30,000-Lb. Bomb On Fast Track For Deployment 707
coondoggie writes "Published reports today say the Pentagon is rattling swords in the direction of North Korea and Iran by speeding the development a 20-foot, 30,000-lb bomb known as Massive Ordnance Penetrator. This weapon is intended to annihilate underground bunkers and other hardened sites (read: long-range missile or underground nuke development) up to 200 ft. underground. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has overseen the development of this monster since 2007, says it is designed to be carried aboard B-2 and B-52 bombers and deployed at high altitudes, from which it would strike the ground at speeds well beyond twice the speed of sound to penetrate the below-ground target." Reuters has more specifics on the MOP's chances for deployment by 2010, and the detail that the bomb's load of explosives weighs in at 5,300 lbs.
Imagine... (Score:4, Funny)
:<
Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:3, Insightful)
I know it's been a long time since America has engaged in it, but it's called diplomacy, not recon. And after he likely completely fails, THEN we can blow the shit out of them righteously, if need be, since we at least tried to talk with the crazy SOB. If the Big Dog can't get N Korea to the table, then no one can. Shoot first and ask questions later (like we (America and it's allies) did in Iraq) is something that Barney Fife would do, and only works in mass market action flicks. You see unlike Iraq, N Kor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Years of diplomacy (UN inspections and such) were tried with Iraq after the first gulf war.
Re:Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Neo-Con Creative History (Score:3, Informative)
But Saddam Hussein was doing his best to convince the world that he did have WMDs. Unfortunately for him, he succeeded. Before the invasion, no one argued that he didn't have any WMDs...
Sorry, but despite the Neo-Con belief that reality is whatever they say it is, this is total fiction. Colin Powell's PowerPoint show [wikipedia.org] didn't change the fundamental position of the U.N. Security Council or the opinion of many Americans.
From Wikipedia (and yes there are foreign press sites to back this up):
"While Colin Powell's statement to the UN may have been accepted as 'proof' by many in the U.S., this was not the case in Europe, where there was widespread skepticism of any links between Iraq and al-Qaeda
Re:Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, right. It's a really brilliant idea to sell chemical weapons to the very country you've been using them on just a decade earlier, and which _still_ hates your guts.
Re:Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:5, Informative)
After all these years, you still live by that fallacy. Try reading the USMOVIC and UNSCUM quarterly report, try paying attention to foreign news media pree 2000 and try paying attention [davidstuff.com] to the leaders in the US.
The entire world thought Iraq maintained its WMD programs and he left the appearance of doing so on purpose. He has said during interviews that he feared attacks from neighboring countries was his reasoning behind it. Not what makes the rest of the world different from the US is that they tackled the problem differently, France used the UN sanctions to scam secret and lucrative oil deals hidden within the UN oil for food program which is one reason why they were objectionable to an invasion (they would lose billions). Russia claimed they were contained and not a problem, Germany was the same with the exception of the UN inspector Hans Blix who contrary to reports submitted to the UN security council under his department, claimed that Iraq had no WMDs but then again, who do you believe, the guy who is anti war and stated something different when war seemed eminent or the guy who spent the better part of ten years claiming Iraq wasn't cooperating, munitions declared destroy were being found, dual use materials were being discovered which weren't reported as per the agreement, chemical processing components actually used in WMD manufacturing were being used in "other chemical processes" at other plants despite a declaration of destruction.
It wasn't until after the war when popular opinion became that there was no WMDs. You can't rewrite history.
Re:Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't until after the war when popular opinion became that there was no WMDs. You can't rewrite history.
The fact is that the UN believed that there was not enough evidence to support an invasion. When the US invaded (unilaterally), surprise, surprise, there was no evidence that the invasion was warranted either. Nobody is trying to rewrite history here, you are ignoring it
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Debate towards the validity of the WMDs isn't really the issue here. It's the concept that is incorrectly repeated that only the US thought they were there or that it was real that I am concerned with.
I'm not saying that there wasn't skeptics, I'm saying that every major government in the world had intelligence stating that Iraq most likely did have WMDs or has failed in their disarming obligations pressed from the previous war. About the closest to denial at the time before war was eminent would be Russia
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That wasn't diplomacy, that was browbeating. Slight difference.
What does the phrase "Unconditional Surrender" mean to you?
