backtop

Print 85 comment(s) - last by Ammohunt.. on Oct 20 at 2:50 PM
Pentagon looks forward to next-generation of bombs designed to destroy bunkers

A 15-ton bomb to be used to destroy hidden weapons bunkers protected by up to 10,000 pounds of solid concrete is now being developed by the U.S. military.

The "massive ordinance penetrator," or MOP, will become the biggest non-nuclear weapon used by the military.  The  MOP can hold up to 5,300 pounds of explosives and is 20.5 feet in length.  It weighs up to 30,000 pounds and has a 31.5-inch diameter.

The U.S. military hopes the B-2 Stealth bomber will have the new bomb ready for use by summer 2010.  Its development comes on the heels of an announcement indicating Iran has a well-protected nuclear research laboratory hidden inside a mountain in Qom.

Military officials confirmed MOP could be used to attack fortified positions similar in North Korea and Iran, but said there were no official intended targets for the bomb.

MOP has the ability to destroy bunkers similar to the ones used by Saddam Hussein for weapons development.  Also similar to the mountainous regions Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden is believed to be hiding out in near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

MOP testing first started two years ago, but budget restrictions limited further development into the bomb.

The U.S. military has consistently evolved from the large-scale militaries necessary to fight in World War II and Vietnam, as the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan  are fought door-to-door with controlled aerial strikes.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Vietnam
By randomposter on 10/15/2009 6:32:32 PM , Rating: 4
"large-scale militaries necessary to fight in World War II and Vietnam"

I would argue that a "large scale military" mentality was one of the primary reasons america lost in Vietnam.




RE: Vietnam
By Shining Arcanine on 10/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Vietnam
By randomposter on 10/15/2009 6:50:44 PM , Rating: 5
How do you identify individual communist sympathizers in order to put them in concentration camps? Or are you suggesting entire regions where communist sympathizers were suspected of living should have been summarily put in detention for a few years? Wouldn't that basically cover the entire Vietnamese population of 40 million people at the time?

The situation in Afghanistan today is not entirely dissimilar. Taliban supporters exist in every corner of the country. There is no way to know if any given farmer is a supporter or even an active militant who put down his gun 20 minutes ago. Are you going to lock up the entire population and then carpet bomb the remaining territory?


RE: Vietnam
By Jalek on 10/15/2009 8:26:40 PM , Rating: 5
The alternative is exactly what happened in WWII, carpet bombing everything, creating firestorms in urban areas.. Those killed more than both nukes in Japan.

Those who wouldn't oppose you usually won't be found among those who will if they can expect that sort of attack.

Worry about "hearts and minds" once it's over in a very short amount of time. The Japanese weren't exactly friendly in the beginning. Had we tried some sort of "surgical strike" methodology there, we'd probably still be bombing Japan and tens of millions more casualties would've happened over time. Is that more humane?


RE: Vietnam
By Schadenfroh on 10/15/2009 8:02:20 PM , Rating: 1
Not saying that I agree, but if I recall correctly, this technique worked in the Philippines during their first try to break with the US after we won the islands from Spain.


RE: Vietnam
By Amiga500 on 10/16/2009 3:52:45 AM , Rating: 2
HA HA HA HA HA

Clueless. So utterly, completely clueless.

Good luck putting millions of people into concentration camps.

Good luck capturing them.

Good luck keeping the South Vietnamese on-side when doing it.

The problem was, far too many of the military and political leadership were like you. Clueless as to the scale and nature of the problem the grunts on the ground actually faced.


RE: Vietnam
By Yawgm0th on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Vietnam
By danielgarciaromero on 10/17/2009 6:50:50 AM , Rating: 2
Hm... But the Nazi lost ! LOL


RE: Vietnam
By Reclaimer77 on 10/15/2009 8:39:48 PM , Rating: 5
We lost in 'Nam because we let politicians run the war, and they did NOT have the willpower to fight in an effective manner.

We lost Vietnam in Washington, not in 'Nam.


