Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United States Technology

Boeing Delivers Massive Ordnance Penetrator 381

Posted by Soulskill
from the mopping-up dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boeing Delivers Massive Ordnance Penetrator

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Cool! (Score:3, Informative)

    by schnikies79 (788746) on Thursday November 17, 2011 @10:23AM (#38085882)

    It's not nuclear.

  • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

    by captainpanic (1173915) on Thursday November 17, 2011 @10:48AM (#38086292)

    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.

  • Re:Cool! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Crashmarik (635988) on Thursday November 17, 2011 @11:00AM (#38086452)

    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 [bbc.co.uk]

    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 [google.com]

    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 [slate.com]

    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.

  • Re:Cool! (Score:5, Informative)

    by realityimpaired (1668397) on Thursday November 17, 2011 @11:01AM (#38086474)

    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 [wikipedia.org]

    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.

  • Re:Cool! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tsingi (870990) <graham.rick@gOPENBSDmail.com minus bsd> on Thursday November 17, 2011 @11:20AM (#38086748)
    Dirty bombs aren't actually much of a threat. Most of what you have read about them is fear mongering.
  • Re:George Carlin (Score:5, Informative)

    by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday November 17, 2011 @11:29AM (#38086862) Homepage

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

    Hmmm, I really [wikipedia.org] don't [wikipedia.org] think [wikipedia.org] so [wikipedia.org].

    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.

  • Re:Cool! (Score:4, Informative)

    by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudson@NOSpAM.barbara-hudson.com> on Thursday November 17, 2011 @11:29AM (#38086868) Journal

    It's not nuclear.

    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.

  • Re:Cool! (Score:5, Informative)

    by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Thursday November 17, 2011 @12:06PM (#38087446)

    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.

  • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Paracelcus (151056) on Thursday November 17, 2011 @12:27PM (#38087756) Journal

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

  • by intnsred (199771) on Thursday November 17, 2011 @12:50PM (#38088050) Homepage

    "... 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 [guardian.co.uk], this [straight.com], this [counterpunch.org], or this [rt.com].

  • Re:Cool! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Crashmarik (635988) on Thursday November 17, 2011 @01:21PM (#38088504)

    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 [wikipedia.org]

    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 [associatedcontent.com]
      Some examples of U.S. terrorist activities - http://www.salon.com/2011/03/11/us_arms_sales/ [salon.com]. 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 reason that every major university maintains a department of mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.

Working...