Re:Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:4, Insightful)
And NK is still standing on their corner undisturbed, whereas Iraq and Afghanistan were steam rolled. So what does this tell me ? If I was a country which *MIGHT* come in friction with the US, I should develop my own WMD ASAP. Here around we call that escalation, and as far as I can tell, with the current strong arming politic of the US, there is no way to avoid it.
Re:Not recon...Diplomacy (Score:5, Informative)
Even north koreans don't respect their government, they fear it. That is a wholly different proposition. Displacement of the North Korean government would probably cause less civilian violence than Iraq because their population is largely of the same ethnic origins. Violence in Iraq is largely sectarian, not just "terrorists" as the US government would have you believe.
However, that doesn't mean the actual act of displacing DPRK's governemnt wouldn't require violence. They are one of the most heavily armed countries in the region. Although an exact figure is not known for military spending, it's believed to be a large percentage of their GDP even in comparison to countries like Iraq and Israel.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with most of your comment. However, I take issue with this statement:
Shoot first and ask questions later (like we (America and it's allies) did in Iraq)...
I seem to remember something about ten years and 17 UN Resolutions [casi.org.uk]
. I also remember GWB giving Saddam the option of leaving Iraq peacefully before moving in.
The difference between N. Korea and Iraq is that nearly every country in the area wanted Saddam taken out. No one in the area of N. Korea wants the area to be glowing in the dark.
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Educated minds already know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can think of no good ways that they are a direct threat but the fact they would trash the northern half of South Korea in the first half hour of a hot war is one deterrent. They've been training massive amounts of long range artillery of Seoul for years and that would be the first thing to go. They could kill more than a "few thousand". The destruction of of Seoul and their likely ability to overrun the DMZ means they can be very very destructive until we start bringing in the carriers and massing in our own troops. We would also have to do this while managing China's agitation and China IS a real threat.
Incidentally trashing SK is also good for causing some financial turmoil in the rest of the world's market. So it would cost a bit of treasure. At least for awhile.
China seems to use NK the same way a redneck likes to keep a slobbering pitbull on a chain prominently on display in his back yard. Sure you can just shoot the nasty thing dead but it won't be the end of it and it isn't much use talking to it. The redneck is the one you have to reason with.
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can think of no good ways that they are a direct threat but the fact they would trash the northern half of South Korea in the first half hour of a hot war is one deterrent. They've been training massive amounts of long range artillery of Seoul for years and that would be the first thing to go
That artillery wouldn't last very long if a shooting war broke out. We know where a lot of it is and the remainder would reveal itself as soon as they fired the first volley. Between counter-battery fire and US/ROK airpower those artillerymen would have a short and exciting life once the shooting started. The destruction of Seoul isn't very likely -- it wouldn't escape undamaged but it wouldn't be a modern day Dresden either.
their likely ability to overrun the DMZ
This will sound counter-intuitive but we actually want them to overrun the DMZ. We pulled the bulk of our forces back from the DMZ many years ago. The current plan calls for a counterattack into North Korea to cut them off/go after Pyongyang rather than meeting them at the DMZ and fighting for every inch of ROK soil. It's easier to destroy their forces if they are out in the open conducting offensive operations. As Patton said during the Battle of the Bulge, "Let's have the guts to let the Krauts go all the way to Paris. Then, we'll cut them off and chew them up."
China seems to use NK the same way a redneck likes to keep a slobbering pitbull on a chain prominently on display in his back yard. Sure you can just shoot the nasty thing dead but it won't be the end of it and it isn't much use talking to it. The redneck is the one you have to reason with.
ROFL! That's the best analogy ever :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't have to. Each piece (which, BTW NK has had over 50 years to dig in and fortify) only needs to get off a handful of shots to level Seoul (population 10M) and cause appalling civilian casualties when they have 10,000 of them - about 16 for every square kilometer of Seoul's area.
And that's not counting the nukes, which don't need a fancy delivery system since Seoul is only about 40 km from the border.
This will sound counter-intuiti
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Each piece (which, BTW NK has had over 50 years to dig in and fortify) only needs to get off a handful of shots to level Seoul (population 10M) and cause appalling civilian casualties when they have 10,000 of them
They don't have 10,000 pieces of long range artillery. According to this [globalsecurity.org] they only have about 10k-11k total pieces of artillery.
And that's not counting the nukes, which don't need a fancy delivery system since Seoul is only about 40 km from the border.