RE: Vietnam
By dsx724 on 10/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Vietnam
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2009 7:35:32 AM , Rating: 3
The people didn't want the war because we were losing too many troops. We were losing too many troops because our politicians didn't have the stones to allow the military to do what was necessary.

War is not pretty. Afghanistan could easily become another Vietnam with the Democrats in charge. Our current rules of engagement are getting our troops killed. They have set this "no civilian casualties" requirement so high that our troops can't even shoot back if there are civilians near the people firing on them. All for the betterment of the public image of the war. Well a war shouldn't have a public image. Not in terms of casualties anyway.

For our troops its a private matter between the family and the military. For theirs, its between them and the crows as far as I'm concerned. Sure we shouldn't bomb a village to kill one guy but when have we done that anyway?


RE: Vietnam
By Yawgm0th on 10/16/2009 11:10:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
We were losing too many troops because our politicians didn't have the stones to allow the military to do what was necessary.
What was necessary about our military action in Vietnam?


RE: Vietnam
By Nfarce on 10/18/2009 8:38:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What was necessary about our military action in Vietnam?


Ask France. They started it. We took over in a broader attempt to stop the spread of communism in southeast Asia. As per usual, so many young Americans have no clue about the reality of that so-called war, Vietnam. All they know is that America sucks and other nations rock. And they are being taught that.


RE: Vietnam
By ipay on 10/16/2009 12:47:41 PM , Rating: 3
Your birth was a disgrace to humanity.


RE: Vietnam
By dsx724 on 10/16/2009 3:25:41 PM , Rating: 1
Very Rove thing to do. We sent high schoolers to go poison 4 million people 8000 miles away over an ideology that we enforced on their people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

If your comment is to suggest the contrary, then by that reasoning 911 was just Osama was preventing a bigger terrorist attack from happening? Gee.


RE: Vietnam
By bigboxes on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Vietnam
By nafhan on 10/16/2009 12:06:59 AM , Rating: 5
Take a little time to read about the Vietnam war. You might be surprised...


RE: Vietnam
By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/2009 2:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Take a little time to read about the Vietnam war. You might be surprised...


Oh I have. I question who wrote the books on the Vietnam war that you read. Or do we just accept it as fact because it's on print now ?


RE: Vietnam
By rcc on 10/16/2009 6:52:21 PM , Rating: 3
Absolutely. The amount of history that has been rewritten in school books over the last 20 years is a bit frightening.

Everyone wants their 15 minutes.


RE: Vietnam
By Lakku on 10/15/2009 10:19:00 PM , Rating: 5
Lost means you got beat generally. The South would have been held had the US stayed but what would've been the point? Nixon ordered Linebacker 2 during the early 72, directly bringing the North back to the negotiating table and an eventual truce. During LB 2, we carpet bombed the North with B-52's and guess what, it was very effective. Summarily, we signed a truce, and left. Seems like a draw, or this is futile so we quit sort of thing to me. The US didn't lose or get beat, they left. So politically? I can side with that failing or a loss, but militarily, it is not a loss.


RE: Vietnam
By Solandri on 10/16/2009 4:38:22 AM , Rating: 5
Vietnam was a tactical victory (the U.S. never lost a major military engagement there), but a strategic loss for the U.S. (the goal of bolstering the South Vietnamese government to where it could hold off or defeat the North was never achieved). If you watch the numerous interviews with the leaders of the NVA, they all basically say the same thing. They knew there was no way they could defeat the U.S. militarily, so instead they aimed for a prolonged stalemate with the hope that the American public would grow weary of the war, putting pressure on U.S. politicians to end it.

The CIA adopted the same strategy when aiding the Afghans in their war against the Soviet invasion. And the Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda/Taliban in Afghanistan are trying the same thing.


RE: Vietnam
By Aloonatic on 10/16/2009 4:35:41 AM , Rating: 5
The main reason why any modern war is lost, is because no politician can do what is actually required to "win" a war as is read in our history books from days gone bye, with knights of old etc.

