Pentagon plans speeding up 'bunker buster' bomb

[ensho]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iaZIgbb6zU37zLWW9w650I01zFew


The US military said on Monday it wants to speed up production plans for an enormous "bunker buster" bomb, amid international concern over underground nuclear sites in Iran and North Korea.

The Pentagon has asked Congress for extra money to ensure the massive ordinance penetrator (MOP) would be ready by July 2010, spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.

"The department has asked for reprogramming of about 68 million dollars to start production for some of these in 2009," Whitman said.

"This will help it accelerate some if it's approved."

The weapon, weighing in at 30,000 pounds (13,600 kilograms) and carrying 5,300 pounds (2,400 kilograms) of explosives, would be delivered by the radar-evading B-2 Stealth bomber.

The MOP, believed capable of blasting through 200 feet (60 meters) of reinforced concrete, is seen as a potential weapon against nuclear facilities in Iran and North Korea that are mostly buried underground.

Washington has demanded that both countries abandon their nuclear programs and has refused to rule out possible military action.
-snip-
--------------------------------


this is nuts! this is not the way to go! this is sickening! this is cash in some CEO's pockets!

[billyoc]

1. The bridesmaids will never know what hit them.

[stuball111]

2. Why not just send Bill over there..

With a couple bottles of "Jack" and the complete John Wayne movie collection for Kim? it would be much cheaper, and I bet he could pacify north Korea in 3 days!

[crickets]

3. Bunker busters are a crock. There go tens of millions of dollars

wasted--dollars that could be spent instead on health care, education, transportation, job stimulus and other programs for social good rather than stupidity and ruin.

Nuclear Bunker Buster for War in Iran and Fallout: Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb-VkYJRbW8

Buried truth: Debunking the nuclear “bunker buster”
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/12/0080324

Were the effectiveness of bunker busters to be demonstrated, the weapons might conceivably be worth the risk and expense. But in fact, even a cursory consideration of the science shows that bunker-busting nuclear weapons are a wasteful and dangerous delusion.

...The technology of bunker busters may yet be improved, but only slightly; and what advances can be made against the hard limits of earth penetration are not enough to warrant the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to realize them. Even if earth penetrators could be made to perform at their theoretical limit, the only gain would be a temporary advantage over countries that have not yet dug bunkers at a depth that no weapon, no matter how massive, could ever reach. As soon as that comparatively easy engineering feat is completed, the nuclear weapon that spurred it on will have brought about its own obsolescence. If we are developing nuclear weapons that our government says we might use, there is no incentive for smaller countries not to go after their own weapons as quickly and quietly as possible—down in the very bunkers we are unable to destroy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. The weapon in the article is conventional

[zipplewrath]

5. That's a bad article

It comes to roughly the correct conclusion, but it's based upon some fairly serious scientific fallicies. None the less, in the limit, the most desireable targets are also the least reachable, presuming you know where they are at all. "impossible" is always a tough standard to achieve, but "impractical" is probably the best description. The part that is the most accurate is that the old deterrence doesn't work. The new realization is that in order to prevent yourself from being attacked by the US, you need some nukes. Even worse, "nongovernment actors" have little fear of direct retaliation and can attack with out direct fear of reprisal because it would require an attack upon people and governments otherwise innocent of the original offensive action.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. We build a bomb capable of blasting through 60m of reinforced concrete -

and the standard bunker design will then require 75m of reinforced concrete.

It is an exercise in futility.

Maybe we should try TALKING, instead.