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  
•       •       •

14176 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jul 2012 at 3:20 PM (2 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 05:01:31 PM  
Obama has learned well from his predecessor...
 
2012-07-27 05:17:41 PM  
I install electronic components, the little chips that know where home is.
I get a thrill going through my section when I give 'em my final inspection.
 
2012-07-27 05:23:42 PM  

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

fark humanity. Goddamn.

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 just choked
 
2012-07-27 05:25:52 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 ...


All your text are belong to us.
 
2012-07-27 05:30:13 PM  
Whenever they finally use that thing, they better call the mission "Operation Lexington Steele".
 
2012-07-27 05:35:11 PM  
Thats going to be one hell of a big crater.
photos.lasvegassun.com
 
2012-07-27 05:39:46 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.


It might be best if you did. Enough with the crazy flailing already.
 
2012-07-27 05:44:25 PM  
I saw something about this on tv.

Iran has many, many installations. Some of these are buried so deeply under mountains that even our (US) best penetrating bombs cannot destroy them.

The good news is that we can destroy the support infrastructure on the surface that allows these places to function, which is at least as good.
 
2012-07-27 05:44:36 PM  

Lord Summerisle: An American bomb dropped on Iraq in retaliation for the Saudi 9/11 attack:


It's really an amazing coincidence how much US foreign policy in the middle east lines up exactly with Saudi Arabia's.
 
2012-07-27 05:44:49 PM  

mbillips: 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."


What asymmetrical warfare might look like from the high-tech POV:

upload.wikimedia.org

/nah, I haven't forgotten either
 
2012-07-27 05:55:09 PM  
Here's a radical idea WRT the iranian nuke: LET THEM HAVE THE DAMN THING.

Trying to stop a government from acquiring 70 year old tech is futile, unless you want to do something so extreme it'll put you in the company of Pol Pot. So the USAF drops a bunker buster on one of Iran's facilities. They'll just dig the next one deeper. Or put it beneath a school or hospital. Or trick the US into thinking it's beneath a school of hospital. Next time the US bombs they'll flood the world with pictures of mangled children.

Also, a US attack on Iran will provide the regime with another generation of islamist crazies. One would almost think somebody wants to make sure the US has en external enemy.

Seriously, the best way to deal with AWs like the iranian theocrats is to ignore them.
 
2012-07-27 05:58:12 PM  

I alone am best: 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.

It is even more likely the journalist farked up in the article. MOP is 31.5 inches in diameter, not 12. Warhead is 5300 pounds, leaving the remaining 24,700 pounds for casing and fins.
 
2012-07-27 06:05:01 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.


And when shoot at a car or drive it off a cliff it always explodes in a fireball.
 
2012-07-27 06:20:16 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Here's a radical idea WRT the iranian nuke: LET THEM HAVE THE DAMN THING.


No. I put as much thought in to my comment as they did to theirs
 
2012-07-27 06:28:17 PM  

DownDaRiver: 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.....


Who says we're trying to help?
 
2012-07-27 06:33:42 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Here's a radical idea WRT the iranian nuke: LET THEM HAVE THE DAMN THING.


Let them have the thing that they are not building? ok
 
2012-07-27 06:40:42 PM  
i341.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-27 06:42:04 PM  
Why is it that every picture of a defense firms' staff includes at least a handful of older women in sweaters?
 
2012-07-27 06:51:07 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Or put it beneath a school or hospital.


Or Iran just force its' 30,000 Jews to live on top of it
 
2012-07-27 06:53:17 PM  
Knock Knock

Who's there?

......

China Geophysical Labortaoties "... what the f*** was that?"
 
2012-07-27 06:57:02 PM  
Holy crap, that is one brutal, death dealing beast of a bomb.

And this is just one more reason not to vote for Romney. You KNOW his sorry ass would unleash that thing the first chance he got.
 
2012-07-27 07:03:54 PM  

Dinodork: It is even more likely the journalist farked up in the article. MOP is 31.5 inches in diameter, not 12. Warhead is 5300 pounds, leaving the remaining 24,700 pounds for casing and fins.


Oooh. Ok. I was reading that and thought it had a 30,000 pound warhead. That makes sense.

Was thinking to myself "DAAAaaaaamn.... Big badda boom."
 
