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
Stop making bombs otherwise we're gonna hit you with the bombs we are making!
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)
And what makes you think you are not the "mongols" to other nations?
Peaceful? Who are we talking about again?
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
"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
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?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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
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.
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".
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.
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
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.
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...
Educated minds already know.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.