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.

(UPI)   Pentagon beefs up its biggest "bunker buster" bomb. Iranian generals seen whistling, slowly backing away from nuclear sites   (upi.com) divider line 106
    More: Interesting, Wall Street Journal, Iran, U.S., bunker buster, Qom, nuclear weapons, Iranians  
•       •       •

8014 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 May 2013 at 10:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-03 08:36:54 AM  
minimize collateral damage

How exactly does one minimize collateral damage with 30k pounds of explosives?
 
2013-05-03 09:07:40 AM  
I don't want to stir up the blood lust too much, but I have to say I would love to see that big bastard used at least once. I mean, just little bitty tiny time to see if it kind of sort of goes KABLOOM!!!!!!

Which I am sure it does, in a rather boomlishious way.
 
2013-05-03 09:19:57 AM  
What most people don't realise, in the race to demonise everyone, is that Iran has in fact been on the side of the good in almost every major conflict in the 20th Century and has an amazing history.

1908    3-Jul    Second Constitutional Era (Young Iranian revolution)
1915    18-Mar    Gallipoli campaign was considered one of the greatest victories of the Iranians and was reflected on as a major failure by the Allies.
1923    29-Oct    The Republic of Iran was proclaimed.
1924        A new policy was instituted that imams be appointed by the government.
1925    1-Sep    The first Iranian Medical Congress was assembled.
1926    17-Feb    A Iranian civil code based on the Swiss Civil Code was accepted. The code granted expanded civil rights to women and prohibited polygamy.
1926    1-Mar    A Iranian criminal code was established based on the Italian Criminal Code.
1929    3-Apr    A new municipal law enabled women to enter municipal elections both as voters and as candidates.
1929    29-Apr    The first female Iranian judges were appointed.
1929    26-Mar    The Measurements Law was accepted, abolishing the former Arabic length and weight measurement units and replacing them with the metric system (kilogram instead of okka, meter instead of endaze, etc.)
1939        World War II: World War II began. Iran was to remain neutral for most of the war, until a declaration of war against Germany at its end.
1952        Iran became a NATO member country strategically important in countering Soviet influence.
1953    27-Jul    Korean War: The war ended.
1954        Iran began to host the United States Air Force at the MooseHaird Air Base as a deterrent to the Soviet Union.
1965    14-Oct    Military rule bowed out to civilian rule, and former Milli Şef (National Chief) İsmet İnönü again loses a democratic election, this time to the Justice Party of Mr. Süleyman Demirel.
1974        Iran invaded Cyprus in response to a Greek-backed coup on the island.
1991        After the ending of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the M Eisner (Formerly MooseHaird) Air Base enforced the northern no-fly zones in Iraq.
 
2013-05-03 09:51:33 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: minimize collateral damage

How exactly does one minimize collateral damage with 30k pounds of explosives?


doesn't a bunker buster go deep underground before blowing up? wouldn't that minimize collateral damage?
(i really don't know. so any weapons buffs or people with actual direct experience feel free to enlighten)
 
2013-05-03 10:23:40 AM  
"Enhanced Massive Ordnance Penetrator"

/giggty
 
2013-05-03 10:23:52 AM  
They've cloned Khloe Kardashian?
 
2013-05-03 10:26:36 AM  
Two kids blew up a bomb in a crowd in Boston. Our national security isn't going to be solved by making bigger bombs.
 
2013-05-03 10:27:30 AM  
HammerTech?

www.yourprops.com
 
2013-05-03 10:27:31 AM  
That's nice, wake me when we start deploying low orbital ion cannons.
 
2013-05-03 10:28:01 AM  
i4.ytimg.com

Challenge Accepted.
 
2013-05-03 10:28:11 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Two kids blew up a bomb in a crowd in Boston. Our national security isn't going to be solved by making bigger bombs.


Quit trying to fight tomorrow's war with today's weapons.  The MOP is a specific answer to a future question.
 