2012-07-27 07:07:00 PM  
Thank you Jimmy Carter
 
2012-07-27 07:10:01 PM  

Lord Summerisle: Yawn. Been there, done that, Yanks.

[api.ning.com image 800x367]


Not really. Those bombs could penetrate more concrete then any other bomb in WWII, but they wouldn't be able to reach the bunkers that Iran has buried under the mountains. The big innovation of Barnes' bombs were their aerodynamic design compared to other bombs of the day, and their actual use.
 
2012-07-27 07:11:38 PM  

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


Actual answer: explosive force. It goes boom with the same boominess as 30,000lbs of TNT. It does not weigh 30,000lbs.
 
2012-07-27 07:14:38 PM  
I say it's a red herring. Throw together a scary-looking mock-up, get some staffers and cadre to do a portrait, some flashy graphics, throw in some tech-sounding drivel and hand it off to some reporter with a hard-on for a Pulitzer and let nature take its course.

As for the reason why, I don't have a clue, but there's something...off...about this whole deal. I'm sure someone here will politely inform me that either they or someone they knew worked on it, but there's the smell of BS all over this one for me for some reason.
 
2012-07-27 07:19:01 PM  
So they could be dropped repeatedly on the same spot to reach further depths? How deep/hardened are these bunkers? What's the highend of what they could use as defensive tech?
 
2012-07-27 07:21:09 PM  
Please stand down.

Pretty please with world on top?

Thank you, sirs.

;)
 
2012-07-27 07:34:10 PM  

Mouser: DownDaRiver: 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.....

Who says we're trying to help?


I think it was Cheney that I heard it from.
He wouldn't lie about such a thing.
 
2012-07-27 07:37:04 PM  
My uncle knew a guy who was in the Air Force who said that nucu-lar bomb testing was suspended because it attracted too much attention from space aliens...
 
2012-07-27 07:38:11 PM  

Somaticasual: Why is it that every picture of a defense firms' staff includes at least a handful of older women in sweaters?


Because women work in those industries. Sexist much?
 
2012-07-27 07:40:32 PM  

Plinky: So they could be dropped repeatedly on the same spot to reach further depths? How deep/hardened are these bunkers? What's the highend of what they could use as defensive tech?


Well, thats the interesting thing.. you can do a whole farking lot for defense. Like... put your facility 500 meters under a mountain. They can blow up the entrance and fark up your logistics, but if you REALLY wanted to hide/protect something, and you have State level funding, the possibilities are rather limitless.

With that said, underground structures require ventilation to the outside of some type. Destroying those vents would really ruin their day.
 
2012-07-27 07:40:40 PM  

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

Actual answer: explosive force. It goes boom with the same boominess as 30,000lbs of TNT. It does not weigh 30,000lbs.



WRONG! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator
 
2012-07-27 07:41:55 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Our problem is that we can't carry more than 1 on a B-2



WRONG!Link
 
2012-07-27 07:44:19 PM  

FabulousFreep: WRONG! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator


Hmm. That's interesting. And a deviation from the way bombs are normally discussed, but there you have it. It weighs 30farking000 pounds.
 
2012-07-27 07:45:50 PM  

Somaticasual: Why is it that every picture of a defense firms' staff includes at least a handful of older women in sweaters?


I don't know. I was going to make a snide comment on the FA and the futility of messing with Iran but got distracted by the thought of doing a Slim Pickins on the lady wearing the sweater in front.
 
2012-07-27 07:50:52 PM  

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


ohhhh sexy time! Go get em, big boy!
 
2012-07-27 07:52:10 PM  

I alone am best: 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.


More likely tungsten: we've been moving away from DU for penetration because detonating/fragmenting an alpha emitter near your own troops isn't really a good thing. Still lots of DU ammo in the system though.
 
2012-07-27 08:04:11 PM  
So why not use all of that ordinance to widen the straight of Hormuz and make Iran much less interesting as an adversary?

/just sayin'
 
2012-07-27 08:07:55 PM  

fragMasterFlash: So why not use all of that ordinance to widen the straight of Hormuz and make Iran much less interesting as an adversary?


