Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Boeing Delivers Massive Ordnance Penetrator

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the mopping-up dept.

The Military 381

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."

cancel ×

381 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cool! (-1, Offtopic)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085840)

Let's start driving nuclear weapons deep into the earth and blow them up.

It boggles the mind.

Re:Cool! (2, Informative)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085882)

It's not nuclear.

Re:Cool! (-1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085972)

RTFA

Re:Cool! (4, Funny)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086112)

The bomb itself isn't nuclear. The nuclear targets are speculative. Your original post is hyperbole.

Re:Cool! (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086290)

Hmm....

I think the larger question is...."When can we try them out?"

Re:Cool! (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086342)

read more closely, other possible warheads for this delivery system are nuclear

I Don't Care (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086434)

That headline is funny as shit.

Re:Cool! (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085896)

Just for reference, these bombs aren't nuclear.

Re:Cool! (1)

AkaKaryuu (1062882) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085994)

The targets mentioned for this weapon are underground nuclear bases.

Re:Cool! (-1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086006)

RTFA (/. complains I'm not being original)

Re:Cool! (5, Insightful)

iblum (894775) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085946)

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.

Re:Cool! (-1, Offtopic)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086080)

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.

You're very clever, RTFA

See section 6.4, Nuclear Payloads in the pdf linked in the article header.

Re:Cool! (2)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086316)

Well, I see you read the table of contents, but did you actually read what they said?

Cause they aren't saying what you are saying.

Re:Cool! (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086336)

That's a seven year old report asking for an updated nuclear arsenal. This bomb isn't a nuclear bomb. The US already has nuclear bombs with that payload:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb [wikipedia.org]

Re:Cool! (4, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086088)

Dirty bombs are still a possibility. These tunnels surely got vents where the nuclear stuff can escape and fall out.

Re:Cool! (0, Flamebait)

X.25 (255792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086302)

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.

And why is it far more dangerous to let the Iranians have a working nuclear device?

For the past 20 years, biggest threat to peace on this planet was (and still is) the United States. Not Iraq, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or China, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or Sudan, or whatever FOTM country you were brainwashed into hating.

I am puzzled how so many Americans still think they're some kind of a role model for freedom and/or democracy.

Re:Cool! (2, Interesting)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086390)

And if your country is attacked, who would you look to to save your collective assess?

Re:Cool! (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086480)

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.

Re:Cool! (4, Informative)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 2 years ago | (#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! (1, Troll)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086472)

Well that thar thu isshah, son. Them ay-rabs dunno what ta do 'bout all them bombs they gat! We gotta libermarate them bombs an give'em the freedom they deserve! It's the Uhmayrkin way: Free bombs fer ehrone!

Re:Cool! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086318)

besides the possibility of dirty radioactive explosions other mentioned, there is also a chance explosions might form a critical configuration of material ("chain reaction" with multiplicative factor of one of more). This may or may not produce an explosion, but should it happen would produce dangerous prompt radiation including neutron field, and also long lived dangerous isotopes.

Re:Cool! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086526)

" chance explosions might form a critical configuration of material"
no there isn't.

Re:Cool! (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086556)

One of the more interesting movies that showed this was The Peacemaker [imdb.com] where Nicole Kidman renders a nuclear bomb ineffective by sabotaging one the charges before it went off. Where the movie wasn't as accurate is that the nuclear bomb then became a dirty bomb and this wasn't brought up during the movie as a consequence. She and George Clooney just walked away from the scene as if nothing had really happened to them.

Re:Cool! (1, Offtopic)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085968)

If it's not nuclear, maybe it's nucular.

Re:Cool! (1)

Artraze (600366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085996)

As others posted, this isn't nuclear. And even if it was, your remark is still bizarre; we've blown up more than a few nukes underground already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_testing [wikipedia.org]

Re:Cool! (-1, Troll)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086132)

As others posted, this isn't nuclear. And even if it was, your remark is still bizarre; we've blown up more than a few nukes underground already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_testing [wikipedia.org]

So let's keep doing it? sure, why not.

As I've pointed out to others, perhaps you should read before contradicting.

Re:Cool! (2)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086346)

Section 6: "The payloads we considered for strategic strike included both nuclear and non-nuclear options. The major objective of the nuclear forces we describe is to maintain deterrence."
While Section 6.4 goes into detail. There's no mention of it being exclusively nuclear. Your post is still hyperbole.

Re:Cool! (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086492)

You might wan to re-read it yourself. They state that nuke isn't precise enough. They uses 'excited' isotopes for a bigger boom, bot not a nuke itself in the bomb.

Re:Cool! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086242)

It's not nuclear, Is it unclear ?

Re:Cool! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086366)

it can be, read more closely. is it unclear?

Re:Cool! (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086256)

It boggles the mind.

Not everyone's.

Re:Cool! (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086466)

that's actually the very best place to blow them up, if the alternative nuclear warheads were used with this delivery system. anywhere else on earth causes more problems.....

Lets get this out of the way... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38085842)

[Obligatory penis reference]

Great, lets move on

Re:Lets get this out of the way... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085850)

Spoilsport :-(

Re:Lets get this out of the way... (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086038)

Nice job. Have a photo of the burger as a reward...

