Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Delivers Massive Ordnance Penetrator
Hugh Pickens writes "In an age of drones and lightweight weaponry, the U.S. Air Force's purchase of the first batch of 30,000-pound bombs designed to pulverize underground enemy hide-outs highlights the military's need to go after hard and deeply buried targets. The weapon's explosive power is 10 times greater than its bunker-buster predecessor, the BLU-109 and it is nearly five tons heavier than the 22,600-pound GBU-43 MOAB surface bomb, sometimes called the 'mother of all bombs.' 'Our past test experience has shown that 2,000-pound penetrators carrying 500 pounds of high explosive are relatively ineffective against tunnels, even when skipped directly into the tunnel entrance,' says a 2004 Pentagon report on the Future Strategic Strike Force. 'Instead, several thousand pounds of high explosives coupled to the tunnel are needed to blow down blast doors and propagate a lethal air blast throughout a typical tunnel complex' (PDF). Experts note that the military disclosed delivery of the new bunker-busting bomb less than a week after a United Nations agency warned that Iran was secretly working to develop a nuclear weapon and is known to have hidden nuclear complexes that are fortified with steel and concrete, and buried under mountains. 'Heck of a coincidence, isn't it?' says John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org."
Spoilsport :-(
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Why tell potential targets how big a bomb you have and how deep it will penetrate? They can just go deeper and pour more concrete. What happened to surprise?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
It's not nuclear.
Gone!
Just for reference, these bombs aren't nuclear.
which is totally what she said
you obviously know very little about atomic devices if you think that they can be set off by someone blowing up the facility. In order to form the chain reaction necessary for an atomic explosion, the forces must be very precisely directed. And with the radioactive material so far underground already, there's no danger of releasing radiation into the surrounding countryside. Its far more dangerous to let the Iranians have a working nuclear device than to worry about putting extra large pot holes all over their country. Which is sad, because if their government cared at all for their people, they'd realize that pissing off the US is a good way to look more like large parking lot than an industrialized country.
If it's not nuclear, maybe it's nucular.
Like Deep Impact, perhaps?
The targets mentioned for this weapon are underground nuclear bases.
As others posted, this isn't nuclear. And even if it was, your remark is still bizarre; we've blown up more than a few nukes underground already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_testing
I think a Middle Eastern friend of ours who has a few issues with Iran will be very interested in a few of these. Look for them to announce development of a stunningly similar weapon after a few smoking holes are left in Natanz.
All underground complexes have entrances on the surface.
Won't bombing those entrances achieve much of the objective by essentially burying the underground target?
How long it will take the enemy to reconstruct the entrance to the target?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Nice job. Have a photo of the burger as a reward...
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
"That's what she said."
Does this one still require a 25 point killstreak to deploy?
"Curiouser and Curiouser...." -Alice
This is George Carlin's "bigger dick" foreign policy ("What? They have bigger dicks? BOMB THEM") at work. Now we are taking it a step further and talking about how deep our "bombs" will penetrate. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it might help to have more women in positions of power?
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Dirty bombs are still a possibility. These tunnels surely got vents where the nuclear stuff can escape and fall out.
The bomb itself isn't nuclear. The nuclear targets are speculative. Your original post is hyperbole.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I'm confused. Wasn't the U.N. that organization which was lying when it said Iraq had no wmds?
The one we called liars but when we sent not one, not two, but three teams of our own investigators after we had invaded Iraq to find the wmds which we knew were there, found that the multiple reports that had come out were correct?
It would be nice if people would make up their minds. Either the reports generated by the same organization are false or they're not. Pick one.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
in my pants.
--
There, I said it.
"Penetrating deeper than anything else ever has!"
The effort that a potential foe puts into negating the weapon can be more beneficial than use of the weapon in actual warfare. Nuclear bombs are the classic example.
That M.A.D. example has been deprecated. The new canonical example is "threat of 9/11-style terrorism".
Set your phasers on "funky"!
"The Massive Ordnance Penetrator is a weapon system designed to accomplish a difficult, complicated mission of reaching and destroying our adversaries' weapons of mass destruction located in well-protected facilities," Lt. Col. Melinda F. Morgan, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Despite the difficult and complicated mission, Boeing opted for a fairly simple solution: pack in more weight and explosives to blow the shit out of the target.
Could the next Slashdot Poll be to rename this new weapon system? Please, pretty please?
It boggles the mind.