Wars that require invasion also require a total war attitude and a callas disregard for your enemy who need to be cowed and subjugated ruthlessly, else you will always have insurrections and resistance. You need to do what the Nazi's did, and kill 100 villagers for every German officer shot by the resistance etc to stand any sort of chance of making it work.

But what modern (western) government want s to be seen in that light? Hence, arms are tied behind backs, and it doesn't work out in the end as a population is everywhere and will always fight back if not faced-down from the get go.

It's how things were done in days of yore. Other than that, the only way an invading army has one out is when when machine guns have met spears and bows and arrows.

This is why Iraq is the mess it is, Afghanistan too.

The modern work around is to try to create a local army, so by changing who the people are and how they think that way, but it's a long shot and requires a lot of hard work. Who knows, it may work, but I'm not holding my breath. And it's clear that we can;t really afford it (in the UK at least) either.

If anything, Vietnam was a mess because they America didn't go in hard enough, and didn't round up who ever and were not ruthless enough with the Viet Min. We're talking about war, and as soon as you try to spin it as a good thing and that you are nice but having to do it for good reasons, not the real reasons that we all know is behind it, ie. power/land/money (all the same thing really) that every war has really been about, then it's not going to work out well for you in the end.


RE: Vietnam
By nafhan on 10/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Vietnam
By Aloonatic on 10/16/2009 9:23:45 AM , Rating: 5
I'm just saying that if you want to win and pacify a population, that's what you've got to do. That is why all modern interventions and invasions by western democracies are pretty much doomed to failure.

Sure, the USA has done a "fair" job in Iraq/Afghanistan, but that's just it, "fair" is as good as it gets. It's all they can do, was all they could do in Vietnam, which is why they failed. No great success.

If you want to start a wart you are going to kill people. There is something a little stupid about saying that it's OK to kill X thousand and drag it out, rather than 10 times X thousand and get the job done sooner and right. Kinda like the WW2 Japan atomic bomb scenario. Entire local population killed, job done. That's what it takes. Pretending otherwise helps no one.


RE: Vietnam
By nafhan on 10/16/2009 10:15:06 AM , Rating: 2
Part of what I was trying to get across is that the entire population does not need to be "pacified" in this case. From what I've seen the majority of the population is not resisiting or fighting. If we started on mass executions, they would be, the rest of the Arab world would certainly join them, and possibly others would, too.
The other thing I was trying to get across is that in today's media connected world, "pacifying" and genocide are not an option, and that's one of the things military and political leaders need to take into account before they get into a situation like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam.


RE: Vietnam
By ipay on 10/16/2009 1:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam are different battlespaces to World War II (which was, after all, an Earth-encompassing, total war).

However, pacification can certainly work in such situations; leveling a single village known for harboring insurgents would certainly cause many would-be rebels to rethink their strategies. If it doesn't, raze another village, and continue until the resistance collapses or there are no more villages. Either way, you win.

"Violence is like duct tape; if it's not working, you're not using enough of it."


RE: Vietnam
By Aloonatic on 10/17/2009 2:34:12 AM , Rating: 3
Sadly, you are wrong. If you want an invasion to work, the entire population has to be cowed and bought into line. That everyone is not making IEDs in their basements or throwing rocks at your patrols does not meant that they are not insurgents in waiting, or supporting them in other ways. Even just by not pointing out where/who the insurgents are, they are part of your problem, and always will be.

As for the entire Arab World being against you. Well I'm not sure what you see on your news channel wherever you are, but in Iraq, there are a lot of fighters killing American and British troops from all over the Arab world. It's already happening. If anything, the softly softly approach only encourages the states that America and Britain clearly want to dominate in the Arab world to step up and face up to us.

Would Iran be so clearly sticking a finger up to America if America had gone in harder and been far more ruthless in Iraq? Maybe they would have wanted to, but a more aggressive America, serious about the job in hand would not have given them time.

You are quite right about the media of course. The advent of the telegraph pretty much ended effective foreign campaigning. When the first British concentration camps in South Africa were reported o by the British press, that pretty much ended the effective expansion of the Empire and subjugation of foreign peoples.