I have massive ordinance penetrator (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086168)

in my pants.

--
There, I said it.

Happy Holidays from the Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38085848)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Why? (4, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085862)

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?

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085900)

Usually the target lowers its defenses if they know you have a big missile :D

Re:Why? (3, Funny)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086248)

Gee I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#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:Why? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086350)

Good points but I think you got whooshed XD

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

mx+b (2078162) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085926)

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.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086454)

So this is based on data from Israel? Oh right, they don't have any nukes and don't have to sign the nonproliferation treaty unlike every other country on earth.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38085938)

>> What happened to surprise?

The bomb doesn't really exist, and the administration want to hamper the Iranian program while the US actually *builds* the bomb.

Re:Why? (2)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086078)

I guess this redefines the word vaporware...

Re:Why? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086128)

>> What happened to surprise?

The bomb doesn't really exist, and the administration want to hamper the Iranian program while the US actually *builds* the bomb.

What a happy coincidence that those nasty hackers infected Iran's facility with stuxnet then!

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085940)

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?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086384)

Hello, is anybody in there? Have you been sleeping. Once we're done with Iraq as the baddies, we flip to Iran and back again. We've been doing this for decades, going back and forth. A little history lesson on these two countries will do wonders for your understanding.

Completely correct about these being corporate war machines, and nothing to do with national security.

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085960)

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.

Re:Why? (1)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085974)

Sabre rattling.
Intimidation.
Politics.
Bargaining power.
My Cock Is Bigger Than Yours MotherFucker.
etc

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38085984)

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?

Why do you presume the published penetration distance is accurate?

Re:Why? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086174)

Or that the actual weapon isn't something totally different

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

iblum (894775) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085990)

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.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

s4m7 (519684) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086442)

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.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086032)

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.

Deprecated (4, Insightful)

srussia (884021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086198)

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".

Re:Why? (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086314)

Now that we have de-commissioned the super big nukes (because we've established a defacto lack of willingness to use them...) we need the bigger conventional bombs that will accomplish the same kinds of things. 5000lbs of high explosive delivered in the front door is more destructive than 20 megatons shoved out the back of a B-52 from 45,000 feet with no guidance other than an altitude detonation trigger.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086090)

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?

I have a friend who served in the Gulf War (the first one) and drove one of the missile systems. He often said, "The range *that we were allowed to know about* was 50km". I forget the exact numbers, the point is that frequently what the published capabilities and what the real capabilities of a weapons system is are often significantly different.

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086222)

This isn't the Spanish Inquisition.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086386)

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.

Re:Why? (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086458)

You tell them you have a bomb that will go five miles deep. This forces your opponent to spend a lot of money digging themselves in 6 miles deep. You don't even have to have said bomb for this strategy to work.

Re:Why? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086496)

You might want to watch Dr. Strangelove.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086548)

Because maybe, just maybe, they'll delve too deeply and have bigger problems to deal with.

Couldn't they have named it something else. (2)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085982)

Like Deep Impact, perhaps?

Re:Couldn't they have named it something else. (1)

iblum (894775) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086016)

Already taken by that Movie.

Re:Couldn't they have named it something else. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086064)

I call it...the Ex-Wife.

Re:Couldn't they have named it something else. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086086)

"Boeing Jr." would be traditional.

I Suggest "John Holmes: The Bomb" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086178)

"Penetrating deeper than anything else ever has!"

Hrmm... (1)

SniperJoe (1984152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38085998)

I think a Middle Eastern friend of ours who has a few issues with Iran will be very interested in a few of these. Look for them to announce development of a stunningly similar weapon after a few smoking holes are left in Natanz.

UNderground (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086014)

All underground complexes have entrances on the surface.

Won't bombing those entrances achieve much of the objective by essentially burying the underground target?

How long it will take the enemy to reconstruct the entrance to the target?

Re:UNderground (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086096)

Won't bombing those entrances achieve much of the objective by essentially burying the underground target?

IMHO, not even close.

How long it will take the enemy to reconstruct the entrance to the target?

I figure it won't take more than a few days. My view is that you have to break the actual hardware. A new entrance is easy to dig out. Rebuilding a reactor or uranium refining facility would take considerably longer.

Re:UNderground (2)

mlts (1038732) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086106)

Bunkers are not bank vaults. From what I've seen a number of underground bunkers tend to have multiple entrances, even if some are just used for ventilation. Even smaller bunkers tend to have at least two ways out, as some are designed to deal with someone trying to put car exhaust down the vent shaft.

If a bunker just had one entrance, people inside would suffocate shortly after the main door is slammed shut.

Re:UNderground (3)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086120)

First, I would not like to be one of the researchers / technicians / soldiers stuck underground and trapped for an indeterminate period of time after a bomb like this drops the only entrance. Depending upon how long it takes, its entirely possible that destroying the entrance could kill off a lot of the talent necessary to make the weapons as they all starve to death or suffocate deep underground. It's a hell of a deterrent.