Not everyone's.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
I think the larger question is...."When can we try them out?"
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It is not the translation from lbs to kg that bothers me, it is the fact that the word tons has been used, which has several different meanings (including one in the metric world).
A picture is worth exactly 1024 words.
Its far more dangerous to let the Iranians have a working nuclear device than to worry about putting extra large pot holes all over their country.
And why is it far more dangerous to let the Iranians have a working nuclear device?
For the past 20 years, biggest threat to peace on this planet was (and still is) the United States. Not Iraq, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or China, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or Sudan, or whatever FOTM country you were brainwashed into hating.
I am puzzled how so many Americans still think they're some kind of a role model for freedom and/or democracy.
I'm sure this article will get all you panty wastes on the site all worked up.
Well, I see you read the table of contents, but did you actually read what they said?
Cause they aren't saying what you are saying.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
besides the possibility of dirty radioactive explosions other mentioned, there is also a chance explosions might form a critical configuration of material ("chain reaction" with multiplicative factor of one of more). This may or may not produce an explosion, but should it happen would produce dangerous prompt radiation including neutron field, and also long lived dangerous isotopes.
That's a seven year old report asking for an updated nuclear arsenal. This bomb isn't a nuclear bomb. The US already has nuclear bombs with that payload:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
read more closely, other possible warheads for this delivery system are nuclear
Section 6: "The payloads we considered for strategic strike included both nuclear and non-nuclear options. The major objective of the nuclear forces we describe is to maintain deterrence."
While Section 6.4 goes into detail. There's no mention of it being exclusively nuclear. Your post is still hyperbole.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
it can be, read more closely. is it unclear?
And if your country is attacked, who would you look to to save your collective assess?
That headline is funny as shit.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I have prior art. At least on the massive penetrator.
Did you just post that as flamebait or have you had your head in the sand for 20 years ?
Just to refresh your memory
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/2/newsid_2526000/2526937.stm
Iraq invades kuwait.
https://www.google.com/search?q=north+korea+missile+test&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
North Korea's missile tests.
and just in case
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/05/what_kind_of_terrorism_does_north_korea_sponsor.html
Just some examples of No Ko's terrorist activities.
Now in case you missed it there was also this large country called China, that is forcibly occupying Tibet ? Continuously making moves to threaten Taiwan and backs the nucking futs regime in North Korea.
Also in case you missed it, there is this other large county called Russia. That views the former Soviet Socialist Republics as pieces that belong back in the puzzle that is mother Russia. They aren't above poisoning leaders of these countries, reporters that point out that they are up to no good, and anyone else that happens to be nearby.
that's actually the very best place to blow them up, if the alternative nuclear warheads were used with this delivery system. anywhere else on earth causes more problems.....
Well that thar thu isshah, son. Them ay-rabs dunno what ta do 'bout all them bombs they gat! We gotta libermarate them bombs an give'em the freedom they deserve! It's the Uhmayrkin way: Free bombs fer ehrone!
-
A nuclear payload doesn't take anywhere near the 5,300lbs of slow burning high explosive that these things are packed with. It's true that one of them should produce a bang bigger than the bomb at Hiroshima, and that the delivery mechanism could be used to deliver a nuclear payload, but these are non-nuclear weapons. The whole reason the MOAB and other bombs like it (including this one) were developed was because the US is bound by international treaty and law not to use nuclear weapons in war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
These are weapons designed to be used, not designed to sit in a warehouse somewhere as a deterrent in case somebody else uses a nuke.
The US, but rest assure while we try to clean it up, they would bitch about us.
anyway, ignore X.25, he's a US bashing troll. There are plenty of things to discuss about the US but he isn't even smart enough to talk about those.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You might wan to re-read it yourself. They state that nuke isn't precise enough. They uses 'excited' isotopes for a bigger boom, bot not a nuke itself in the bomb.