They still need some sort of delivery system, unless you think they can slingshot their Fat Man sized bombs 40 kilometers. Besides, nukes are a moot point. If they use one they lose the war and the regime doesn't survive. I'd be more worried about them using one when it became apparent that defeat was inevitable and even at that I'd be worried about them using it in the tactical sense (put one somewhere in the path of an advancing American/ROK formation and wait -- no delivery system needed) than trying to get one into Seoul.
And that strategy protects the civilian population of Seoul how?
Who said they were going to make it all the way to Seoul? Did you pay any attention at all to what I said? They are easier to destroy when they are out in the open conducting offensive operations. They set themselves up to be cut off and make their supply lines vulnerable to American/ROK air power.
NK doctrine [globalsecurity.org] (warning: pdf) is for a quick and decisive victory with overwhelming force concentrated in small areas
Overwhelming force concentrations play right into our advantages. Go take a look at military history ranging from WW2 to the Persian Gulf and tell me how well massed force concentrations manage against American air power.
backed by special ops in the enemy rear
Their special ops units would be a PITA but are not enough in of themselves to be decisive. I would use them against American/ROK airbases if I was the North Koreans but even that is only going to delay the inevitable -- and special ops won't be much use against aircraft carriers or our bases in Japan.
Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
They have nukes, but no way to deploy them
ICBMs and bombers aren't the only way to deploy nukes. They have merchant ships don't they? They have an intelligence agency don't they?
The U.S. military could destroy North Korea and be back by lunch if they pulled no punches
Thanks for demonstrating just how naive you really are. Unless you purpose using nuclear weapons, please explain to me how we could destroy North Korea and be back "by lunch". They have a 1,200,000 man standing army. I don't care how great our advantages in training/tactics and technology are -- we can't simply destroy them and be back home in time for lunch. We would own the oceans and the skies near/over the battlefield and I'm sure the kill ratio would tilt heavily in our favor -- but it would eventually come down to men with rifles and when that happens there's no way to avoid a large number of American casualties. Unless you think we have some sort of technology that magically negates Mr. Kalashnikov's inventions.
what we are discussing here is whether or not NK has the ability to do REAL damage to the U.S., which I would define as at least knocking the U.S. off of its perch as the dominant superpower
NK has the ability to do real damage to at least one critical ally (South Korea) of the United States and perhaps another (Japan). If the United States can't be relied on to defend our friends then we will be knocked off that perch. We enjoy the position that we have because of our relationships with our allies. The United States without allies/basing rights/trading partners is a Western Hemisphere power.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they understand a few things about America, then they realize that they really can do damage by killing a few thousand - look at all the idiocy we inflicted upon ourselves after al Qaeda killed a few thousand of us.
And it's not like North Korea needs to do it themselves to gain a strategic advantage from it. It is true they have nukes, but no (conventional) way to deploy the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately, educated minds do not run our government!
Wikipedia Article on the MOP (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wikipedia Article on the MOP (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wikipedia Article on the MOP (Score:5, Interesting)
While we're at it, also have a look at this Russian thingy [wikipedia.org]. It's thermobaric, and thus very different in its intended use (not a bunker buster, but what you'd use to clear a large network of caves or underground tunnels with surface exits in one sweep), but of the same magnitude of raw power.
Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
A hundred thousand years of human technology, and we're supposed to be impressed at the latest version of the club. Wake me up when the human race does something impressive.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of our clubs in the past have leveraged highly advanced theortical nuclear physics.
Now, personally I find this idea pretty impressive, club or not.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
Though true, what's interesting about this one? I don't mean that entirely as a rhetorical question: it's possible there really is something interesting here. But I haven't seen a good summary.
Is it just, take a normal bomb, make it really really big, and slog through some tedious but mostly straightforward engineering challenges to get the thing to work? Or is there something that, at a conceptual level, is different when you get to bombs of this size?
Re: (Score:2)
MASSIVE club thank you! (Score:4, Funny)
You don't understand - you call it your club, the enemy calls it his "Massive Ordinance Penetrator". We both know what you're really referring to and referring to it as heavy as a club, or a massive penetrator doesn't change the fact that you need little blue pills.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Peaceful? Who are we talking about again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
And what makes you think you are not the "mongols" to other nations?
My dual senses of proportion and perspective.
Peaceful? Who are we talking about again?