Doing what needs to be done is not and option any more, which is why Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan did not/will not work, or only a rather unsatisfactory and more costly fudged short term outcome is the best that you can hope to achieve.


RE: Vietnam
By rcc on 10/16/2009 5:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
In part. In addition, it was a war fought by politicians, not Generals. That's always a problem.


RE: Vietnam
By 91TTZ on 10/19/2009 1:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
According to many people who fought over there, the reason we lost the war was due to politics. We couldn't engage the enemy where we knew they were hiding, and we couldn't bomb the North the way we knew would work. All the while they knew this and kept doing what they knew would work for them.

Only towards the end of the war when we wanted to force them to the bargaining table did we go all out with the Linebacker II campaign. And according to our pilots, it worked. They said that during the first week or so they saw intense antiaircraft missile fire, but all of a sudden it subsided. It became apparent to them that the North Vietnamese had run out of missiles, and we were able to bomb them with impunity. Once that happened, they came to the bargaining table and we were able to negotiate a cease fire and withdrawal.


RE: Vietnam
By Ammohunt on 10/20/2009 2:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
The American Military didn't lose in vietnam the Viet-kong didn't win a single major battle. The War was lost at home by hippie sympathizers and week kneed Politicians. The biggest losers were the South Vietnamese who were denied an existence free of communist oppression.


With all of Iraq's WMD's and all
By Dobs on 10/15/2009 7:26:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
...to destroy bunkers similar to the ones used by Saddam Hussein for weapons development.


So the first I hear about proof of Saddam's weapons development is from DailyTech. Could never have guessed that.




RE: With all of Iraq's WMD's and all
By roykahn on 10/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: With all of Iraq's WMD's and all
By Reclaimer77 on 10/15/2009 10:09:19 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah the whole world is terrorized that we removed a dictator from power and started free elections in Iraq, a country so small that if it showed up in your salad at dinner, you wouldn't bother sending it back.

Honestly, do you listen to yourself ? China, India, North Korea, and Pakistan building and threatening to use nukes, now THAT is a terrifying thought. And you say we're dominated the world ?


RE: With all of Iraq's WMD's and all
By lemonparty2 on 10/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: With all of Iraq's WMD's and all
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2009 7:43:09 AM , Rating: 2
How do you know he didn't kill more than that? Or how many he would have killed if left in charge? Any fight for freedom is going to be long and bloody. You would prefer the people stay subjugated and starving but possibly safe(as long as they don't piss off Saddam) than able to choose for themselves how to live but risk it all?


RE: With all of Iraq's WMD's and all
By Gzus666 on 10/16/2009 7:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
... than able to choose for themselves how to live but risk it all?


Didn't realize forcing something on someone gives them the right to choose. Let them fight for it themselves, they will appreciate it more when they get it and we don't have to pay for it.

We put Saddam in power in the first place, then we play the hero when we take him out, what a joke.


RE: With all of Iraq's WMD's and all
By Nfarce on 10/18/2009 8:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Didn't realize forcing something on someone gives them the right to choose.


You can say that again, bubba. Especially with the Democrats attempting to ramrod socialist health care down everyone's throats.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/2009 2:29:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The dictator was replaced by an ongoing civil war that has killed over a million civilians


Where are you getting this figure from ? A box of Cracker Jacks !


RE: With all of Iraq's WMD's and all
By roykahn on 10/16/2009 3:22:25 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, I should realise that this site is mostly read by US citizens who would not like to hear bad things about their government. However, I despise people who refuse to accept criticism.

Please allow me to point out that the US government supported Saddam for many years as a dictator. The US government does not care about the Iraq public. Why would it care about the population of "a country so small"? Because it wants to control resources and strengthen its economy.

There is no such thing as free elections when the USA is involved. In fact, the USA government goes to extreme lengths to make sure other countries are run by people who will play by the USA's rules and help strengthen its economy and strangehold over the world. That is not democracy. Look at what happened in Haiti as just one example.