The government does not have the funds to keep social security and education budgets up,
Read radical news here
" chance explosions might form a critical configuration of material"
no there isn't.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
you would see worse conflicts, lasting longer periods of time
the lie is that women are less violent. the male mode of conflict is physical sudden severe and swift, and then over, and everybody moves on. the female mode of conflict is longer term social violence: sabotage, character assassination, propaganda campaigns, name calling. of course it isn't physical violence, but it is still violence
if you compare physical violence amongst boys in elementary school, the boys are off the charts compared to the girls. but if you compare social violence amongst girls in elementary school, the girls are off the charts, to a greater degree than the physical violence the boys exhibit
the lie is that women are less violent than men. men are more physically violent, but their violence is short, strong, stupid, and over quickly, and then everyone is friends again. the female mode of violence is longstanding, complicated, highly vicious, and scorched earth: permanently psychologically scarring
women are off the charts when it comes to social violence. if women were in power you would see psychological warfare like you've never seen, and it would last a long, long time, and teh game would be played for serious detrimental effects. it would be soft power, economic and cultural, but played out to such a vicious extreme that the other country would be bereft of all confidence, culture, economy, or any other sort of ability to function as a normal society
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's a US-based website with predominantly (although not exclusively) US visitors talking about a US company providing a weapon to the US military. Get the hell over it, metric units aren't going to be used.
But "Obama care" would cost too much?
One of the more interesting movies that showed this was The Peacemaker where Nicole Kidman renders a nuclear bomb ineffective by sabotaging one the charges before it went off. Where the movie wasn't as accurate is that the nuclear bomb then became a dirty bomb and this wasn't brought up during the movie as a consequence. She and George Clooney just walked away from the scene as if nothing had really happened to them.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Gosh, these guys must really have huge sexual problems: Penetrators? Tunnels? Explosions? Come on...
Yes, but that doesn't mean the explosion will go nuclear. It makes it more like a "dirty bomb", but the fact that it's underground would hopefully stop too many contaminants from getting out.
which is totally what she said
I'm so glad we have our priorities straight, and are still building up a massive arsenal against that imaginary enemy of ours.
Well, I see you read the table of contents, but did you actually read what they said?
Cause they aren't saying what you are saying.
Yes, you actually have to read on past 6.4, that is the intro...
sorry, here's a snippet from 7.2, read the rest yourself.
A Phase 2 feasibility study for a robust nuclear earth penetrator is underway
While you are correct in terms of modern weapons with limited fissionable material, if you have enough WG Uranium, you can make a "gun type" weapon. In this case two masses of fissionable material is kept seperated within the round. When you want it to go off, you slide them into one another while containing them in a material known to reflect neutrons and add some more neutrons to the mix. BANG! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W33_(nuclear_weapon)
We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
How can they hide the construction of underground bunkers?
This is not an easy task and requires many trucks and people and there will be a tailings pile as big as the complex.
At night infrared would show hot trucks disappearing into a mountain.
Are they that smart to fool the watchers?
Rick B.
There most certainly is, critical configurations have been formed accidentally by explosion. you don't know much about nuclear engineering, do you?
I've worked in the field for more than a decade.....
I'm not sure how the article missed this but they have been testing this thing locally for a while now. The other day I saw one of these massive ordinance penetrators being delivered right into your moms house. It's a good thing you weren't in the basement at the time.
When do we test them?
I have the cherry pits you asked for. you can feed them to your animal now.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
No, he's right. Look at a list of the wars the US has been involved in within the last 20 years. You will indeed find that we are the biggest threat to peace, you know, provided you are into terrorists or the particular brand of peace/oppresion that dictators bring.
The entire gross domestic output of USA consists of consuming Chinese produced goods (well, and other countries as well) and printing and exporting inflation and building more and more bombs.
If you don't think that the hour of reckoning for this reckless anti-economic behavior is not coming, you are going to be mighty surprised, and no number of bombs will keep your economy afloat. Sure, you can attack other countries and basically loot them, but you are the cannon fodder. Your quality of life will be shit in a hell hole and once the entire world stops financing you and sees you for what you have become, you will be stopped, it doesn't matter how many bunker busters you build. It's just not going to matter.
Vote for Ron Paul or face the unfortunate sacrifice of your own liberty, life, property.
You can't handle the truth.
It's not even 4 tons heavier, let alone 'nearly 5 tons heavier'
Dirty bombs aren't actually much of a threat. Most of what you have read about them is fear mongering.
"30,000-pound bombs... nearly five tons heavier than the 22,600-pound GBU-43 MOAB surface bomb"
Come on, what? You couldn't say "nearly four tons heavier"? Had to go the extra mile?
I remember pointing that out to my dad when we saw that movie. "Everyone you see in this pan-out shot who isn't in a radiation suit - including that guy there with his mask off - is now dead."
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
There are lots of useless weapons being bought by the pentagon, this isn't one of them. This is one of the few useful ones USAF has procured.
