Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Note to Iran and its heavily fortified nuclear facilities: US Air Force's massive 30,000lb bunker-buster bomb is "ready to go"   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 176
    More: Interesting, Bunker Busters, U.S. Air Force, Iran, Natanz, Iranians, Qom, shipping lanes  
•       •       •

14184 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jul 2012 at 3:20 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-27 04:01:59 PM  
this just proves once more of American ingenuity and why we so respected for our entrepreneurialship and our superior critical thinking skills and originality!!!

I mean do you see any other country coming with products like these!? NO! it's always the US who is the first and foremost in everything!
 
2012-07-27 04:02:05 PM  
Would be way cooler if they installed a Davy Crockett inside that mofo...

/1/4 kt FTW!
 
2012-07-27 04:02:11 PM  
Drop this then drop a Russian FOAB in the hole a minute later
/Well I heard that's the way you get rid of bedbugs
 
2012-07-27 04:03:56 PM  
www.infiniteunknown.net
 
2012-07-27 04:04:32 PM  

Command1: [www.darkgovernment.com image 804x539]
30,000Lb Bunker Buster


Wake me when you have something impressive. They were making those back in W2.
 
2012-07-27 04:04:34 PM  

mbillips: FTFA: 20ft long, 1ft wide weapon

Must have been written by a woman.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x250]


Exaggerating size tends to be the case of the opposite gender, actually.
 
2012-07-27 04:05:52 PM  

chewielouie: AverageAmericanGuy: Note to America and its lapdog Israel and Britain: Dude, seriously. What's your farking problem?

9/11 . . . haven't forgotten it.


So, we're gonna use this on Saudi Arabia?
 
2012-07-27 04:07:04 PM  

The Incredible Sexual Egg: AverageAmericanGuy: Note to America and its lapdog Israel and Britain: Dude, seriously. What's your farking problem?

Seriously, leave them the fark alone. We can barely hold a country that has minimal infrastructure. Iran would be a disaster


You've just described Iran.

Actually, I doubt we'd try to hold anything.

Really though, at some point a tac nuke has to be more effective and cheaper.
 
2012-07-27 04:07:13 PM  

mbillips: Fuggin Bizzy: Thirty. Thousand. Pound. Bomb.

fark humanity. Goddamn.

Eh, if you think of it as 15 tons, or 1/125 of a Hiroshima bomb, it doesn't seem so big. We used to have nuclear artillery shells with WAY more explosive force than that. And depth charges (light fuse and get away fast).


you're right.. and if you compare Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the core of the Sun it is literally a micro dew drop! yea!! .... what's the big deal?????
 
2012-07-27 04:08:14 PM  
hdhale: Really though, at some point a tac nuke has to be more effective and cheaper.

Uh, no. A tactical nuclear weapon would not only violate nearly every nuclear weapons treaty the US is a signatory to, but instantly earn the United States a persona non grata status among every country in the world.
 
2012-07-27 04:08:41 PM  
While I certainly agree with the rationale for having this bomb, I do hope like hell that it never gets dropped...on Iran or anyplace else....but I would love to see the video of the strike and the aftermath, if it ever is actually deployed...

/don't want to see blood and guts, I just like to watch shiat blow up
 
2012-07-27 04:09:05 PM  
Talk is cheap.
Use it or GTFO.
 
2012-07-27 04:13:44 PM  

mbillips: Fuggin Bizzy: Thirty. Thousand. Pound. Bomb.

fark humanity. Goddamn.

Eh, if you think of it as 15 tons, or 1/125 of a Hiroshima bomb, it doesn't seem so big. We used to have nuclear artillery shells with WAY more explosive force than that. And depth charges (light fuse and get away fast).


Keep in mind - the 30,000 pounds is the total weight of the bomb, not the amount of explosives.
It's "only" packing like 5300 pounds of boom - the rest is inertial penetration capability.
 
2012-07-27 04:13:48 PM  

Command1: [www.darkgovernment.com image 804x539]

30,000Lb Bunker Buster lawn dart.

 
2012-07-27 04:18:22 PM  
Bush/Romney doctrine: "Yer evil, Iran & North Korea! Stop bein' so evil! I will not negotiate with terrists!" :invades Iraq: :Iran and North Korea massively accelerate their nuclear deterrent programs:

Obama doctrine: "You really should rejoin the community of nations, Iran. Let's talk about it." ::stations F-22s and two carriers in the Gulf, publicizes bunker busters::

/Fark independent analysis: Both sides are bad, so vote Republican.
 