The world's greatest superpower who has nevertheless continually refused to exercise any semblance of the imperialism of its predecessors. Germany, Japan, Iraq, and more are all testaments to the devotion our country has to peace. It ain't a perfect nation, but it's a damned good one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things to like about USA and I agree with most points for exampl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry but you actually lack proportion and especially perspective.
Yawn.
Simple facts: US has engaged in more wars, invaded more countries, dropped more nuclear bombs on cities, has more military bases in foreign countries, and in recent years undermined the international order and stability far more than any other country in the world
* Engaged in more wars, invaded more countries: most of those coming to the aid of people who were being invaded or attacked, so you're mixing apples and oranges. Most people think what we did in WWI and WWII and the Gulf War and other wars were GOOD things.
And even Iraq was intended to be for the benefit of Iraq and the Middle East. Our greatest stains of imperialism are in Vietnam and Central America, and I won't defend those; and to some degree, we did the same nonsense in the Middle East, which l
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are they irrelevant, if they exactly mirror the same procedures and motivations today? They serve as good examples of how tearing down an aggressive, murderous thugocracy like Saddam's doesn't happen in one day, and it takes years for the people who lived under such a regime to develop a sustainable, democratic replacement. Which is exactly why Germany and Japan are worth mentioning. Did you think that those countries had viable economies and nice warm and fuzzy, efficient, level-headed governments running immediately after they were decapitated for their beligerant, expansionist, slaughtering ways? Why are you so anxious to ignore history, instead of learn from it? Ah, I see. Because history suggests that appeasing murderous totalitarians has a way of costing millions of lives, and you'd love to ignore that.
Who was Iraq threatening when it was conquered, how, and with what?
Just ask the guys in the patrolling aircraft who were being shot at every week. You know, the patrols that were being flown to keep Saddam from killing hundreds of thousands of more people in the north and south. How? How about with the long range missiles he continued to build? How about with the large stores of nasty stuff like VX that UN inspectors knew to be there, but which were a complete mystery, in terms of their disposition? Saddam's deliberate policy was to make sure that people in Israel and Iran thought he had a large arsenal of viable, ready-to-use WMDs. His conventional forces took a serious spanking when he invaded Kuwait, and he was desparate to be able to project power in non-conventional ways. A hobbled Republican Guard or not, though, it didn't stop them from firing on the very aircraft he agreed to allow to patrol the no-fly zones, and it didn't stop him from making a public display of sending cash to groups sponsoring terrorist bombers and training facilities (on TV, no less!). And of course it didn't stop him from doing international weapons trade with fine partners like North Korea - especially on missle hardware.
Also along the lines of "with what" - don't forget the millions and millions in cash skimmed off of the Oil For Food program, and used to rebuild his military (and gold plate the doorknobs in more palaces - but that's more of an assault on good taste, despite starving his own people to do it).
And also along the lines of "how," of course, was the sustained, deliberate obfuscation of weapons destruction records and the blocking of inspectors at every turn. He wasn't just hiding a few things, he was deliberately making it clear that he was hiding things - because he knew that only the knowledge that he had WMDs and the means and willingness to use them could keep him in power.
Is it better to live in a violent primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate than a stable advanced secular dictatorship?
Nice false dichotomy, there. Regardless: the primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate you seem to prefer (though it's not obvious why you like the way the Taliban treats, say, women who teach their daughters to read) was exactly the sort of spot where Al Queda found a happy home, and trained thousands of busy little bomb builders and murderers. The people trained in that environment are exactly the folks who, through connections in Pakistan, reach out to and recruit/fund the charming guys who do things like blow up train stations in London or Madrid. The dictatorship you see as the only other option doesn't really seem to be a problem in, say, Iraq. Or Turkey. It's actually dangerous dictatorships like Saddams (now gone) or Iran's (now getting crazier by the minute, and building nukes) that are the very reason to support democracy in places like Iraq. Because only the people in Iran can shut down the crazy mullahs who run that theocratic horror show, and they need to see that honest elections and a constitutional democracy can work.
I'm pretty sure
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what on earth did conquering and then setting up a puppet regime in Iraq have to do with "peace"?
You mean the same "puppet" regime that has asked us to leave and is busy signing oil deals with China? That's an interesting definition of "puppet" you have.
Whose peace? Who was Iraq threatening when it was conquered, how, and with what?