But I hope they have a backup guidance system, because sophisticated determined opponents can jam GPS guidance, at least over a few important targets. Like an Iranian nuclear complex....
The MOP is dirt cheap so far, and unlike nuclear weapons, conventional bombs have very wide application.
MOP raise the cost of ALL conventional shelters intended to be survivable, such as dug-in North Korean artillery emplacements.
MOPs would have been nice to have over Afghanistan (Tora Bora) and over Libya to gut Qaddafist bunkers.If the enemy is buried deep enough, he can be sealed in for good if he isn't killed outright. Recovery efforts on a military installation are military action and can be lawfully attacked.
If Jihadist nuclear installations are "dead and buried" they pose much less contamination threat to civilization.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Maybe it should be ... except ...
If it's going to be used to collapse underground complexes, the radiation will be contained. The problem is that you still need a penetrator - and that's going to be really heavy, and there's a good chance that the nuke won't survive intact, so conventional explosives are the solution.
The ideal solution would be a "drop flaming chunk of rock from outer space at 70,000 mph". Look at it this way - it would give an impetus to develop asteroid mining.
I definitely know very little about atomic devices.
Would a meltdown of the underground nuclear research facility possibly lead to radioactive material melting down and contaminating the water table there?
I don't know how far down a water table is either, or the distance a reactor could melt down to.
So you are saying that being covered in uranium/plutonium dust isn't a problem? Really? Is that why people handle radioactive materials with their bare hands? In reality, everyone in that scene would probably die from exposure and the site would be contaminated for ages. A dirty bomb does not do as much instant physical damage and death as a nuclear detonation, but it makes an area unliveable and may kill a population more slowly through exposure.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
it makes an area unliveable and may kill a population more slowly through exposure.
No, it doesn't.
During the Cold War, our troops in Europe had instructions on how to blow up their tactical nuclear weapons with a shaped charge if they were in danger of being overrun by the advancing Soviet army.
Not only did this prevent a nuke from falling into enemy hands, the charge would obliterate the nuclear core, blowing the pieces out in the direction of the blast. The whole area would be rendered quite dangerous to advancing troops.
And unlike Clooney and Kidman, they were ordered to get the hell out of there as soon as the fuse was lit.
you're thinking backwards. If it's a matter of depth of hardening and the bunker builder assumes the hostile country already knows where it is, it's a simple matter to pour 20 feet of wrapped rebar and concrete on top. I'm confused about why they mentioned how to get by blast doors when baffles, pressure compensation, and additional blast doors can easily protect against it.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Jeez, just send in a bunch of creepers... they'll blow a nice wide hole in anything...
Just sayin'!
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
that countermeasures may, or may not, be cheaper. 1) Star wars was originally based, (and may still be) on detection of the short "boost phase" of an ICBM, when the ICBMs rocket is firing off and is, to use a colloquial term, bright as the effin sun.
turns out, you make the rocket a little faster, add some chaff, you can slow down the time the rocket motor is hot, and make detection harder; it is cheaper to do this then upgrade the starwars; advantage not to us
2) during the 1st Iraq war, the US tank, the M1 abrams battle tank, long derided as an example of super $$ pentagon engineering that was to complex to work in the field, toasted the soviet made Iraqi tanks for a very simple reason: the M1 could shoot a shell further then the Iraqi tanks; all the US had to do was sit their tanks at the right distance; advantage US.
3) Henry Kissinger, the mass murderer of the Vietnamese, Chileans and Kurds, remarked after leaving office that every technological advance made by the US was a waste of time, as the Soviets (this is cold war stuff) quickly matched it; MIRVing of ICBMs was a specific example
4) We know from Postol and others that the pentagon has greatly *cough* exagerated the effectiveness of anti missle missles , esp those used by the israelis against scuds in the 1st iraq war; how do we know that the pentagons claims about the bunker buster are not just total exageration
I wonder how much energy this is...
Does someone know how to convert this to Megawatt or gallons of gasoline of energy?
d
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
Pass legislation that all non-commercial vehicles have to get at least 40 miles to the gallon (or energy equivalent), cutting off money to all terrorist-sponsoring countries. It'll never happen, though.