2013-05-03 10:28:43 AM  

kbronsito: IdBeCrazyIf: minimize collateral damage

How exactly does one minimize collateral damage with 30k pounds of explosives?

doesn't a bunker buster go deep underground before blowing up? wouldn't that minimize collateral damage?
(i really don't know. so any weapons buffs or people with actual direct experience feel free to enlighten)


Meh, they don't have to go TOO deep, just enough to transfer energy through the ground to the structure you're trying to demo. Yeah, soft dirt these things can bury almost 200ft. Maybe 20 or so feet into a hardened target. Oh, and they're not 30k of explosives, that's just total weight, warhead's are like 5k (yeah, I know, such a small amount...). You can destroy a silo or a hardened underground target just as easily or even better by MISSING the target by a hundred yards, burying the bomb deep in the earth, then exploding. That massive disruption of the earth is basically like a mini-earthquake which will crumble most hardened structures.
 
2013-05-03 10:29:58 AM  
The US is just itching for war with Iran.
 
2013-05-03 10:31:05 AM  
Gotta make sure the money boys get told first via the WSJ eh!
 
2013-05-03 10:31:29 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

                 "Meh."

/designed the bombs and the bomber that delivered them.
/Barnes Wallis. Came very close to absolutely crippling German Ruhr industry
/Farking Albert Speer
 
2013-05-03 10:32:45 AM  

Astorix: The US is just itching for war with Iran.


Ordnance has a shelf life, if we don't use it, we have to scrap it or repurpose the materials. Might as well make use of it right?
 
2013-05-03 10:33:49 AM  
www.theora.com

Big Badda Boom
 
2013-05-03 10:34:03 AM  
Oops. He didn't design the Lancaster which delivered his earthquake bombs.
 
2013-05-03 10:34:07 AM  
s1.dmcdn.net

Approves.
 
2013-05-03 10:34:28 AM  

Astorix: The US is just itching for war with Iran.


When the lunatic down the street keeps screaming he wants to kill you, it's inevitable.  They've been doing it for decades.  It's shows remarkable restraint that we haven't stomped them already.
 
2013-05-03 10:36:07 AM  

paulseta: What most people don't realise, in the race to demonise everyone, is that Iran has in fact been on the side of the good in almost every major conflict in the 20th Century and has an amazing history.



Yeah but they got all uppity about BP taking too big of a share of the country's oil wealth so we felt it necessary to revoke their democracy. Unfortunately, our replacement government didn't work out so well and instead of going back to democracy, they ended up with theocracy. Ooops! Maybe if we keep at it eventually we'll get back to where we started from.
 
2013-05-03 10:39:46 AM  

Evil Mackerel: That's nice, wake me when we start deploying low orbital ion cannons.


Or, when we start throwing rocks from the moon.
 
2013-05-03 10:40:13 AM  
unimpressed
www.sitcomsonline.com
 
2013-05-03 10:41:35 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: minimize collateral damage

How exactly does one minimize collateral damage with 30k pounds of explosives?


It's a big weapon that's hard to control in the air.  They made improvements so they miss less often: The "smart weapon" also has improved guidance systems to improve its ability to precisely hit the plant and minimize collateral damage, the newspaper said.
 
2013-05-03 10:41:46 AM  

paulseta: I don't want to stir up the blood lust too much, but I have to say I would love to see that big bastard used at least once. I mean, just little bitty tiny time to see if it kind of sort of goes KABLOOM!!!!!!

Which I am sure it does, in a rather boomlishious way.


Part of me wishes we could let it loose on Pyongyang in retaliation for NK imprisoning our citizens and waving their dicks at us, but the other part realizes the consequences of that action wouldn't be good.
 
2013-05-03 10:43:15 AM  

paulseta: What most people don't realise, in the race to demonise everyone, is that Iran has in fact been on the side of the good in almost every major conflict in the 20th Century and has an amazing history.