I know I can't change your mind on this topic as your media and government does an excellent job influencing its public and spreading fear. It is always *other* countries that are a threat to global peace, never the USA, right? The USA only uses force for the the good of mankind, right? The majority of the rest of the world does not share this view and sees USA as the number one threat.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/16/2009 7:34:42 AM , Rating: 3
First of all, Iraq was payback by Bush senior when Saddam went rogue. We supported him in the war against Iran as payback for the Iran hostages and throwing out the Shah, not because we liked him, he just happened to be the closest and most powerful dixie cup at hand. The Bush clan was looking for an excuse to knock him over for a long time, like the way they knocked over Noriega for going rogue after he got cocky with all the drug money we were helping him generate.

But to think no other country does this is naive. European and Russian companies were in bed with Saddam, which is why they didn't want him ousted.

BTW, why would you go so far as to "despise" someone for not taking criticism? That seems harsh. Almost domineering. Hey, there is a US citizenship waiting for you if you want one.


RE: With all of Iraq's WMD's and all
By Reclaimer77 on 10/16/2009 2:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, I despise people who refuse to accept criticism.


Saying "The United States is terrorizing the world" isn't criticism, it's slander and liberal bullcrap spewed by some kid probably half my age. I can accept criticism just fine, when it's valid.


RE: With all of Iraq's WMD's and all
By Gzus666 on 10/16/2009 8:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saying "The United States is terrorizing the world" isn't criticism, it's slander and liberal bullcrap spewed by some kid probably half my age. I can accept criticism just fine, when it's valid.


No you can't, cause you decide what criticism is valid and all of it isn't to you. I love how you pull the age card, like that has something to do with it. If a 5 year old came up with quantum theory, it doesn't make it any less valid. You are the king of logical fallacies.

Also, you aren't America, stop acting like you are our friggin' ambassador. Democrats and Republicans are both morons, get over it. Any one that is that polarized is usually batty or off a bit at the very least. You are a fine example of this.


By Amiga500 on 10/16/2009 3:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
So why don't you have the balls to stand up to China/India/NK/Pakistan? (incidentally, 3 of which have had 'the bomb' for quite a long time now).

It wouldn't have been because Bush could not get rebuild contracts for his mates in NK, or NK does not have oil to sell in Euros?

There is none so blind as those that do not wish to see.


By beerhound on 10/16/2009 11:14:27 AM , Rating: 2
Note, I'm not commenting on the misleading WMD excuse to take us into Iraq, I generally agree with you on that. That said, I think you are misinterpreting the comment. He means the BUNKERS themselves. WMDs weren't found (beyond stuff that was leftover from the chemical weapons he had used on the Kurds much earlier) but underground bunkers did exist as research facilities, command and control facilities, etc. Some of them were deep enough that they were difficult to attack with the penetrating weapons available at the time. All this bomb is meant to do is extend how deeply underground we can hit a facility or how thick a concrete layer we can penetrate.


Tactical nukes
By Azsen on 10/15/2009 7:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think a 1-2KT tactical nuke ought to do the trick quite nicely. Not too much fallout either from the size. Why go to all the effort of researching these conventional bunker buster bombs?




RE: Tactical nukes
By lco45 on 10/15/2009 7:33:04 PM , Rating: 5
The problem with using a 1-2KT nuke is that a 10KT nuke is even better, and 10MT nuke is even better than that.

If the US starts using nukes in Iran or North Korea, it sends two very dangerous signals to China and Russia:
1. It's now OK to use nukes.
2. You better get yours primed because the US might get you first.

So you end up with global nuclear escalation for the sake of clearing out a bunch of teenagers with RPGs from a cave in Helmand province.

Luke


RE: Tactical nukes
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/16/2009 7:29:40 AM , Rating: 1
Nukes are air burst weapons, these are ground penetrating weapons. Nukes have altimeter fuses, bunker busters have delayed fuses to go off at a certain depth in the ground.


