

    Doesn't have to. 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 - about 16 for every square kilometer of Seoul's area.
    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.

    This will sound counter-intuitive but we actually want them to overrun the DMZ. We pulled the bulk of our forces back from the DMZ many years ago. The current plan calls for a counterattack into North Korea to cut them off/go after Pyongyang rather than meeting them at the DMZ and fighting for every inch of ROK soil.

    And that strategy protects the civilian population of Seoul how? NK doctrine (warning: pdf) is for a quick and decisive victory with overwhelming force concentrated in small areas backed by special ops in the enemy rear - the plan you mention plays right into that strategy.

    NK is a hostage negotiation, not strategic diplomacy.

  35. Re: Neo-Con Creative History by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 2, Informative

    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!
  36. 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.
  37. just one half of mv2 by Tsalg · · Score: 2, Funny

    30,000 lbs? Does it have to explode at all when dropped from a plane?

  38. Re:Whither the B-1? by icegreentea · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They used them for psyops in Afghanistan. Had some Taliban holed up in a valley, some spec ops team called for fire support. So the B-1s fly through the valley supersonic while dropping bombs... and hitting everything with its sonic boom. The spec ops dudes said 'I knew that was coming, and I still shit my pants' or something to that affect.

    Anyhow, the B1's bombbays are probably too small in one dimension to fit the MOP.

  39. Re:Question about scalability by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was going for a reference to this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueuauKKjPZI

    --
    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;
  40. Re:The US military disagreed with you by david_thornley · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
  41. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by P0ltergeist333 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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