2012-07-27 04:18:45 PM  
Yawn. Been there, done that, Yanks.

api.ning.com
 
2012-07-27 04:19:17 PM  

meow said the dog: If I may beg the indulgences of you for the moment. Oh my this causes much of the concern to be because unlike the person who has posted above from me with the sarcasm I should state that I look at all of the issues from two sides and this is not the situation upon which is the exception to the life rule of two-sided looking of me. One side of this is that we must set them up the bomb and the other side of this is we must not set them up the bomb. I do not wish to be the judge of this but if I was the judge of this I would look at this from these sides.

The first side of this is that we should set them up the bomb. This side says that the concern upon which is noted is that if the nuclear missile silos of the Iranians are allowed to have existence in the pis of hell of fortification then they will use these on the allies such as Israel and Canada and the fallout of the nuclear waste could make the radioactive Wailing Wall or the radioactive Inuit both of which could cause much suffering to others in the world. From this side it seems as though it would be the necessity to set them up the bomb for which they do not cause the destruction. According to the article upon which is currently linked through the Telegraph.co.uk website the US of America has the 30,000 Labrador bomb upon which it can use to destroy these evil Ruskies...I mean Iranians to the oblivion and prevent the massive use of the weaponry.

The other side of this says look they have told us that they only wish to use this for the purposes of electricity and they seem very much legit. Why would these individuals do the lying to we? If we would set them up the bomb then they would not be able to have the electricity to watch the reruns of Maury and this would cause the dramatic decrease in the sale of American paternity tests to Iran. Do you wish to be the job killer, US of American Air Force Academy Football Team? I do not think you wish for this now do you.

One thing that I can be sure of is that this entire thread will be full of well thought out and purely rational postings such as the own of me. LAUGHTER OL who am I giving the jokings to? Of course it will not as I have seen this from two sides but others will see this from only one side. I do not wish to be the judge of this but do you think that we should do this threatening? I am asking you the Fark.com website and will send the results to the Head Airmaster for the consideration.

You are welcome.


tl;dr
 
2012-07-27 04:19:50 PM  
Now if only Iran would put all of its key military stuff in one place, instead of dispersing it widely in many underground locations . . . .

///but don't me disturb anyone's Big Bomb fantasies
//because a problem that can't be solved by blowing something up or shooting someone isn't worth solving, right?
 
2012-07-27 04:21:03 PM  

The Incredible Sexual Egg: AverageAmericanGuy: Note to America and its lapdog Israel and Britain: Dude, seriously. What's your farking problem?

Seriously, leave them the fark alone. We can barely hold a country that has minimal infrastructure. Iran would be a disaster


The difference between Iranians and Afghans is that Iranians are capable of not acting like animals.
 
2012-07-27 04:22:08 PM  
AverageAmericanGuy: Note to America and its lapdog Israel and Britain: Dude, seriously. What's your farking problem?


Our problem is that we can't carry more than 1 on a B-2
 
2012-07-27 04:22:08 PM  
Wouldn't it be cheaper to drive up to the bunker door, and weld the doors shut? Then when all the leaders are safely sealed in their bunkers, we can just move in like we own the place. The muffled thumps on the doors would be a bit annoying at first, but those would slowly die down as the food ran out. For real fun, we could pry open one of the bunker air vents and toss down a wasp nest.

You get a bunch of Iranians locked in with a couple thousand pissed off wasps, now you got your hands on the next big hit reality show.
I will call it "Mohammed and me, plus the wasp makes three."
 
2012-07-27 04:22:12 PM  

twfeline: Command1: [www.darkgovernment.com image 804x539]
30,000Lb Bunker Buster

Wake me when you have something impressive. They were making those back in W2.


They may or may not have had something of that size and weight in WWII (I honestly don't know and don't care enough to google it)...but remember that now they have the ability to drop this thing into a toilet bowl from 30,000' up....
 
2012-07-27 04:22:34 PM  

davidphogan: Meh, we've already screwed the region up badly enough we're kind of painted in this corner.


Meh, they were already screwed up badly without any interference from us.
We didn't didn't help much though.....
 
2012-07-27 04:24:11 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Talk is cheap.
Use it or GTFO.