Second, the reconstruction efforts would have to take place on or near the surface, which is in range of more conventional weaponry (cruise missiles, JDAM bombs, etc...).

Third, though I am not generally opposed to an army owning powerful and highly specialized weapons, I get the feeling that just having these makes a first strike option against Iran seem like a more viable option. I don't like this.

Re:UNderground (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086348)

just having these makes a first strike option against Iran seem like a more viable option. I don't like this.

Negotiations without this option have not gone particularly well, maybe this will move negotiations along a little?

Re:UNderground (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086220)

All underground complexes have entrances on the surface.

Won't bombing those entrances achieve much of the objective by essentially burying the underground target?

How long it will take the enemy to reconstruct the entrance to the target?

The problem is ensuring that you have hit all entrances.

Re:UNderground (1)

Discopete (316823) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086344)

One of the earlier reports (about 6-8 months ago or so) on this weapon had a quote from one of the test engineers saying that the detonation was not unlike a tsunami. A very high pressure wave followed by an ignition that 'flowed around corners like water'. This thing was designed to kill everything in an underground complex with one hit, regardless of number of entrances.

Re:UNderground (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086400)

Part of what they are going for with these things is to cause an overpressure blast that kills anyone inside the structure. Why just collapse the entrance, when you can make sure anyone inside has their chest crushed and massive pressure trauma?

Re:UNderground (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086422)

All underground complexes have entrances on the surface.
Won't bombing those entrances achieve much of the objective by essentially burying the underground target?
How long it will take the enemy to reconstruct the entrance to the target?

So by this logic we should just put crazy glue in the door locks of car bombers?

Pet Peeve: Imperial units (-1, Offtopic)

worip (1463581) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086036)

Five tons in this instance would be 10000 pounds? Otherwise it would be the same $%^$%^ that got you guys in trouble with the Mars Orbiter. Let's translate for the rest of the (metric) world: "...it is nearly 22,000kg heavier than the ~50,000kg GBU-43 MOAB surface bomb, sometimes called the 'mother of all bombs.' 'Our past test experience has shown that 4,400kg penetrators carrying 1100kg of high explosive are relatively ineffective against tunnels,..."

Re:Pet Peeve: Imperial units (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086104)

Who cares? If you want to translate from lbs to kg go ahead. Google will do it for you. Leave the rest of us alone.

Re:Pet Peeve: Imperial units (1)

worip (1463581) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086300)

It is not the translation from lbs to kg that bothers me, it is the fact that the word tons has been used, which has several different meanings (including one in the metric world).

Re:Pet Peeve: Imperial units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086550)

Five tons in this instance would be 10000 pounds? Otherwise it would be the same $%^$%^ that got you guys in trouble with the Mars Orbiter. Let's translate for the rest of the (metric) world

It's a US-based website with predominantly (although not exclusively) US visitors talking about a US company providing a weapon to the US military. Get the hell over it, metric units aren't going to be used.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086044)

"That's what she said."

Killsteak ... (5, Funny)

LoP_XTC (312463) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086060)

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

George Carlin (5, Insightful)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086072)

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?

Re:George Carlin (5, Insightful)

judoguy (534886) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086150)

Seriously?? Have you ever seen girls fight?

Re:George Carlin (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086160)

No, we'd go to war once a month and then cry about it a few days later (not actually serious, )

Re:George Carlin (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086182)

Oh hell no. Male anger is nothing compared to female cattiness :-P

if women were in power (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086544)

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

So now we're believing the U.N.? (2, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086146)

I'm confused. Wasn't the U.N. that organization which was lying when it said Iraq had no wmds?

The one we called liars but when we sent not one, not two, but three teams of our own investigators after we had invaded Iraq to find the wmds which we knew were there, found that the multiple reports that had come out were correct?

It would be nice if people would make up their minds. Either the reports generated by the same organization are false or they're not. Pick one.

Re:So now we're believing the U.N.? (1)

s4m7 (519684) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086518)

Confirmation bias [wikipedia.org]

Or, it could be that DIA is learning its lesson and trusting a source that's proved to be credible in the past... you decide which you think is the more likely explanation.

"Difficult and complicated"? (3, Insightful)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086214)

"The Massive Ordnance Penetrator is a weapon system designed to accomplish a difficult, complicated mission of reaching and destroying our adversaries' weapons of mass destruction located in well-protected facilities," Lt. Col. Melinda F. Morgan, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said in a statement.

Despite the difficult and complicated mission, Boeing opted for a fairly simple solution: pack in more weight and explosives to blow the shit out of the target.

Could the next Slashdot Poll be to rename this new weapon system? Please, pretty please?

Re:"Difficult and complicated"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086418)

+1

Be men (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086308)

I'm sure this article will get all you panty wastes on the site all worked up.

I have prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38086446)

I have prior art. At least on the massive penetrator.

Re:I have prior art (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086502)

I have prior art. At least on the massive penetrator.

I take it you've reinvented the tin opener.

No shortage of cash for weapons. But. (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086510)

The government does not have the funds to keep social security and education budgets up,

Priorities. (2, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38086554)

But "Obama care" would cost too much?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>