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."

26 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by paiute · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Why? by mx+b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Why? by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because you have no intention of actually using them.

      The point here is not to be ready for a war with Iran, the point is to justify defense contractor jobs, keep the budgetary money flowing, and give Iran an excuse to do the same and give us more excuses later.

      Seriously, have you been sleeping?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:Why? by jo_ham · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's like protection of the President - you can see all the showy stuff with the Secret Service guys in black suits and sunglasses, holding their finger to their ear to listen to an earpiece... those are the guys they want you to see.

    4. Re:Why? by iblum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because digging deeper and pouring more concrete costs money. Money that they could instead be spending on the Nuclear research. the more expensive and dangerous we make their nuclear program, the more likely they are to give it up.

    5. Re:Why? by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      That's part of the point of having such a weapon. 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.

      Another example is China's current efforts. They do this all the time with weapons systems meant as foils for aircraft carriers and other expensive pieces of US hardware. Make a new missile or a fancy new sub, even if you never make many of them, and then the US has to devise a counter.

    6. Re:Why? by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Agreed. The primary function of weapons is to discourage the opponents, not to harm.
      But in order to be scary enough to discourage the other guys, it actually has to be able to cause harm. And lots of it.

      And in fact, it works even better if your message to the leaders of the bad guys is that you can get a bomb into their supposedly safe bunkers, and get personal on them. That's a pretty good deterrent, and will probably ensure that you never have to use that bomb.

      And secondly, this bomb will make you Yankees look less of an a** when some Afghan guys are hiding in a mountain. Mountains turned out to be pretty awesome bunkers.

    7. Re:Why? by mr1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      Because moving a nuclear weapons development facility 20 feet deeper into the ground is a hell of a lot harder than getting off of your lazyboy to get another bag of Doritos.

      Secondly, you assume the advertised capabilities of the bomb are correct?
      A: The bomb will penetrate X feet of hardening.
      B: We will build our new complex X+15 feet deep.
      Millions of dollars and years of construction later
      A: Oh yeah, that bomb will actually penetrate X+30 feet of hardening.
      B: Oh shit.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    8. Re:Why? by s4m7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the more expensive and dangerous we make their nuclear program, the more likely they are to give it up.

      That would be true if you were dealing with a straightforward external cost-benefit analysis scenario. When speaking of Iran, that's not the case. Iran has enormous internal pressure to keep up the appearance of being a threat to Israel. In order to make that cost-benefit scenario work from a political standpoint, you'd have to make the expense and danger greater than the existing implied threat of being nuked by Israel.

      You're absolutely right about the other part, however. If our intel suggests that they've already constructed tunnels of depth X, it may cause their development process to slow down while they re-engineer existing infrastructure, and it will certainly cause them to import more concrete and other building supplies. Various governmental and past-governmental monied interests are well invested in the "international" firms that don't have to abide by the embargoes, and can therefore supply these contracting services and make substantial money from it

      Cheney, I'm looking at you.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    9. Re:Why? by Paracelcus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dummy entrances, angled blast-by down-tunnel subdoors leading to hidden pressure vents, location misdirection, laminated corbeled superstructure, etc.

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  2. Re:Cool! by iblum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Killsteak ... by LoP_XTC · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this one still require a 25 point killstreak to deploy?

    --
    "Curiouser and Curiouser...." -Alice
  4. George Carlin by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:George Carlin by judoguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously?? Have you ever seen girls fight?

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    2. Re:George Carlin by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it might help to have more women in positions of power?

      Hmmm, I really don't think so.

      There's absolutely no evidence that female leaders are less willing to go to war than male leaders. It is of course less common, but that has more to do with women being much less likely to be political and military leaders than men.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. Re:Cool! by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  6. Deprecated by srussia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"!
  7. Re:Cool! by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:Cool! by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:Cool! by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. if women were in power by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  11. Re:Hrmm... by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Cool! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

    The targets mentioned for this weapon are underground nuclear bases.

    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"
  13. Re:hardening doesn't matter by mr1911 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  14. Re:Cool! by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Hrmm... by irussel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US doesn't have friends. It has interests.