Talk is all just a minor sideshow, along with the growing alarums and excursions leading up to Nov. 6th. Then everything (as it pertains to the U.S.) dies down. As far as Israel is concerned, who knows? The street seems to have it that there is no way Iran's getting nukes, and if nobody else takes care of business, Israel will. They've done it once before, no reason to believe they won't do it again. The question of the nuclear genie being let out of the bottle is one that once again throws the whole question wide open. So I guess we're back where we started.
 
2012-07-27 04:24:17 PM  

spentmiles: They've got the US outgunned and outmanned


lol wut?
 
2012-07-27 04:28:12 PM  
Can we write messages like, "Eat This Pork Chop, You Ragheads"? Or better yet smear the bomb with bacon fat to make the bomb that much more diabolical?
 
2012-07-27 04:29:41 PM  

Marine1: The Incredible Sexual Egg: AverageAmericanGuy: Note to America and its lapdog Israel and Britain: Dude, seriously. What's your farking problem?

Seriously, leave them the fark alone. We can barely hold a country that has minimal infrastructure. Iran would be a disaster

The difference between Iranians and Afghans is that Iranians are capable of not acting like animals.


Just wondering, really, but do you have some theory in which a successful military operation against Iran depends on the Iranians acting nicer than other countries that we've attacked or invaded?
 
2012-07-27 04:30:35 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: [www.infiniteunknown.net image 419x512]


penetrating...hard and deeply

Tee hee.
 
2012-07-27 04:31:50 PM  

MythDragon: Wouldn't it be cheaper to drive up to the bunker door, and weld the doors shut? Then when all the leaders are safely sealed in their bunkers, we can just move in like we own the place. The muffled thumps on the doors would be a bit annoying at first, but those would slowly die down as the food ran out. For real fun, we could pry open one of the bunker air vents and toss down a wasp nest.

You get a bunch of Iranians locked in with a couple thousand pissed off wasps, now you got your hands on the next big hit reality show.
I will call it "Mohammed and me, plus the wasp makes three."


You've really got to stop ordering your battle plans from the Acme Company.
 
2012-07-27 04:32:57 PM  

Raoul Eaton: Marine1: The Incredible Sexual Egg: AverageAmericanGuy: Note to America and its lapdog Israel and Britain: Dude, seriously. What's your farking problem?

Seriously, leave them the fark alone. We can barely hold a country that has minimal infrastructure. Iran would be a disaster

The difference between Iranians and Afghans is that Iranians are capable of not acting like animals.

Just wondering, really, but do you have some theory in which a successful military operation against Iran depends on the Iranians acting nicer than other countries that we've attacked or invaded?


Who knows. I'm not predicting that crap.
 
2012-07-27 04:33:44 PM  

I alone am best: spentmiles: They've got the US outgunned and outmanned

lol wut?


Begun the Clone (stamp) War has.
 
2012-07-27 04:34:27 PM  
Um they do realize that a nuclear facility has .......ummm you know, that ummmm.... nuclear stuff that kills pretty much everything when you blow it up.
 
2012-07-27 04:38:29 PM  

rico567: along with the growing alarums and excursions leading up to Nov. 6th.


GOP October surprise. Expect it. It will influence elections. Very heavily. That is its intended purpose. To be at the front of the mind come election day.

/arm yourselves, SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled no one owes you a goddamn thing when the shiat hits the fan
//dial 911 and wait for a response, or defend yourself?
///who do you count on more? Yourself, or some disgusting fat pig with a trigger finger?
//tinyurl.com/jonathanmagbie -->
/banks own everything, including your 'soul'
.and they charge you interest for its very existence
..this is not freedom; you have never seen nor do you even know what the word truly means
 
2012-07-27 04:41:05 PM  
America has not "waged war" since WW2.
She has however been involved in LIMITED police actions and Peace Initiatives and Regime Change on and off for 50 years with limited to little success.
SO if She decided to go into Iran then she has two courses. One that will lead to decisive overwhelming fear inspiring ass whipping,the other to dragged out media frenzy appeasement politics.
The choice comes down to leadership. No real leadership on the horizon.
So no matter what happens in November ,the US will still end up being a cop on the beat. My 2Cent worth.
Please ONLY serious debate with my Superior mind.
 
2012-07-27 04:41:21 PM  
All this deep penetration has me aroused. I'll be in my bunker, Buster.
 
2012-07-27 04:41:47 PM  

pit and pendulum: Um they do realize that a nuclear facility has .......ummm you know, that ummmm.... nuclear stuff that kills pretty much everything when you blow it up.