1908    3-Jul    Second Constitutional Era (Young Iranian revolution)
1915    18-Mar    Gallipoli campaign was considered one of the greatest victories of the Iranians and was reflected on as a major failure by the Allies.
1923    29-Oct    The Republic of Iran was proclaimed.
1924        A new policy was instituted that imams be appointed by the government.
1925    1-Sep    The first Iranian Medical Congress was assembled.
1926    17-Feb    A Iranian civil code based on the Swiss Civil Code was accepted. The code granted expanded civil rights to women and prohibited polygamy.
1926    1-Mar    A Iranian criminal code was established based on the Italian Criminal Code.
1929    3-Apr    A new municipal law enabled women to enter municipal elections both as voters and as candidates.
1929    29-Apr    The first female Iranian judges were appointed.
1929    26-Mar    The Measurements Law was accepted, abolishing the former Arabic length and weight measurement units and replacing them with the metric system (kilogram instead of okka, meter instead of endaze, etc.)
1939        World War II: World War II began. Iran was to remain neutral for most of the war, until a declaration of war against Germany at its end.
1952        Iran became a NATO member country strategically important in countering Soviet influence.
1953    27-Jul    Korean War: The war ended.
1954        Iran began to host the United States Air Force at the MooseHaird Air Base as a deterrent to the Soviet Union.
1965    14-Oct    Military rule bowed out to civilian rule, and former Milli Şef (National Chief) İsmet İnönü again loses a democratic election, this time to the Justice Party of Mr. Süleyman Demirel.
1974        Iran invaded Cyprus in response to a Greek-backed coup on the island.
1991        After the en ...


You seem have left out something important that happened in 1979 that is basically the reason why a lot of people are pissed at Iran today...
 
2013-05-03 10:45:51 AM  
Call up these guys to send a crack team to blow up the SAM radar installation and some fighter jets to send a missile into the ventilation system...
204.244.128.121
 
2013-05-03 10:48:28 AM  

MichiganFTL: kbronsito: IdBeCrazyIf: minimize collateral damage

How exactly does one minimize collateral damage with 30k pounds of explosives?

doesn't a bunker buster go deep underground before blowing up? wouldn't that minimize collateral damage?
(i really don't know. so any weapons buffs or people with actual direct experience feel free to enlighten)

Meh, they don't have to go TOO deep, just enough to transfer energy through the ground to the structure you're trying to demo. Yeah, soft dirt these things can bury almost 200ft. Maybe 20 or so feet into a hardened target. Oh, and they're not 30k of explosives, that's just total weight, warhead's are like 5k (yeah, I know, such a small amount...). You can destroy a silo or a hardened underground target just as easily or even better by MISSING the target by a hundred yards, burying the bomb deep in the earth, then exploding. That massive disruption of the earth is basically like a mini-earthquake which will crumble most hardened structures.


Thanks. Now i know... and knowing is half the battle.  I guess bunker busters will make up some of the other half.
 
2013-05-03 10:49:33 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: minimize collateral damage

How exactly does one minimize collateral damage with 30k pounds of explosives?


A nice game of chess?
 
2013-05-03 10:50:16 AM  
IMHO, this is just a "checkmate."  They know we've got it, so we probably won't ever need to use it.   Like the old ICBM's aimed at the Rooskies.

/"Gentlemen, this is the War Thread.  There's no fighting in the War Thread!"
 
2013-05-03 10:50:19 AM  
Curious... How does the explosive power of this bomb compare to early or strategic nukes?  At what point do we need to question the morality of a conventional bomb due to it's power, even though it doesn't have the other nasty effects of a nuke such as fallout, nuclear winters and all that stuff.  Couldn't a powerful enough conventional bomb set off a non-nuclear winter or are they not even in the same league in terms of power.  30000 lbs sounds like a shiatload of explosives.
 
2013-05-03 10:54:03 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: Astorix: The US is just itching for war with Iran.

When the lunatic down the street keeps screaming he wants to kill you, it's inevitable.   They've been doing it for decades.  It's shows remarkable restraint that we haven't stomped them already.


And at what point do you start to think these threats might be a touch empty?
 
2013-05-03 10:55:05 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: minimize collateral damage

How exactly does one minimize collateral damage with 30k pounds of explosives?


Pipe?

m0vie.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-03 10:55:39 AM  

The Numbers: Smeggy Smurf: Astorix: The US is just itching for war with Iran.