How about the 2/3rds of it's own population that wasn't Sunni Arab? Or shouldn't we care about them because they are brown?
Is it better to live in a violent primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate than a stable advanced secular dictatorship?
I guess that depends on if you are a member of Saddam's tribe or happen to be unlucky enough to be a Shia or Kurd. The women who were kidnapped off the street to be raped probably weren't big fans of the "stable advanced secula
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Proportion" a 20-foot, 30,000-lb bomb
Yes, that's the idea. Do you have a problem with the math? That size bomb is needed for this sort of application. It is proportional.
"Perspective" American
Nope. Historical. The Mongols overran peaceful countries and took them over. The U.S. has NEVER done that. Ever.
If you think about it carefully, I think you will find that you missed hnangelo's point.
If you re-read what I wrote, and understand it, then you will find I did not.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
"A peaceful and civilized nation"? Is there any nation fitting that description anywhere?
Sweden, maybe.
It's certainly not the U.S., what with all the wars it's been involved in in just the last century.
But you say "allows us" as if the U.S. is exactly what you mean - and the bomb TFA is about is a U.S. weapon - so I must draw the conclusion that you're living under the delusion that the U.S. is "peaceful and civilized", with "the best technology, industry, and economy[!]".
Please wake up.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden, may be.
No, Sweden has vikings. This is way too close to the mongols metaphor for my tastes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.
Depends. Considering USians can spend that much on healthcare and education, there's not really much difference. They take it away from you one way or another.
> If it weren't for the U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII, Sweden would be speaking German today
No, they wouldnt. Last war Sweden was involved in was 200 years ago. They were neutral in both world wars. One could equally well argue that if it wasnt for the UK and the Commonwealth fighting Japan you guys
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't you yanks tired of trotting that argument out every time speaks ill of the US, The USSR did far more than the US in defeating the German war machine but I have never heard a Russian use that argument.
The US needs to have a world war on their own doorstep before their gung ho attitude dies.
60% tax uncivilised
Torture civilised
Can you see what is wrong here?
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.
Is it? How do you figure (he queried, knowing the answer)?
If it weren't for the U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII, Sweden would be speaking German today, so how's about you get some fucking perspective? Is that too much to ask (he queried, knowing the answer)?
So, instead of flogging that dead horse, how about you tell us WHY you think the U.S. is entitled to the moniker "peaceful and civilized"?
Peaceful it sure isn't, as illustrated by 30+ wars and so-called "police actions" in the 20th century.
Civilized? Debatable, with the rampant flaws in its electoral system, judicial system and social welfare system. Murder on the streets, capitalism ensuring the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Corporate money buying laws, buying politicians, buying all the mom and pop's all over the country. Blatant disregard for international treaties and a will and a way to impose this on unwilling nations all around the globe.
So, tell us WHY the U.S. should be considered "peaceful and civilized", because I sure can't see it.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.
If it weren't for the U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII, Sweden would be speaking German today, so how's about you get some fucking perspective?
Wow, an overlord with -1 troll moderation. Never thought I'd see it : )
Seriously, it's pretty fucking hard to get that kind of tax system going without a civilization! You need a whole city full of accountants... barbarians could never manage that.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
A health care system that would be right at home in Blade Runner is uncivilized. Wake me up when the US moves out of the dark ages with it's health care system (for all of it citizens, not just the ones who have money).
You're also enormously overestimating the effect of the US on the outcome of WW2 - one of the biggest turning points, and perhaps the fulcrum of change for the whole war, occurred in Stalingrad in 1943. I don't remember seeing many pictures of GIs there.
While the US was no doubt a welcome ally to have during the second world war that helped to bring it to an end more quickly, you were hardly the shining white knight who saved us all from German oppression.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey North Korea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Thank you for so succinctly pointing out why this is a good idea for the U.S.
(I think you meant it to be an argument AGAINST the bomb, but ... it's not.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which one's actually used a nuke?
The U.S. And in doing so, unequivocally saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives (mostly Japanese lives, by the way ... which probably angers the DPRK to no end).
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they needed to use *two* nukes for that. Wasn't the second one just outright mass murder? (you could also argue the first one didn't need to be deployed against civial targets).
Re:Hey North Korea! (Score:5, Informative)
They didn't surrender, so the second one was deemed needed.