[sarcasm]So I take it people will be moving into Chernobyl and Fukushima today?[/sarcasm]. What part of radiation exposure and contamination is not clear?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Obama's hideout could have been bombed with just one rocket from an average attack fighter. It takes either a very large installation, or a very stupid person to be the target of a bomb this big. Even if the first one isn't enough, the crater will make a good target for the second, third or fourth bomb. The target you're bombing isn't going to run and hide after the first hit, even if it wasn't sufficient to destroy it completely. Knowing that, it doesn't matter if you publish specs on this bomb or not.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Underground nuclear bases don't turn into fission bombs just because you drop a bomb on them.
It should also be noted that if you set off a bomb next to a nuclear weapon, all that happens is that you either shove the nuclear weapon to one side, or you destroy it. In neither case does it undergo fission.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The part where you're acting like blowing a nuclear warhead in a non-nuclear fashion wouldn't be pretty simple to clean up? Uranium and Plutonium are both pretty simple to collect and contain...
Technology advances so fast that Iran's only choice is test a nuke real fast.
usual story from the USA ;-)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/16/mop_on_the_spirit_at_last/
From the summary:
If it's a coincidence, it's a meaningless one. Anyone who's been paying attention to defense development over the past two decades knew this bomb (or something like it) was under development.
But humans are good at seeing patterns, even when there are none, and John Pike is ever ready to deliver a suitably pithy quote for the appropriate remuneration.
You have to wonder if they've got it wrong this time too.
I'll wager rather soon.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
CTKO (chances to kill obama).
Could our bunker busters get our leaders? If not we need better bunker busters.
They gotta know, no one survives if they fuck up. No... one...
Disinformation.
*Trumpeting* : "We have a brand new bunker buster warhead that can penetrate 50 feet of solid steel!... " *under his breath* : "... and a rocket that carries 5 warheads."
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The US is not encumbered by the the need to observe international treaties.
1) Yes, they most certainly are, in every practical sense.
2) Judging from this and other posts, you're just short of being a moron.
Eat hot death gopher!
Which is sad, because if their government cared at all for their people, they'd realize that pissing off the US is a good way to look more like large parking lot than an industrialized country.
Replace: Government + People -> Slaves. U.S. -> Overseer.
Helps people like you begin to understand the problem.
Someone modded you flamebait, which is what I was thinking until I got to the end of your post and meditated on it. ;)
I always wondered if it was possible to just deny access to the underground complexes, or make it very difficult.
These facilities are usually located in hard to get to locations, either because they want to bore into the side of a mountain, or they want them to be hard to find.
First wave would be to hit the roads and infrastructure delivery systems (power, water, etc) with whatever weapon does the most damage. Second wave, closer to the entrances, air deliver anti-tank barriers booby-trapped with mines to keep vehicles out -- clearing these should be difficult. Overlapping with these, saturation mining to make all access to the facility difficult.
The ordinance is relatively inexpensive and you make it difficult and time consuming to re-gain access to the facilities without the complexity of trying to actually hit the bunker.
Just to refresh YOUR memory U.S. Invades (well about 2-3 countries a year but let's do 1 example). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
U.S. creates no fly zone, economic sanctions, practices attack maneuvers OVER your contry.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6030302/iran_fires_antiaircraft_missile_fails.html
Some examples of U.S. terrorist activities - http://www.salon.com/2011/03/11/us_arms_sales/. Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... what a catalog of success.
Now in case you missed it there's this large country called the U.S. they have military bases in 100+ countries most of which have actively campaigned to get the U.S. OUT.
Also, in case YOU missed it. There is this same large country called the U.S.. They view the world as their military theatre... pieces of their imperialist empire. They have the CIA good for poisonings.... supporting drug cartels and rebels in your country, and which is also useful against reporters.
This is just more rampant government spending in action! We spending thousands of dollars on hammers and toilet seats and now we are giving Boeing billion dollar contracts to deliver MOPS! This Obama government is going to far!
Radiation contamination isn't as simple or cheap as vaccuuming up some uranium dust. The first problem is how wide the area is. Wind and rain will also carry the particles. Some surfaces may become contaminated and need to be removed themselves. It is theoretically possible to clean up a site. But the effort and cost required would be astronomically higher than abandoning the area. That's why Chernobyl has a 30km radius today.
The human death toll would not be immediate. If there was an instant decontamination with showers, the effect would be less; however that only treats surface/skin contamination. The particles that were breathed into the body are not easily removed.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"... less than a week after a United Nations agency warned that Iran was secretly working to develop a nuclear weapon..."
That is not what the UN warned or reported. The headline is repeating western propaganda. Read this, this, this, or this.