When the lunatic down the street keeps screaming he wants to kill you, it's inevitable.   They've been doing it for decades.  It's shows remarkable restraint that we haven't stomped them already.

And at what point do you start to think these threats might be a touch empty?


So how do we committ Iran to a nursing home? That's what they did with the old German woman down the street.
 
2013-05-03 10:56:09 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-03 10:56:22 AM  

Carn: Curious... How does the explosive power of this bomb compare to early or strategic nukes?  At what point do we need to question the morality of a conventional bomb due to it's power, even though it doesn't have the other nasty effects of a nuke such as fallout, nuclear winters and all that stuff.  Couldn't a powerful enough conventional bomb set off a non-nuclear winter or are they not even in the same league in terms of power.  30000 lbs sounds like a shiatload of explosives.


MichiganFTL: Meh, they don't have to go TOO deep, just enough to transfer energy through the ground to the structure you're trying to demo. Yeah, soft dirt these things can bury almost 200ft. Maybe 20 or so feet into a hardened target. Oh, and they're not 30k of explosives, that's just total weight, warhead's are like 5k (yeah, I know, such a small amount...). You can destroy a silo or a hardened underground target just as easily or even better by MISSING the target by a hundred yards, burying the bomb deep in the earth, then exploding. That massive disruption of the earth is basically like a mini-earthquake which will crumble most hardened structures.


Most of the weight involves systems designed to help it penetrate deeper into the surface (the sheer total 30,000 pounds kinda helps).
 
2013-05-03 10:56:34 AM  

Carn: Curious... How does the explosive power of this bomb compare to early or strategic nukes?  At what point do we need to question the morality of a conventional bomb due to it's power, even though it doesn't have the other nasty effects of a nuke such as fallout, nuclear winters and all that stuff.  Couldn't a powerful enough conventional bomb set off a non-nuclear winter or are they not even in the same league in terms of power.  30000 lbs sounds like a shiatload of explosives.


See above, the warheads are like 5k explosives, not 30k, that's total weight. You need a damn dense material to get the thing to penetrate like it does and dense usually equals heavy. No, they won't set off any non-nuclear winter. If you set one of these off above ground, which they won't do, it would be a BIG explosion, but look more like that texas fertilizer plant size. If you set it off underground as intended, you just get a massive upheaval of earth, but it doesn't throw sediment nearly to the level a nuke could. They're immensely, IMMENSELY, safer and more 'moral' to use since there are no lingering effects like you get with nukes/chemicals/bio's. It's simply a conventional explosive that someone decided to Paul Bunyan, nothing more.
 
2013-05-03 10:59:14 AM  

kbronsito: MichiganFTL: kbronsito: IdBeCrazyIf: minimize collateral damage

How exactly does one minimize collateral damage with 30k pounds of explosives?

doesn't a bunker buster go deep underground before blowing up? wouldn't that minimize collateral damage?
(i really don't know. so any weapons buffs or people with actual direct experience feel free to enlighten)

Meh, they don't have to go TOO deep, just enough to transfer energy through the ground to the structure you're trying to demo. Yeah, soft dirt these things can bury almost 200ft. Maybe 20 or so feet into a hardened target. Oh, and they're not 30k of explosives, that's just total weight, warhead's are like 5k (yeah, I know, such a small amount...). You can destroy a silo or a hardened underground target just as easily or even better by MISSING the target by a hundred yards, burying the bomb deep in the earth, then exploding. That massive disruption of the earth is basically like a mini-earthquake which will crumble most hardened structures.

Thanks. Now i know... and knowing is half the battle.  I guess bunker busters will make up some of the other half.


Another aspect, at least of the earliest Barnes Wallis-designed bunker buster bombs was to miss the target, the bomb explodes and creates a huge cavern into which the target falls.

www.bomberhistory.co.uk

The Bielefeld Viaduct was brought down by a near miss of a Grand Slam bomb.  You can see all of the smaller bomb craters from previous raids that failed to destroy the viaduct.

Eleven seconds after impact a vast core of marsh vomited up and when the mud settled both viaducts had collapsed into a huge underground cavity (a comouflet) created by the explosion. The crater 'above' the bridge was produced by a Tallboy.
 