The UAE and Oman would probably not appreciate us blowing off a significant portion of their territory (more significant for the UAE, but still). Also, we'd have to rewrite all our contingency plans that are based on the straights being the shape they are now.
 
2012-07-27 08:12:05 PM  
This just in...

*newsflash*

"Shooting star collides with planet and creates a black hole. Singularity apparently happens...who knew? World ends at eleven..."
 
2012-07-27 08:12:29 PM  
The Olympics are in play.

Some conspiracy nut might wonder whether this would be fine timing for a false-flag attack.


/always suspect ISRAEL FIRST!
 
2012-07-27 08:12:43 PM  

FabulousFreep: Somaticasual: Why is it that every picture of a defense firms' staff includes at least a handful of older women in sweaters?

Because women work in those industries. Sexist much?


Yeah but it's not even representative of the gender, proportionally. In reality, it's probably because a lot of the defense manufacturing is done in factories in relatively rural areas,with a larger proportion of conservative men and women than other industries.

//Looking for sexism, much? (hint: just because the word "women", "female", or "girl" appears in a sentence, that doesn't make it a sexist comment, especially coupled with the fact that was referring to a very specific personality type). Take this to heart: Politically correct thinking does nothing to advance society's actual issues, and glosses over subjects that could more easily be dealt with through open and frank discussion).
 
2012-07-27 08:23:10 PM  

Amos Quito: The Olympics are in play.

Some conspiracy nut might wonder whether this would be fine timing for a false-flag attack.


/always suspect ISRAEL FIRST!


Wrong.

Olympics are safe, fear-monger.

*shield*

"My shield protects."

;)
 
2012-07-27 08:27:14 PM  

Indubitably: Amos Quito: The Olympics are in play.

Some conspiracy nut might wonder whether this would be fine timing for a false-flag attack.


/always suspect ISRAEL FIRST!

Wrong.

Olympics are safe, fear-monger.

*shield*

"My shield protects."

;)


Run, play, show, be human.

Words.

Poems.

Games.

Safe.

We demand.
 
2012-07-27 08:32:15 PM  
Note to Iran: The USA made the decision to blow up your country years ago, it's just taken us a bit longer than originally planned, so you may as well take that opportunity to begin evacuating your entire population now.
 
2012-07-27 08:33:41 PM  

Amos Quito: The Olympics are in play.

Some conspiracy nut might wonder whether this would be fine timing for a false-flag attack.


/always suspect ISRAEL FIRST!


Already happened.
 
2012-07-27 08:41:18 PM  

Porous Horace: Amos Quito: The Olympics are in play.

Some conspiracy nut might wonder whether this would be fine timing for a false-flag attack.


/always suspect ISRAEL FIRST!

Already happened.


Won't work.

You need to roll some atrocity for World War, man.

P.S. If you do, I will think the world to end now, and you can't kill me first, for if I die, the world dies with me...
 
2012-07-27 08:52:56 PM  

Alonjar: Plinky: So they could be dropped repeatedly on the same spot to reach further depths? How deep/hardened are these bunkers? What's the highend of what they could use as defensive tech?

Well, thats the interesting thing.. you can do a whole farking lot for defense. Like... put your facility 500 meters under a mountain. They can blow up the entrance and fark up your logistics, but if you REALLY wanted to hide/protect something, and you have State level funding, the possibilities are rather limitless.

With that said, underground structures require ventilation to the outside of some type. Destroying those vents would really ruin their day.


Those openings are about the size of a womp rat, you could totally bullseye it with this bomb.
 
2012-07-27 08:58:12 PM  

Indubitably: Porous Horace: Amos Quito: The Olympics are in play.

Some conspiracy nut might wonder whether this would be fine timing for a false-flag attack.


/always suspect ISRAEL FIRST!

Already happened.

Won't work.

You need to roll some atrocity for World War, man.

P.S. If you do, I will think the world to end now, and you can't kill me first, for if I die, the world dies with me...



You're all right, Indubitably.

The thing that farks Humanity is that human nature is farked.

Can it BE changed? No, not by coercion.

Can it change? Yes, from the inside out.

One human at a time.

Will it change?

Indubitably.

Otherwise, some day some where some other species gets a go at reconnecting, at reconciling, at recollecting.


/THERE IS ONLY ONE THING
 
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 »






Report