Have you ever seen the American casualty count just to take Iwo Jima and Okinawa?
Iwo Jima: 23, 573
Okinawa: 50, 000
Now extrapolate that to an invasion of Japan and you'll see why the US army is still using Purple Heart medals it minted for the planned invasion of Japan. They expected close to 500, 000 casualties to invade Japan and possibly more. Some planners expected it to be be between 1M - 4M American casualties.
Fact is though it was Russia's declaration of war that brought Japan to it's knees. Russian forces combined with American forces would eventually, but not easily, conquer Japan.
But seriously, look into the history of Japan during the war and you'll see why they were such a feared enemy. The bushido code is still alive today, but at that time it was life itself.
Besides, does it really matter how one dies? it doesn't matter if it was by a club or a nuclear weapon. You're still dead.
Re:Hey North Korea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently, it does, hence the complex international legal treatment of the subject. In general, use of weapons that kill indiscriminately was frowned upon even before the WWII.
During WWII most warring nations used such weapons to an extent. Regretfully, only those who lost were punished additionally for that. Those who won got a free pass, and that is why we may yet see some WMD usage, especially now that MAD is gone for good.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First, I don't trust the USSBS conclusions. The US Army Air Force had a lot of incentive to show that the non-nuclear strategic bombing worked, and it's one survey's opinion lacking a good deal of modern scholarship. Further, the Japanese had incentive to hold on and see how the next accepted strategy (make invading the Home Islands prohibitively expensive) worked.
Second, the US knew that the Japanese were interested in a peace based on the status quo, and evacuation (on Japanese terms) of Japanese-occ
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, blah. Japan was already blockaded, utterly defeated, and teetering on the brink of the stone age when it was nuked. The nukes just provided a convenient excuse for them to surrender.
They were NOT GOING to surrender. We would have had to firebomb them or invade if we didn't use the nukes. The entire historical record, including statements from Japanese generals, show this.
Question: to demonstrate this overwhelming new weapon, did the USA have to actually drop it on two Japanese cities?
Yes. They were not going to surrender after the first one, by their own statements.
Wouldn't dropping one in the entrance to Tokyo Bay have done the same job?
Nope. Not only did we need to show the power, but show that we were willing to drop it on civilians, and do it more than once.
Well, that's ancient history. How many sovereign nations has North Korea invaded recently?
If we let them, they very well might invade ROK, and they actively threaten Japan regularly. And I only ad
Re:Hey North Korea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Explain to me please why I should be afraid of a country that's technologically so far inferior to mine that even OUR military can blow the snot out of them? Not to mention that they're half a globe away and have no means to transport any meaningful amount of troops or ordnance anywhere close my country?
Whether or not they "want" to invade or kill me is moot when they're unable to. The US is able to. Korea is not.
Paranoia and North Korea (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder what what the North Koreas are going to think when they find out about this.
The tunnel system they had in the border areas is the king showing in their hand. As far as a paranoid North Korean is concerned, that was what assured destruction and kept the US from making the first strike. A nutty concern, of course, but let's face it, those North Koreans are a nutty bunch.
At some point, they're going to feel really cornered. Then things will get really interesting.
Re:Paranoia and North Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Good point, except for one thing: they only LOOK like Vince Lombardi because they were up against Carter and Clinton, who gave them those victories. They only have a few offenses and defenses, and so a decent American "coach" would not let them score off it, or would at least limit their scoring.
Not that I was ever a big fan of Bush, but North Korea is something he got right. Hopefully Obama doesn't screw up the progress we've made over the last few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Their artillery blackmail is the only thing that keeps people on the negotiation table, but
Re:Paranoia and North Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
The tunnel system they had in the border areas is the king showing in their hand. As far as a paranoid North Korean is concerned, that was what assured destruction and kept the US from making the first strike. A nutty concern, of course, but let's face it, those North Koreans are a nutty bunch.
As a guy born in a country whose people were similarly demonized just two decades ago (USSR), I have to chime in.
North Koreans are not "a nutty bunch". They are people just like me and you, and most of them would rather prefer to be left alone and live their lives in peace. Have a good home, marry a nice guy/girl, have kids, that sort of thing. They most definitely don't dream of nuclear clouds over Manhattan. They might be worried about the kind of thing TFA is about, but mostly because they don't want war (which tends to screw people's lives in a major way, especially when you're on the losing side).