*sigh*. That isnt even remotely how nuclear materials work.
 
2012-07-27 04:41:50 PM  

meow said the dog: the radioactive Inuit


And we have our Band Name of the Week. Thank you!
 
2012-07-27 04:42:09 PM  

Polartank13: meow said the dog: If I may beg the indulgences of you for the moment ...

[i149.photobucket.com image 300x233]


I've had that poster on ignore for years, but now I get a chuckle when I see it quoted.
 
2012-07-27 04:43:37 PM  
Does the 30,000lb refer to the static weight of the bomb or the explosive force?

I just checked up on 1ft round bars of steel. It's 384.5 lb/ft. At 20ft that's 7,690lb. A 1ft square bar is a little more than 400lb/ft, so it's roughly 8,100 lbs at 20ft. If the 30,000lb spec is the weight of the bomb, it is almost 4 times heavier than a solid chunk of steel of the same size. Not to mention gaps within the bomb assembly that reduce its overall density. This tends to indicate that the 1ft x 20ft dimension is wrong or that the 30,000lb spec refers to the explosive force or that it is made of materials much, much heavier than steel.
 
2012-07-27 04:46:35 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: but the thing you must remember is that it's not just a big-ass bomb, but the shape of it, the materials, and the guts inside are what make this remarkable. Any chump can load up a huge bomb casing with tons of high explosives, but they're all going to kaboom either in an airburst and knock over all the soft stuff, or mcBOOM when it hits the ground and make a big crater. Your reinforced concrete bunker, buried many feet below that surface, however, may be shaken but still in business.

But this baby, oh no, THIS baby is designed to punch a starter hole, even explode a bit to open it up and get serious penetration, and only then does it unleash the full majesty and fury of the payload. THAT is the genius of this bomb, the ability to maintain integrity as it pounds deep into the loins of our enemy, ramming deep into the interior, before the glorious and inevitable release. Mmmm.


I have the weirdest boner now....
 
2012-07-27 04:47:16 PM  

Raoul Eaton: Marine1: The Incredible Sexual Egg: AverageAmericanGuy: Note to America and its lapdog Israel and Britain: Dude, seriously. What's your farking problem?

Seriously, leave them the fark alone. We can barely hold a country that has minimal infrastructure. Iran would be a disaster

The difference between Iranians and Afghans is that Iranians are capable of not acting like animals.

Just wondering, really, but do you have some theory in which a successful military operation against Iran depends on the Iranians acting nicer than other countries that we've attacked or invaded?


Why do people seem to think attacking Iran involves occupation? All we would do is blow up their military hardware and kill a bunch of their leaders, from the air and sea, and keep blowing up any attempt they made to block the Strait of Hormuz. Which is why they're gradually climbing down from trying to join the nuclear weapons club. 1) We're threatening to disarm them if they won't do it themselves 2) We're not insisting on regime change a la Bush.

The idea that Iran is building the bomb to attack Israel with it (when Israel has, like, 100 nuclear weapons and pretty effective anti-missile defenses) is kinda dumb. Iran wants the bomb for the same reason North Korea and Pakistan do. To have something to threaten people with if they think about invading you, or if you want to support conventional terrorism fairly openly and get away with it.

And in response, the world is saying, "So sorry, Iran, but you are a bunch of religious nutjobs who shouldn't have the bomb. Welcome to the other side of asymmetrical warfare, the one that favors the high-tech country with all the airplanes."
 
2012-07-27 04:47:52 PM  

MAYORBOB: Can we write messages like, "Eat This Pork Chop, You Ragheads"? Or better yet smear the bomb with bacon fat to make the bomb that much more diabolical?


sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-07-27 04:52:22 PM  

cgraves67: Does the 30,000lb refer to the static weight of the bomb or the explosive force?

I just checked up on 1ft round bars of steel. It's 384.5 lb/ft. At 20ft that's 7,690lb. A 1ft square bar is a little more than 400lb/ft, so it's roughly 8,100 lbs at 20ft. If the 30,000lb spec is the weight of the bomb, it is almost 4 times heavier than a solid chunk of steel of the same size. Not to mention gaps within the bomb assembly that reduce its overall density. This tends to indicate that the 1ft x 20ft dimension is wrong or that the 30,000lb spec refers to the explosive force or that it is made of materials much, much heavier than steel.