2013-05-03 11:01:33 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: minimize collateral damage

How exactly does one minimize collateral damage with 30k pounds of explosives?


It probably burrows a few hundred feet underground. I also assume their nuke plant it probably in an isolated are but who knows. Being Iran, they probably built it in between a  day care and a hospital
 
2013-05-03 11:02:24 AM  

MichiganFTL: Carn: Curious... How does the explosive power of this bomb compare to early or strategic nukes?  At what point do we need to question the morality of a conventional bomb due to it's power, even though it doesn't have the other nasty effects of a nuke such as fallout, nuclear winters and all that stuff.  Couldn't a powerful enough conventional bomb set off a non-nuclear winter or are they not even in the same league in terms of power.  30000 lbs sounds like a shiatload of explosives.

See above, the warheads are like 5k explosives, not 30k, that's total weight. You need a damn dense material to get the thing to penetrate like it does and dense usually equals heavy. No, they won't set off any non-nuclear winter. If you set one of these off above ground, which they won't do, it would be a BIG explosion, but look more like that texas fertilizer plant size. If you set it off underground as intended, you just get a massive upheaval of earth, but it doesn't throw sediment nearly to the level a nuke could. They're immensely, IMMENSELY, safer and more 'moral' to use since there are no lingering effects like you get with nukes/chemicals/bio's. It's simply a conventional explosive that someone decided to Paul Bunyan, nothing more.


Ok, gotcha.  So it might be possible to create a conventional bomb that could produce some of the nasty side effects of a nuke but to use technical terms it would have to be one big ass motherfarking bomb, and it would probably be too heavy to move.
 
2013-05-03 11:02:53 AM  

Carn: Curious... How does the explosive power of this bomb compare to early or strategic nukes?  At what point do we need to question the morality of a conventional bomb due to it's power, even though it doesn't have the other nasty effects of a nuke such as fallout, nuclear winters and all that stuff.  Couldn't a powerful enough conventional bomb set off a non-nuclear winter or are they not even in the same league in terms of power.  30000 lbs sounds like a shiatload of explosives.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent#Examples
 
2013-05-03 11:03:44 AM  

Carn: Curious... How does the explosive power of this bomb compare to early or strategic nukes?  At what point do we need to question the morality of a conventional bomb due to it's power, even though it doesn't have the other nasty effects of a nuke such as fallout, nuclear winters and all that stuff.  Couldn't a powerful enough conventional bomb set off a non-nuclear winter or are they not even in the same league in terms of power.  30000 lbs sounds like a shiatload of explosives.


This is a penetration bomb. If you are looking for sheer power you should look at the MOAB or the FOAB.  The MOAB has an 11 ton yield. The FOAB is claimed to be 4 times as powerful. Even if this is true 44 tons is nothing compared to the 21kiloton or 2,100 ton yield of fat man (the bomb that blew up Nagasaki).

They are not even in the same ballpark. Additionally, fat man was pretty damn small compared to the nukes that exist today, oh yeah and they get bundled up together in an ICBM so you have multiple high yield nukes.
 
2013-05-03 11:05:25 AM  
 at least for this year

And then more of my tax dollars go boom

is this not a weapon of mass destruction?
 
2013-05-03 11:05:51 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: The Bielefeld Viaduct was brought down by a near miss of a Grand Slam bomb. You can see all of the smaller bomb craters from previous raids that failed to destroy the viaduct.

Eleven seconds after impact a vast core of marsh vomited up and when the mud settled both viaducts had collapsed into a huge underground cavity (a comouflet) created by the explosion. The crater 'above' the bridge was produced by a Tallboy.


Mmmmm...ice-cold Tallboy...
 
2013-05-03 11:06:28 AM  
er that should be 2.1 kiloton
 
2013-05-03 11:07:38 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: minimize collateral damage

How exactly does one minimize collateral damage with 30k pounds of explosives?


Reading comprehension?  5,300 lbs of explosives.
 