The "nutty bunch" are the country leaders. And keep in mind that your average North Korean most likely doesn't feel the total, overwhelming kind of love towards his dear Glorious Leader that newspapers tell him he should have. By all accounts from tourists who visited NK, people there know how poor and oppressed they actually are, if not in specific things, then at least in general feeling.
Re: (Score:3)
Those Western news reports still show much militancy in the civilian population who buy very heavily into their government's propaganda.
Of course they do. Those "Western news reports" would be pretty boring if they showed a bored, suppressed populace. After all, when was the last time you saw video of average, bored Arabs hanging out in coffee shops? That's right, you don't, you see the screaming nutjobs, because the nutjobs get ratings.
Barnes Wallis Reinvented...again! (Score:5, Interesting)
Translation to metric (Score:5, Funny)
This is important since all the receiving parties are using the metric system, and you wouldn't want them to be confused about this.
"Published reports today say the Pentagon is rattling swords in the direction of North Korea and Iran by speeding the development a 6 m, 14968 kg bomb known as Massive Ordnance Penetrator. This weapon is intended to annihilate underground bunkers and other hardened sites (read: long-range missile or underground nuke development) up to 61 m underground. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has overseen the development of this monster since 2007, says it is designed to be carried aboard B-2.21 and B-53.638 bombers and deployed at high altitudes, from which it would strike the ground at speeds well beyond twice the speed of sound to penetrate the below-ground target." Reuters has more specifics on the MOP's chances for deployment by 2010, and the detail that the bomb's load of explosives weighs in at 2404 kg.
Well it's not really that much... (Score:4, Interesting)
They should write it's power output in terms of sun, in which case it looks really puny next to nuclear. For example, the Tsar Bomba (largest human utilized explosive device, which was detonated at half the possible yield to prevent fallout) actually got into whole number percentages:
"Since 50 Mt is 2.1*10^17 joules, the average power produced during the entire fission-fusion process, lasting around 39 nanoseconds, was about 5.4*10^24 watts or 5.4 yottawatts. This is equivalent to approximately 1.4% of the power output of the Sun.[9]" (Wikipedia).
Re: (Score:2)
Hm. Suppose that aliens a few hundred lightyears away have their telescopes pointed at us in a few hundred years, could they detect the test? 1/100 of the power of the sun, albeit just for a few nanoseconds, sounds fairly significant.
Previous British Attempts (Score:5, Interesting)
Evelyn Waugh - Letter to His Wife - 31st May 1942
No.3 Commando was very anxious to be chums with Lord Glasgow, so they offered to blow up an old tree stump for him and he was very grateful and said don't spoil the plantation of young trees near it because that is the apple of my eye and they said no of course not we can blow a tree down so it falls on a sixpence and Lord Glasgow said goodness you are clever and he asked them all to luncheon for the great explosion.
So Col. Durnford-Slater DSO said to his subaltern, have you put enough explosive in the tree?. Yes, sir, 75lbs. Is that enough? Yes sir I worked it out by mathematics it is exactly right. Well better put a bit more. Very good sir.
And when Col. D Slater DSO had had his port he sent for the subaltern and said subaltern better put a bit more explosive in that tree. I don't want to disappoint Lord Glasgow. Very good sir.
Then they all went out to see the explosion and Col. DS DSO said you will see that tree fall flat at just the angle where it will hurt no young trees and Lord Glasgow said goodness you are clever.
So soon they lit the fuse and waited for the explosion and presently the tree, instead of falling quietly sideways, rose 50 feet into the air taking with it 1/2 acre of soil and the whole young plantation.
And the subaltern said Sir, I made a mistake, it should have been 7 1/2 not 75. Lord Glasgow was so upset he walked in dead silence back to his castle and when they came to the turn of the drive in sight of his castle what should they find but that every pane of glass in the building was broken.
So Lord Glasgow gave a little cry and ran to hide his emotions in the lavatory and there when he pulled the plug the entire ceiling, loosened by the explosion, fell on his head.
This is quite true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm still sniggering at it being called a "penetrator". Compensation much?
Um ... no. You realize "penetrate" has meaning completely separate from sexual acts, right?
Especially given that for hardened targets deep underground, kinetic bombardment [wikipedia.org] is probably a more appropriate approach.
I see. Maybe the Pentagon should hire you instead.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Um ... no. You realize "penetrate" has meaning completely separate from sexual acts, right?