RE: Tactical nukes
By AssBall on 10/16/2009 8:53:14 AM , Rating: 2
They have tested nukes that can penetrate and do the work much more efficiently.


RE: Tactical nukes
By theapparition on 10/16/2009 9:20:52 AM , Rating: 3
From a technical standpoint, there is no difference between conventional weapons and nuclear. They are both rated in comparision to tons of TNT.

EMP's and all the other effects (fallout, radiation) of nuclear weaponry is somewhat exagerated by the media and TV/Movies.

A nuclear weapon could certainly be used as a ground penetrating bomb, with no adverse affects. They would also be more effective, smaller, and easier carried by lighter aircraft.

The only reason we will never see this is completely political. We can't use any nuclear weapons because not only does that violate treaties we have signed, but it also opens us up for nuclear retaliation.
Also the same reason the US hasn't pushed for nuclear power. If we claim we "need" nuclear power for our energy needs, than who are we to deny other countries (Iran, et.al.) thier energy needs. So our citizens are being held hostage by an energy policy that is not doing what is in the best interest of the US, but rather trying to fight a losing battle of outlasting other countries.


RE: Tactical nukes
By grath on 10/16/2009 11:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
A sudden underground nuclear detonation at a secret underground nuclear weapons facility isnt exactly the least plausible kind of thing to happen. What stealth bomber? I dont know what youre talking about

Theres always the fact that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is not ratified yet, we would still be in compliance with the Limited Test Ban Treaty, just that we decided to test under someone elses country


RE: Tactical nukes
By ajfink on 10/16/2009 4:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
There was a push to create small, tactical nuclear bunker-busters at the beginning of the decade. The general revulsion to nuclear weapons ended that.

It wouldn't have been a bad idea as a weapon in itself, but can you imagine the PR shitstorm for "US USES NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST IRAN"?

If the US developed such weapons, China and Russia would also. I don't think it would usher in any new era of nuclear proliferation to new nations or actually increase any significant threat to any nation, but it would make people more uneasy than they're willing to tolerate.


RE: Tactical nukes
By redbone75 on 10/16/2009 9:17:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not too much fallout either from the size.

And how many lives lost or years/generations affected from the fallout do you consider "not too much?" Sounds like someone who is too detached as to what war really is. Maybe you should have a gun strapped to your hands and be put in the middle of a firefight? Might just give you a whole new outlook on the concept of collateral damage.


Biggest non-nuclear weapon?
By Connoisseur on 10/15/2009 7:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The "massive ordinance penetrator," or MOP, will become the biggest non-nuclear weapon used by the military. The


Really? I thought the MOAB was the largest non-nuclear weapon? Or are they simply talking about the dimensions of the bomb itself?




RE: Biggest non-nuclear weapon?
By MadMan007 on 10/15/2009 8:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
This is larger physically but has a lower (effective) yield.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB


RE: Biggest non-nuclear weapon?
By JackPack on 10/15/2009 8:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
The Father is far bigger.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/16/2009 12:10:28 AM , Rating: 3
The problem with the MOAB and Russia's FOAB is that the practical application for either is severely limited. Other than laying waste to a large standing military site its more for psychological purposes as it looks like a nuke when detonated.

The MOP on the other hand has a very real practical application. Super hardened bunkers under ground.


Catch Phrase
By dragunover on 10/15/2009 5:56:40 PM , Rating: 5
MOP it up.




RE: Catch Phrase
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2009 7:46:24 AM , Rating: 2
I think the bomb should be shaped like a d*ck. That way we can be accurate when we say we "f*cked them up".


RE: Catch Phrase
By Gzus666 on 10/16/2009 8:03:51 PM , Rating: 1
Or fulfill your phallic military fantasies while you spank off?


How powerful?
By nafhan on 10/16/2009 12:10:52 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
destroy hidden weapons bunkers protected by up to 10,000 pounds of solid concrete
This doesn't say a whole lot about how powerful the bomb is. It would be more helpful to mention how thick a layer of reinforced concrete it could penetrate.