Id put my money on materials other than steel. The weapon drives itself into the ground with momentum, more weight will help with this. Also, its supposed to explode once it reaches depth... a steel bomb would help hold in some of that explosive force.

Beyond that though... the reason we use steel is because it is a nice trade off between weight and strength. There are a lot of other metals out there.
 
2012-07-27 04:52:58 PM  
An American bomb dropped on Iraq in retaliation for the Saudi 9/11 attack:

cellar.org



I could be here all night deconstructing the idiocy, illiteracy, and suppressed homoeroticism in this photo, so I won't bother. Just gaze at it in wonder. It's a classic.
 
2012-07-27 04:54:52 PM  

Alonjar: cgraves67: Does the 30,000lb refer to the static weight of the bomb or the explosive force?

I just checked up on 1ft round bars of steel. It's 384.5 lb/ft. At 20ft that's 7,690lb. A 1ft square bar is a little more than 400lb/ft, so it's roughly 8,100 lbs at 20ft. If the 30,000lb spec is the weight of the bomb, it is almost 4 times heavier than a solid chunk of steel of the same size. Not to mention gaps within the bomb assembly that reduce its overall density. This tends to indicate that the 1ft x 20ft dimension is wrong or that the 30,000lb spec refers to the explosive force or that it is made of materials much, much heavier than steel.

Id put my money on materials other than steel. The weapon drives itself into the ground with momentum, more weight will help with this. Also, its supposed to explode once it reaches depth... a steel bomb would help hold in some of that explosive force.

Beyond that though... the reason we use steel is because it is a nice trade off between weight and strength. There are a lot of other metals out there.


Look at the picture; that bomb is at least 3-4 feet in diameter. And it's mostly metal; only about 5k lbs. of explosives.
 
2012-07-27 04:55:32 PM  

mainstreet62: whither_apophis: Awesome, we're going after them with 1940's bomb technology. Wallis would be proud.

Well, the end phase is 1940's tech, sure.

However, it is important to note:

"The 20ft long, 1ft wide weapon will be delivered by the B2 stealth bomber"


well thats just cheatin'
 
2012-07-27 04:58:45 PM  

mbillips: Look at the picture; that bomb is at least 3-4 feet in diameter.


I don't know where TFA got 1' diameter, but that's clearly not right.
 
2012-07-27 04:59:01 PM  

Gleeman: AngryJailhouseFistfark: But this baby, oh no, THIS baby is designed to punch a starter hole, even explode a bit to open it up and get serious penetration, and only then does it unleash the full majesty and fury of the payload. THAT is the genius of this bomb, the ability to maintain integrity as it pounds deep into the loins of our enemy, ramming deep into the interior, before the glorious and inevitable release. Mmmm.

[i.imgur.com image 640x466]
But how do you feel about your mother?


Let me tell you about my mother.

www.gonemovies.com
 
2012-07-27 04:59:59 PM  

Alonjar: cgraves67: Does the 30,000lb refer to the static weight of the bomb or the explosive force?

I just checked up on 1ft round bars of steel. It's 384.5 lb/ft. At 20ft that's 7,690lb. A 1ft square bar is a little more than 400lb/ft, so it's roughly 8,100 lbs at 20ft. If the 30,000lb spec is the weight of the bomb, it is almost 4 times heavier than a solid chunk of steel of the same size. Not to mention gaps within the bomb assembly that reduce its overall density. This tends to indicate that the 1ft x 20ft dimension is wrong or that the 30,000lb spec refers to the explosive force or that it is made of materials much, much heavier than steel.

Id put my money on materials other than steel. The weapon drives itself into the ground with momentum, more weight will help with this. Also, its supposed to explode once it reaches depth... a steel bomb would help hold in some of that explosive force.

Beyond that though... the reason we use steel is because it is a nice trade off between weight and strength. There are a lot of other metals out there.


It is more than likely depleted uranium.
 
2012-07-27 05:01:24 PM  

Lord Summerisle: I could be here all night deconstructing the idiocy, illiteracy, and suppressed homoeroticism in this photo, so I won't bother. Just gaze at it in wonder. It's a classic.


clearly, what we need is YET ANOTHER government agency, because ALL THE ONES WE HAD ALREADY ... couldn't (the 'official' story goes...) 'put the pieces together.'

/uh huh, would you like to buy this bridge i have for sale?
//it's on sale for cheap! I can get you an inside deal... just give me your bank account numbers...
 
Displayed 50 of 176 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report