[Beavis and Butthead style laughter]
You said "sexual".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...heh.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How could there be any sexual connotation to a massive penetrator exploding deep inside their hidden tunnels? I mean really, this is serious business we're talking about here.
Re:Space weapons? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
A 30,000lb bomb with no explosives. An inert device.
Basically, a bullet from space.
Re:So, it's time... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ever heard of a kinetic penetrator? It is a type of ammunition used in the main gun of tanks. It contains no explosives, but rather a very dense, arrow-like projectile which uses its high speed (and thus its kinetic energy) for all its destructive power. Kinetic energy weapons are generally weapons that rely solely on their kinetic energy for their destructive power.
Other more sci-fi types of kinetic energy weapons would be rail guns and coil guns.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
five second kinetic penetrator
Hey, that was my nickname in high school!
Fixed that for you ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Evidently, the North Koreans have underground tunnels straight out of LOTRs.
Big job, big bomb.
Holey bunkers batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You bet it does. It sends a strong message to the DPRK military: "Get cracking on your ICBMs, you slackers - what good are your nukes if you can't deliver them?".
The day the US military starts dropping these things on nuclear-armed states is the day that millions of Americans move to Canada and Mexico.
Re:Holey bunkers batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Human beings seem to be a poor invention. If they are the noblest works of God where is the ignoblest? - Mark Twain
There are times when one would like to hang the whole human race, and finish the farce. - Mark Twain
I have no race prejudices, and I think I have no color prejudices or caste prejudices nor creed prejudices. Indeed I know it. I can stand any society. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being--that is enough for me; he can't be any worse. - Mark Twain
The human race is a race of cowards; and I am not only marching in that procession but carrying a banner. - Mark Twain
Such is the human race. Often it does seem such a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat. - Mark Twain
Re: (Score:2)
<sarcasm>
Sure you will! And you'll have no problem getting every last one, because they'll all be fixed in place, in plain view, and coated in fluorescent yellow paint. Plus there'll be enormous signs painted on the ground saying "bomb here".
</sarcasm>
Alternatively, for a very small inv
Re: (Score:2)
There wasn't much left after their counterparts handed massive portions of the country over to government in the name of domestic security that is no more secure than it ever was.
People willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither, etc. Wait... what was your point?
Re:Holey bunkers batman! (Score:4, Insightful)
A nuke might do the job, but there are 2 problems: ... disturbing
1: Technical: A nuke is actually a fairly sensitive weapon, if the soccer ball is disturbed, the nuclear material goes 'fizzle' and just make a big mess. Going through 61m of concrete at Mach 2 tends to be
2: Political: Even if the problems in "1" can be taken care of, no nation would ever forgive the US for first use of a nuclear weapon. That would then legitimize a nuclear response by the target nation, kill any coalitions, and forever lend backing to rogue nations wanting to make their own nukes. One of the key factors keeping many nations from being too interested is that fact that the nuclear club, since WWII, has shown the restraint of not actually using them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This thing is supposed tp go through 60m of 5000psi reinforced concrete, then explode. In a room full of gas centrifuges spinning at over 100K rpm the explosion would be redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
30,000 pounds is 15 tons. That's 1000 times less than even a very small nuke.
Err ... no. _Very small_ nukes go down well into the sub-kiloton range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The "ton" rating they use on nuclear explosives is the TNT equivalent, not the weight. TNT equivalent is an energy measurement (4.184 x 10^9 Joules).
This bomb has 15 tons of mass, but only 2.65 tons of conventional explosives. The Davy Crockett linked by Ihlosi only weighs 51 lbs.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are missing the signifgance of the 200ft claim that others have pointed out.
"whenever I see a statement from the military (any military) I automatically question its truthfulness."
Agreed, but the only reason to lie about such a "game changer" would be if the US knew, (say via supercomputer sims), that this avenue of bunker busting research was a dead-end. It seems unlikely but if it was the case then the "200ft" lie would be a tempting red-herr
Re:Question about scalability (Score:4, Funny)
No no no, you're thinking too un-Orwellian. The "Do not ride the bomb!" signs were amended to "Do not ride the bomb without waving a US flag".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Its just a copy of Grand Slam (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whither the B-1? (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyhow, the B1's bombbays are probably too small in one dimension to fit the MOP.