[sarcasm]So I take it people will be moving into Chernobyl and Fukushima today?[/sarcasm]. What part of radiation exposure and contamination is not clear?
The part where you're acting like blowing a nuclear warhead in a non-nuclear fashion wouldn't be pretty simple to clean up? Uranium and Plutonium are both pretty simple to collect and contain...
Yeah, that part, do your own research. I refuse to take up the task of debunking fear mongering just because you are gullible and believe what you see on CNN. You'll have to think for yourself, who knows, you might enjoy it!
ton = ton. if it's metric it's tonne. done.
also your conversions, way off. it's 2.2lb = 1kg, not 1lb = 2.2kg. 500lb of high explosive is not 1100kg, it's 227kg -- pretty big difference.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
never use bunkers.
prepare yourself and your family for a world where life essentials, shelter, food, water, energy, are extremely scarce either through lack of supply, lack of distribution channels, dramatic price increases, or loss of currency value.
these are inevitabilities, not conspiracy or delusion.
The US is not encumbered by the the need to observe international treaties.
1) Yes, they most certainly are, in every practical sense.
From the first page of a Google search. You can educate yourself by reading further, or not, I don't care, but you are incorrect.
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0926-IranPlant.html
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0311-NPT.html
http://www.unitedstatesgovernment.net/violatinginternationaltreaties.htm
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/07/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty.html
http://rwor.org/a/110/greatest-proliferator-en.html
2) Judging from this and other posts, you're just short of being a moron.
Oh dear! You think so? I'll consider where that is coming from, sort of a catch-22.
If a moron calls you a moron, does a tree fall in the forest?
Just 2000 more pounds and we could have named it after Tennessee Ernie Ford.
Actually, he has a point. (though not a horrendously good one. if we're at a point where we're using nuclear weapons, international treaties aren't going to really be a factor.
Just to refresh YOUR memory
U.S. Invades (well about 2-3 countries a year but let's do 1 example).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
U.S. creates no fly zone, economic sanctions, practices attack maneuvers OVER your contry.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6030302/iran_fires_antiaircraft_missile_fails.html
Some examples of U.S. terrorist activities - http://www.salon.com/2011/03/11/us_arms_sales/. Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... what a catalog of success.
Now in case you missed it there's this large country called the U.S. they have military bases in 100+ countries most of which have actively campaigned to get the U.S. OUT.
Also, in case YOU missed it. There is this same large country called the U.S.. They view the world as their military theatre... pieces of their imperialist empire. They have the CIA good for poisonings.... supporting drug cartels and rebels inyyour country, and which is also useful against reporters.
You didn't bother to read anything you linked to did you ?
But lets sort out your farrago of misinformation.
The U.S. invades 2-3 countries/year since the bay of pigs ? well lets call that 2.5 countries/year * 60 years = 150 countries since 1960. Seeing as the U.S. recognizes 195 I am sure we will get the last 45 done in good speed.
"The U.S. creates no fly zones over your country". You are upset about the U.S. trying to depose Saddam Hussein ? BTW your link was about Iran which doesn't have a U.S. enforced no fly zone.
U.S. terrorism, you link to an article authorizing private arms sales to sovereign governments. I don't know what your point is maybe you feel the guy who mined the lead to make the bullet is a terrorist as well ?
Now when you say countries have active campaigned to get U.S. bases out just what constitutes the country ? Because whenever the U.S. even thinks about closing a base the areas around it have their town fathers turn white at the thought of their local economies going in the crapper. If you would like examples look at Clark Air Base and Subik Bay in the Philipines.
I'm guessing that their bunkers are below the water table.
yeah. the US government just adores telling people what to do. "You there, go vote for a leader" "You, over there, foster religious freedom." "Hey you, stop oppressing your people and your neighbors." "enough with that sponsoring international terrorism." Damn big bullies, these united states people. Must be why everyone hates us. all this disgusting freedom.
The "bomb standard". It's like the gold standard, except it's bombs that are the standard unit of account
A "bomb standard" would of course put the US on the top. Silly gold standard fools don't understand the greatness of this plan!
When the rest of the world holds useless money and the US holds the bombs, guess who wins? The US!
Nobody cares about your commie pleas for what would happen to the *people* of the US (who'll get sent to their deaths as fodder). This is capitalism, and capitalism is about the owners of capital, not the fodder who own nothing.