2013-05-03 11:08:16 AM  
Picture of said bunker buster.

media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-03 11:08:32 AM  

Carn: MichiganFTL: Carn: Curious... How does the explosive power of this bomb compare to early or strategic nukes?  At what point do we need to question the morality of a conventional bomb due to it's power, even though it doesn't have the other nasty effects of a nuke such as fallout, nuclear winters and all that stuff.  Couldn't a powerful enough conventional bomb set off a non-nuclear winter or are they not even in the same league in terms of power.  30000 lbs sounds like a shiatload of explosives.

See above, the warheads are like 5k explosives, not 30k, that's total weight. You need a damn dense material to get the thing to penetrate like it does and dense usually equals heavy. No, they won't set off any non-nuclear winter. If you set one of these off above ground, which they won't do, it would be a BIG explosion, but look more like that texas fertilizer plant size. If you set it off underground as intended, you just get a massive upheaval of earth, but it doesn't throw sediment nearly to the level a nuke could. They're immensely, IMMENSELY, safer and more 'moral' to use since there are no lingering effects like you get with nukes/chemicals/bio's. It's simply a conventional explosive that someone decided to Paul Bunyan, nothing more.

Ok, gotcha.  So it might be possible to create a conventional bomb that could produce some of the nasty side effects of a nuke but to use technical terms it would have to be one big ass motherfarking bomb, and it would probably be too heavy to move.


Yeah, I don't know specifically how much energy in terms of pounds of a conventional explosive (Semtex and Astrolite are both explosives, yet have different weight/energy ratios, so you kinda have to go by energy) you'd need to cause that. It would be a lot more than anyone would really ever bother with since the power/weight ratio of a nuclear weapon is amazing compared to conventional explosives.

However, I expect the Russians would be the ones to do it if anyone. Tsar Bomba and all...
 
2013-05-03 11:09:44 AM  

MichiganFTL: Carn: MichiganFTL: Carn: Curious... How does the explosive power of this bomb compare to early or strategic nukes?  At what point do we need to question the morality of a conventional bomb due to it's power, even though it doesn't have the other nasty effects of a nuke such as fallout, nuclear winters and all that stuff.  Couldn't a powerful enough conventional bomb set off a non-nuclear winter or are they not even in the same league in terms of power.  30000 lbs sounds like a shiatload of explosives.

See above, the warheads are like 5k explosives, not 30k, that's total weight. You need a damn dense material to get the thing to penetrate like it does and dense usually equals heavy. No, they won't set off any non-nuclear winter. If you set one of these off above ground, which they won't do, it would be a BIG explosion, but look more like that texas fertilizer plant size. If you set it off underground as intended, you just get a massive upheaval of earth, but it doesn't throw sediment nearly to the level a nuke could. They're immensely, IMMENSELY, safer and more 'moral' to use since there are no lingering effects like you get with nukes/chemicals/bio's. It's simply a conventional explosive that someone decided to Paul Bunyan, nothing more.

Ok, gotcha.  So it might be possible to create a conventional bomb that could produce some of the nasty side effects of a nuke but to use technical terms it would have to be one big ass motherfarking bomb, and it would probably be too heavy to move.

Yeah, I don't know specifically how much energy in terms of pounds of a conventional explosive (Semtex and Astrolite are both explosives, yet have different weight/energy ratios, so you kinda have to go by energy) you'd need to cause that. It would be a lot more than anyone would really ever bother with since the power/weight ratio of a nuclear weapon is amazing compared to conventional explosives.

However, I expect the Russians would be the ones to do it if anyone. Tsar Bomba and al ...


Answered my own question, lol. Tsar Bomba size would require ~ 57 megatons of TNT.
 
2013-05-03 11:11:39 AM  

Carn: Curious... How does the explosive power of this bomb compare to early or strategic nukes?  At what point do we need to question the morality of a conventional bomb due to it's power, even though it doesn't have the other nasty effects of a nuke such as fallout, nuclear winters and all that stuff.  Couldn't a powerful enough conventional bomb set off a non-nuclear winter or are they not even in the same league in terms of power.  30000 lbs sounds like a shiatload of explosives.


Strategic or mearly recreational nukes?
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report