RE: How powerful?
By Suntan on 10/16/2009 12:35:26 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, it's much better to tell the public *specifically* what a weapon can do than just tell them in *general* terms what it can do...

US General: "Hey this thing can go through 12 feet of concrete..."

I'manutjob: "Ah, better change the plans for the new bunker from 10 feet to 14 feet thick walls..."

-Suntan


Sad
By MrBowmore on 10/18/2009 10:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
USA seem so sad to me. A country with more than 50% of the population driven to fear by mass media.

90% of all your wars to this date has been driven by money and oil, witch translates to fear (Insert whatever excuse for a driving factor, communism, terrorism, "A war is upon us", the end is neigh, yadayada) in the population.

It is sad to watch whole generations of young men driven to war, again and again, on causes that has nothing to do with their continued well being.

It is NOT your, the peoples, war, it is the governments, the oil and weapon industries war.

You young men are just disposable pawns in an absolute crazy round of monopole.

It makes me sick to watch.




RE: Sad
By roykahn on 10/19/2009 4:03:03 AM , Rating: 2
You mean there's no Axis of Evil? You mean America is not winning the war on drugs? You mean there's no war on terror? You mean America is not spreading democracy? You mean pre-emptive strikes are not justifiable? You don't want America to rule the world by force? You mean America shouldn't have sole military control of space? You don't want America to benefit financially by ruining other countries' environment and communities? You don't want the IMF and World Bank to dictate other countries' economic policies for the benefit of America? You don't want gigantic military spending? But they're American! They are entitled to anything they want. Do you dare suggest other countries have the same rights and value as the mighty Americans? Are the lives of those who live in nasty non-USA countries worth more than a barrel of oil? If Americans want to control the Earth's resources (especially oil) then surely they're entitled to it. Might is right.


RE: Sad
By MrBowmore on 10/19/2009 7:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
Something in that fashion, yes. =/


The best way to win this dust up
By hevets on 10/15/2009 9:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
Is to fly planes in and just crop dust the country with either crack smoke or marijuana smoke. Get everyone so high that they lose the will to fight. Then you can send in Uncle Sam's misguided children to mop things up.




RE: The best way to win this dust up
By grath on 10/16/2009 11:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...either crack smoke or marijuana smoke. Get everyone so high...


That somewhat accurately describes any number of undesirable locations (my neighborhood) yet somehow the youth still manage to kill each other. Go figure


Easy to dig
By randomname on 10/16/2009 6:37:45 AM , Rating: 2
There is a definite limit to how deep one can penetrate with a bomb of a certain size:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth

(Iron is a little more than three times as dense as concrete, tungsten about eight times. Rock is of course a little more dense than concrete.) Knowing the dimensions of such a weapon, it is only an engineering/financial problem to dig your facilities beyond their reach.

So, it would be best to keep such specifications a secret, and publicizing these things reeks of marketing. Well, maybe they assume the opposite side is capable of evaluating the realistic maximum size of such bombs. And if you assume Iranians (and North Koreans) are not complete idiots, they have already done that.

Newton's approximation doesn't say what happens to the energy released by the bomb/projectile, but even a low yield nuke makes a relatively small crater. However, it is very difficult to tell how far the resulting cracks and deformations reach.




RE: Easy to dig
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/16/2009 11:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
The bomb was developed to penetrate known existing target fortifications to send a message to people who are planning on hiding in those fortifications when the poop hits the fan. That is how the MOAB was developed and the information released. We had intelligence on Saddam's bunkers, so we developed the bomb to bust those and then told the world about it so he knew he couldn't hide in them. That is when he capitulated in the first gulf war. This weapon's capabilities are likely being released to inform some intended target that we have them beat. Then they will develop deeper fortifications, but in the meantime they will tone it down.


Brilliant...
By munky on 10/16/2009 1:50:05 PM , Rating: 1
We're developing a bomb to penetrate bunkers which contain weapons that don't exist, and to destroy caves with the enemy who isn't there. I hate to say this, but this war is going on for no other reason than profit. The US govt doesn't give a shit about spreading democracy, nor do they care about the native population of Iraq or Afghanistan. No one stopped to realize that neither Afgan nor Iraq pose a threat to the US at this point, so why are we still there?