Yes , please, lets build something that eventually will be either able to pierce and damage so much depth that it could be used to
1) crack the moon into 2 pieces...
(side note, could be great to be used to split big asteroids into smaller ones before they impact earth...)
2) crack the earth surface deep enough to permanently damage it and irreversibly have a flow of lava, that will eventually lead to shifting of plates
3) used in deep sea situations and again crack the earth's crust so deeply that the plates shift and cause the biggest tsunamis the world has ever seen...
Yes, let's keep going down this path....what was the initial reason for building these?...ah yes...to be able to blast the caves
and hills that Osama bin Laden was hiding in...and actually get him....but alas, you can do the job much better with a sniper and just one bullet....could you not???
Honestly, I realize that this is a somewhat silly question, but the idea popped into my head, and it won't really go away.
What if you were to build shaped charge triggered by a nuclear explosion?
Ignoring the practicalities of it, and ignoring that I don't know what I'm talking about, wouldn't you be able to end up with a much higher velocity for the molten metal, not to mention a hell of a lot more of it for an even more effective penetration?
rather i'm in awe of this female power
us guys, we're really silly and stupid compared to this complex level of prolonged social violence that women play on
what i am saying is a clear acknowledgement that women are superior to us in ways that us silly stupid men can't even understand. we're used to making our dumb little points as violently and as hard as needed, but then everything else is large and confusing and silent and beyond our grasp. but not beyond the grasp of the sustained and complex way that women are used to operating
of course, psychologically, women, and men, have a feminine and a masculine side. so men can tap the feminine side of their psychology, just as much as women will sometimes come to blows: it is not their preferred way of dealing with things, but they are capable of doing it. likewise, men do not prefer to deal with social violence in the feminine mode, but we are capable of it
it's not about misogyny, that's not in my words. it is about the fact that there is soft power (feminine) and hard power (masculine) and the notion that male violence is innately worse is a falsehood
example: you can come into a village swinging your sword: masculine warfare. but the feminine way is to just poison the well. do you really believe the masculine way is worse?
men are not more violent than women, we are just violent in different ways. and in some ways, female social violence, soft power, is far more potent, far more vicious, and far more damaging, over a much longer length of time
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I saw no such wording in the LA Times article. Why would you even bother? The bomb weighs 30klbs, 25klbs of which are the dense penetrator designed to get the warhead down to a depth that it can actually damage the complex. If you were going nuclear, you would forgo all that weight, and use a couple MT airburst to crush the complex from the surface.
This is actually the complete opposite of that. The bomb uses the inertia of its 25klbs of non-explosive mass to penetrate through ground and re-enforced concrete, to deliver the high explosive to an internal tunnel before detonation.
which has several different meanings (including one in the metric world).
Why are using you "ton" rather than "megagram"? Wasn't the whole point of Metric to get away from having to remember multiple unit definitions?
The choice to copy a Standard unit name was silly.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
molten metal
Did you mean to write, "plasma"?
but wasn't it the U.S. that said that Iraq was building nukes? and didn't they end up never finding a single one? odd that.
Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.
There you have it, you're not a true friend unless you're Russian and have been in space.
Srsly u guys. U guys, srsly.
Why is Mythbusters the first thing that comes to mind? "Jamie want big boom."
I think that you need to take your own advice. NONE of the bombs are nuclear, though I wish it were. The bomb is destined for North Korea, Iran, Burm, and most likely Pakistan. A nuke would be a great deal more effective.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That is a bet that I would not want to take. My guess is either pakistan or Iran will be first.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You are not very bright. You have made the leap of a study on nukes to implying that this bomb is a nuke. Well, to be honest, in light of China, I wish that it WERE nuclear. But it is not. It is a conventional bomb, nothing more.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We are not China. We pretty much obey all the treaties that we sign.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
2) Judging from this and other posts, you're just short of being a moron.
Wrong. He is NOT short of it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Do you even read the links that you post? Even better yet, do you think about them? Your first link alone says that you are a total moron (and not just short of one).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
yeah. the US government just adores telling people what to do. "You there, go vote for THAT leader" "You, over there, foster THESE religious freedom." "Hey you, stop oppressing THOSE people and THOSE neighbors of yours." "enough with that sponsoring OF THAT international terrorism." Damn big bullies, these united states people. Must be why everyone hates us.
Also, have fun reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
Does your research deal with the inordinately complicated issue of cleaning up after a radiation contamination of a wide area? Theoretically it is possible to clean up Chernobyl. The costs and effort of doing so is so high that it is easier to abandon the site.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
start? Nuclear weapons have been detonated underground for half a century now.
also, as someone else pointed out, this is not nuclear.
the nuclear “bunker buster”
By Benjamin Phelan
http://harpers.org/archive/2004/12/0080324
What "need" is there? Attacking Iran is clearly a war of choice like Iraq.
Except NAFTA. ;)
Chernobyl was a meltdown, not a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb just spreads uranium/plutonium around, it isn't fissile.
Essentially, this bomb--the heaviest conventional bomb ever built--is a direct descent of the original "earthquake bomb" Barnes Wallis envisioned in 1940 than eventually became the famous Grand Slam bomb. Thanks to GPS guidance, it is much more than an "earthquake effect" bomb--it could probably destroy most underground bunkers with a direct hit.
Like when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1955 at the behest of big oil?
Or when Reagan sold weapons to Iran to finance South American death squads?
Or when Rummy was over in Iraq at the same time, shaking hands with Saddam?
And let's not get started about the things it does for the MAFIAA...
The US is a lot better than previous empires in history (look up what the Romans did to Carthage if you doubt), but you're utterly delusional if you think the US's history for the last 60 years has been one of anything but empire, enforced largely by violence or the threat of violence.
But "Obama care" would cost too much?
How many M.O. Penetrators would it cost.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Good to hear the kloptocracy is rolling right along. Same as it ever was! (Well worse actually, but that's a gab for another day.)
Social Credit would solve everything...
Mother of All Penetrators
I'm sure there's a lot of propaganda in any such statement. It's probably a "made-up" number very close to intelligence estimates in order to be kind of a "we know what you're doing" sort of statement, meant to shake up targets and hopefully make them more willing to negotiate first. The actually specifications are almost assuredly not what was released.
In my experience with the Defense Sector, usually you DON'T advertise all the capabilities. The "actual specifications" probably do MORE than they advertise.
Check your facts. The contamination of Chernobyl was due to the fact the core melted and the explosion released radioactive particles into the surrounding area. If it was just a meltdown, the rest of the world would not have known about it. Days later radioactive material was carried by wind to Western Europe where they detected it and sounded the first alarms. Again you seemingly assert that direct exposure to radioactive material like weapons grade uranium is not dangerous. What is the basis of this believe? Do you think people who put on lead lined radiation suits and work behind reinforced concrete are just idiots?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
A dirty bomb just spreads uranium/plutonium around, it isn't fissile.
Wrong. Absolutely and completely wrong. We're talking about a nuclear bomb that's been sabotaged, not a nuclear weapon that's been designed to be dirty.
A bomb designed to be a dirty bomb would have fissile material with enough conventional explosives to vaporize it to a fine powder and disperse it (fissile and radioactive mean exactly the same thing, in this context, and both uranium and plutonium are fissile materials).
However, a bomb designed to be a nuclear weapon does not have the amount of conventional explosives required to make a dirty bomb. It has a shaped charge designed to slam the fissile material together and compress it with a shock wave sufficiently to cause it to go critical. Upon going critical, a high percentage of the fissile material is fissioned in a few milliseconds, causing the explosion.
In order for a sabotaged nuclear weapon to become a dirty bomb, it has to go critical. That's the only way to get the explosion required to disperse radioactive material; the shaped charge alone wouldn't do it (in fact it has the exact opposite designed purpose, so it would be a very bad way of trying to accomplish widespread contamination). A nuclear weapon is designed for some high % yield - a large percentage of the fissile material is consumed in the reaction. In order to make it "dirty", you'd have to greatly reduce its % yield - there is still a nuclear explosion, but there's a very large amount of leftover fissile material which isn't consumed in the reaction and which gets dispersed by the explosion of the fissile material which was consumed.
No, airburst of 1 megaton weapon at the required altitude of 1000 meters or more is useless against underground reinforced targets. ground burst (heavy local fallout ) or penetration is necessary.
the pdf is more fun than the LA article
The ideal solution would be a "drop flaming chunk of rock from outer space at 70,000 mph".
In 1966 Robert Heinlein addressed a similar solution in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," which, BTW, is an excellent read.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Pretty much anything by Heinlein is an excellent read. For those who haven't been introduced to his works, here's what's probably the best short-story time travel story ever written. (All You Zombies - pdf)