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."
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!
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.
Like Deep Impact, perhaps?
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
Bunkers are not bank vaults. From what I've seen a number of underground bunkers tend to have multiple entrances, even if some are just used for ventilation. Even smaller bunkers tend to have at least two ways out, as some are designed to deal with someone trying to put car exhaust down the vent shaft.
If a bunker just had one entrance, people inside would suffocate shortly after the main door is slammed shut.
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.
First, I would not like to be one of the researchers / technicians / soldiers stuck underground and trapped for an indeterminate period of time after a bomb like this drops the only entrance. Depending upon how long it takes, its entirely possible that destroying the entrance could kill off a lot of the talent necessary to make the weapons as they all starve to death or suffocate deep underground. It's a hell of a deterrent.
Second, the reconstruction efforts would have to take place on or near the surface, which is in range of more conventional weaponry (cruise missiles, JDAM bombs, etc...).
Third, though I am not generally opposed to an army owning powerful and highly specialized weapons, I get the feeling that just having these makes a first strike option against Iran seem like a more viable option. I don't like this.
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
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
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?
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.
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.
And if your country is attacked, who would you look to to save your collective assess?
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.....
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
The government does not have the funds to keep social security and education budgets up,
Read radical news here
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
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.
I'm so glad we have our priorities straight, and are still building up a massive arsenal against that imaginary enemy of ours.
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.
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.
Dirty bombs aren't actually much of a threat. Most of what you have read about them is fear mongering.
If you're referring to Israel, they aren't our friend. Israel is a bit like a therapist, they care about us as long as we're giving them money.
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.
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.
If you're referring to Israel, they aren't our friend. Israel is a bit like a therapist, they care about us as long as we're giving them money.
And they're crazier than the patient.
Nice Analogy!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
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"
it's a simple matter to pour 20 feet of wrapped rebar and concrete on top.
Only if you designed the structure to bear the load of an additional 20 feet of rebar and concrete. Otherwise you will cause more destruction than the bomb you fear.
additional blast doors can easily protect against it.
That would seem to depend on your assumption of how much "additional" means and how you define easily. It isn't quite as simple as throwing up another door and a few baffles. You also seem to be under the impression that there is only one bomb instead of a successive strike of these things.
Either way, the facility is disrupted and funds/resources are being diverted when playing defense.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
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.
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.
That's not necessarily helpful, shockwave encounters high pressure areas less.
It's probably good to have a back door, but remember these things are designed to send a shockwave through your bunker... litterally vaporzing you with pressure. STP x Y0,000 or so.
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.
Um... Osama?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
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.
The US doesn't have friends. It has interests.