RE: Brilliant...
By MadMan007 on 10/16/2009 2:04:39 PM , Rating: 3
War has always been about profit. Unfortunately nowadays it's about private profit.


Heavy
By Cookoy on 10/16/2009 1:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
this is one bomb the suicide bombers won't be carrying around in their belts! how reassuring. any idea how deep that thing can go, depending on the materials it needs to blast through?




alternative
By TETRONG on 10/16/2009 2:54:34 AM , Rating: 2
Why so harsh measures?
By camylarde on 10/16/2009 8:12:26 AM , Rating: 2
If the bunker is deep in the mountain, and the tunels going down the slope, use Heavy Napalm, or Heavy Roller (cost $10000). if it is going uphill, use Heavy Hedgehog ($10000). If it is combination of both, just use Dirt bomb on all the entrances. One can gain these funds easily by blowing up few tanks / or winning a round or two. Oh yes, and play SCORCHED EARTH on a standard economy of course...

This all is about scorched earth, right?




Vietnam is over
By mars2k on 10/18/2009 10:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
Nam is over... we got our asses handed to us...lets move on

Did anyone notice the picture at the top of the article? We're developing bunker busters so naturally we assume they're for cartoon guys in turbans? Wow!




Nam > usa
By anandtech02148 on 10/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Nam > usa
By Griswold on 10/16/2009 4:32:36 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, despite the hard to understand gibberish, I'll bite:

Vietnam owned China...

And north vietnam owes much of the victory over the US to china and russia. Without their weapons and troops, they would most likely have lost that war...


RE: Nam > usa
By HoundRogerson on 10/16/2009 2:31:11 PM , Rating: 1
Dude, we get it, we're A**holes, we know that. We pride ourselves on it, now bring something useful to the comments.


RE: Nam > usa
By grath on 10/17/2009 12:02:39 AM , Rating: 2
Oddly enough I think he made a fair point toward the end there. Certain regions do have a very long history of being resistant to conquerors, yet countries have consistently sent forces there to take land and resources from the natives or based on moral objection to the kind of behavior we only grew out of a few generations ago.


Brute Force
By InternetGeek on 10/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Brute Force
By rs1 on 10/15/2009 6:23:41 PM , Rating: 4
It takes a lot less time than several days to press a button.


RE: Brute Force
By 9nails on 10/15/2009 7:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
US Air Force is the best service for when your package absolutely positively needs to be delivered over night!


RE: Brute Force
By carniver on 10/15/2009 6:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
If there's a way of controlling weather, an even more subtle approach would be to STOP any rainfall for a whole year so they thirst to death.


RE: Brute Force
By SPOOFE on 10/15/2009 6:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For some reason this looks like a brute force approach to me.

The public has soundly rejected the application of tactical nukes; not much other option.

quote:
SOmething more subtle, and possibly more effective, would be to rain toxic waste on them for several days.

That's "subtle" only for extremely creative definitions of the word "subtle". First and foremost, it'd be nigh impossible to keep that action from being blared about in the media. Second, you'd need hundreds of runs by bombers to keep the rain up. Third... it's toxic friggin' waste! Conventional warfare is called so for a reason.


RE: Brute Force
By HrilL on 10/15/2009 7:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
Then someone would need to clean all that up after you've taken control of their country. I think this bomb would be better.


RE: Brute Force
By dtfernando on 10/19/2009 3:19:59 AM , Rating: 2
Bombing strategies typically are assigned to the dumbest guys: the ones who get frustrated because they can't hit the problems and solutions spot on. Besides, even with the biggest MOPs you can build, all the Iranians have to do would be to put some reasonably sized reactive armor. Yes, the stuff that protects tanks can also protect underground facilities. Or is this blunting solution so difficult to understand by the bomb-obsessed punks?


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki