Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix]

From Barbara Starr
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, July 20, 2004 Posted: 3:01 PM EDT (1901 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It's just an idea on paper, but the U.S. Air Force is asking defense contractors how they might develop a 30,000-pound, precision-guided bomb that could destroy targets deep underground, in caves or in hardened bunkers.

Air Force officials said the proposed weapon, called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, would be substantially larger than the current penetrating bomb -- the GBU-28, a 5,000-pound weapon.

Military officials said the most likely use of such a weapon would be against underground targets such as those found in North Korea.

The Air Force initially considered the development of a 30,000-pound penetrating bomb before the Iraq war, but funding and technical challenges stifled movement.

After the invasion, Air Force weapons experts examined several bomb sites in Iraq and learned targets could not be fully destroyed using the current inventory of conventional weapons.

However, Air Force officials said they are uncertain whether the concept of a bigger bomb can be brought to reality or that there would be available funding.

The Air Force concept calls for the bomb to be deployed on B-2 or B-52 bombers. The weapon would be guided by use of Global Positioning System satellite coordinates.

Engineering obstacles must be overcome, according to Air Force officials.

One challenge would be the need to carry two bombs on an aircraft to keep the plane stable in flight. Both bombs probably would need to be dropped at the same time for the bomber to maintain level flight, officials said.

Air Force officials said the bomb's structure would incorporate some type of heavy alloy that would make up most of the weight, allowing it to penetrate the target. An advanced or "smart" fuse also would be part of the system, so that detonation would occur only after the bomb reached the target, they said.

The Air Force said it is prepared to spend $11 million on weapon design and demonstration, with testing possibly beginning in 2006.

This bomb concept, informally known as the "Big Blue," differs from the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, a 20,000-pound weapon packed with 18,000 pounds of explosives. The MOAB bomb is designed to explode above ground for destruction of widespread surface targets such as troops and tanks.

I don't know what's more interesting - the fact that stuff can withstand a shaped 5 ton charge or the fact that the US is going to go all out and make sure you don't survive by making a bomb 6 times the size. Since a 30 ton bomb would have to be dropped in pairs to keep the aircraft stable in flight you'll be getting 60 tons of love at your front door.

 

[darscot]

This is such bullshit, I love how the us can get away with these huge weapons but there conventional so its OK. It's like a politically correct nuke.

 

[Bregor]

They are researching bunker busting nukes also. There is an article in the most recent Scientific American about it.

 

[Chopin Trusty Balls]

They should call it EFN- enviropment friendly nuke

 

[Bregor]

They should call it EFN- enviropment friendly nuke

Actually, the article pointed out that there was a high risk of the escape of nuclear fallout with such a weapon.

 

[HAOHMARU]

What is wrong with a weapon that is just as destructive as a small yeild nuke? There is no radaition after you drop a conventional weapon...which is the only reason you aren't seeing nuclear versions of these. (yea, they might be developing nuclear versions...but we will never use them.)

If they need it to get the job done, then fuck it. I'd rather them drop bombs then send in ground troops to do the same job. Its not like they are going to be using these things on people...just deep bunkers with the enemy in it.

I've seen what one of those bunker busters we have today can do. After it exploded it left about a 30 foot crater in the earth. No more terrorists...go bye-bye.

 

[darscot]

Even these "Conventional" weapons are radioactive. The usually use molten uranium or some other equally bad alloy to penetrate. Their not much better then a nuke on the environment. They are just PC.

 

[Chopin Trusty Balls]

Actually, the article pointed out that there was a high risk of the escape of nuclear fallout with such a weapon.

Well,then they call it MOAB:SUV edition

 

[darscot]

They dropped a few Daisy cutter on troops in Afganistan. They said it was meant to demoralize them. And those are a chemical weapon but again they are PC.

 

[Phoenix]

They dropped a few Daisy cutter on troops in Afganistan. They said it was meant to demoralize them. And those are a chemical weapon but again they are PC.

Yeah, if someone dropped 20 tons of explosives and incindiaries on me I'd be demoralized as hell

 

[HAOHMARU]

Well, even if they are using uranium in those bombs it is depleted. You aren't going to get any fallout from that.

And those are a chemical weapon but again they are PC.

Say again? How is a daisy cutter a chemical weapon? It is a conventional bomb...if you say "chemical" people are going to think we are dropping mustard gas or something.

 

[Hitokage]

The next issue of Scientific American has a long article on the actual merits of so-called bunker busting nukes. I suppose I should actually finish it sometime.

 

[darscot]

Well it explodes sending a chemical out in all directions hence the daisy pattern it then ignites the chemical and boom. You can rest assured that chemical is real bad for people. But it's ok to cover people with that chemical as long as you light them on fire. It's more human that way.

It's like mustard gas that burns.

 

[Hitokage]

Well it explodes sending a chemical out in all directions hence the daisy pattern it then ignites the chemical and boom. You can rest assured that chemical is real bad for people. But it's ok to cover people with that chemical as long as you light them on fire. It's more human that way.

*sigh* OH TEH NOS CHEMICALS OMG!!!

There are many different types of chemicals.. and one major benefit of using incidenary weapons is that nature and fire aren't strangers. Set an area ablaze and in a relatively short while it'll recover. The same can't be said for covering an area with toxins..

 

[Phoenix]

Well it explodes sending a chemical out in all directions hence the daisy pattern it then ignites the chemical and boom. You can rest assured that chemical is real bad for people. But it's ok to cover people with that chemical as long as you light them on fire. It's more human that way.

It's like mustard gas that burns.

You mean like gasoline and flamethrowers? Besides which I would venture to say that being set ablaze in several hundred degrees of flame makes the chemical part not so bad.

 

[darscot]

My main point is it's a very fine line between chemcial, conventional and nuke.

But these chemicals do cause all kinds of nerve damage and other such problems. I guarantee you if you went to a factory that builds these bombs. You would see all kinds of crazy warnings about cancer and nerve damage if you get this shit on you. It's ok to use that suff as long as it burns?

 

[maharg]

Its not like they are going to be using these things on people...just deep bunkers with the enemy in it.

.......

 

[darscot]

The stuff in these bombs isn't like gasoline. Lets not be silly here. It's real, real nasty stuff.

 

[FightyF]

Maybe these are meant more for the mountains in places like Afghanistan, than bunkers.

Who uses bunkers nowadays?

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

*15 ton

 

[Hitokage]

My main point is it's a very fine line between chemcial, conventional and nuke.

Not really. Show me a chemical reaction that readily produces the same effects of a nuclear reaction on the same scale.

But these chemicals do cause all kinds of nerve damage and other such problems. I guarantee you if you went to a factory that builds these bombs. You would see all kinds of crazy warnings about cancer and nerve damage if you get this shit on you. It's ok to use that suff as long as it burns?

When it burns the chemical is changed to something else. A better question would be how safe the combusted chemical is.

 

[Phoenix]

Maybe these are meant more for the mountains in places like Afghanistan, than bunkers.

Who uses bunkers nowadays?

Everybody. Noone wants a 500lb bomb to land on the command and control center and end the war quickly.

The stuff in these bombs isn't like gasoline. Lets not be silly here. It's real, real nasty stuff.

Considering that your life expectancy is going to be measure in seconds after its dropped on you - perhaps you're tackling this issue from the wrong side. The bomb itself - yeah, hate to have one land in my backyard. But lets be realistic, you have to look at the bigger picture of why you'd need to drop one of these in the first place.

 

[SteveMeister]

The stuff in these bombs isn't like gasoline. Lets not be silly here. It's real, real nasty stuff.

Actually, the Daisy Cutter is basically a big fertilizer bomb. And it doesn't explode in mid-air, it explodes at ground level:

The BLU-82B or “Daisy Cutter” is the largest conventional bomb in existence and is 17 feet long and 5 feet in diameter, about the size of a Volkswagen Beetle but much heavier. It contains 12,600 pounds of GX slurry (ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene), and is so bulky that it cannot even be launched in a conventional method. To put that in context, the ammonium nitrate in just one Daisy Cutter bomb is about six times the amount used in the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. Although the blast from this bomb is extremely lethal, it still has less than a thousandth the destructive power of the atomic bomb used on Hiroshima.

Because of the cumbersome size of the Daisy Cutter and its deadly results, it must be uniquely deployed and detonated. It is launched on a delivery trolley and forced out the back of a C-130 cargo plane. The plane itself must be at least 6,000 feet off the ground to avoid the bomb’s massive shock wave. Once clear of the plane, the Daisy Cutter releases its own parachute. Attached to one end of the bomb is a three-foot long conical probe. When this probe touches the ground the bomb is detonated. Because the bomb is detonated before the majority of it hits the ground basically no crater results. However, the bomb still inflicts heavy damage, generating pressures in excess of 1,000 pounds per square inch near the point of impact, and the shock waves can be felt miles away.

These powerful effects have caused the Daisy Cutter to be mistakenly identified as a fuel air bomb. The Daisy Cutter is in fact, not a fuel air bomb. Fuel air bombs vaporize a fuel in the air and ignite it. This produces a fireball which rapidly expands making the blast much more extensive than conventional weapons. Although the Daisy Cutter could be used in similar situations as fuel air bombs, it is much too big to depend on the surrounding air and it utilizes its own oxidizer. In addition, the more conventional means of explosion utilized by the Daisy Cutter bomb makes is more reliable than fuel air bombs in significant wind or temperatures.

 

[Phoenix]

The stuff in these bombs isn't like gasoline. Lets not be silly here. It's real, real nasty stuff.

All I'm saying is that if someone drops one of these oh within a mile of your location - what's in it is the least of your worries.

 

[HAOHMARU]

Well it explodes sending a chemical out in all directions hence the daisy pattern it then ignites the chemical and boom. You can rest assured that chemical is real bad for people. But it's ok to cover people with that chemical as long as you light them on fire. It's more human that way.

It's like mustard gas that burns.

Um, no. Mustard gas makes your skin blister, eyes extremely sore and vomit. It will also cause internal and external bleeding and attack the bronchial tubes, stripping off the mucous membrane. It will take you about a month before you die from it.

The "daisy cutter" weapon system is a high altitude delivery of 15,000 pound conventional bomb, delivered from an MC-130. Frequent press reports to the contrary, the Daisy Cutter is not a fuel-air explosive. It is a conventional explosive incorporating both agent and oxidizer. It has about 1000 psi at ground zero and tapers off after that. That is what does the damage...not the "chemical" as you put it. If you can compare aluminum powder explosive to mustard gas then you are mixed up.

 

[FightyF]

Everybody. Noone wants a 500lb bomb to land on the command and control center and end the war quickly.

So when the US Command/Comm Center was in Kuwait during the invasion of Iraq, it was actually far underground?

 

[darscot]

Yah it's nothing but a big bomb full of shit. If you believe that your clueless. I'm not an expert on weapons but a daisy cutter is a real nasty weapon that creates mass destruction. If any other country had it the US would be screaming WMD!

 

[ShadowRed]

"If they need it to get the job done, then fuck it. I'd rather them drop bombs then send in ground troops to do the same job. Its not like they are going to be using these things on people...just deep bunkers with the enemy in it."



LOL... Obviously if you oppose the US and have the misfortune of falling into her sites then you are no longer human. Plus people would never be in those bunkers, only farm animals and porno stashes.

 

[Hitokage]

Haohmaru: I'm starting to suspect darscot hasn't taken Chemistry.

 

[HAOHMARU]

.......

People as in non-combatants...if you want me to clarify.

 

[darscot]

Yah I shoudl have never mentioned the Daisy cutter. It's like dissing Mom's apple pie. The thing is reveared and it's a bomb. Some one explain that to me.

 

[HAOHMARU]

So when the US Command/Comm Center was in Kuwait during the invasion of Iraq, it was actually far underground?

Probalby not. The Iraqi's didn't have a chance of attacking our command center. We had many layers of defense before they could get there. Its not like they had a capable air force that could deliver ordinance on target. In contrast, the Iraqi's had no layered defense...so they went underground to try and preserve themselves.

It is more of an defensive posture to have underground bunkers. We were on the offensive so really didn't need them.

 

[HAOHMARU]

LOL... Obviously if you oppose the US and have the misfortune of falling into her sites then you are no longer human. Plus people would never be in those bunkers, only farm animals and porno stashes.

Ok, fine...the enemy are people too. Are you happy now? The bunker busters are being dropped on hard targets WITH combatants in them, i.e. the fucking enemy.

Yea, I think you are supposed to kill those things...um, I mean people.

 

[Hitokage]

darscot: Apparently you're coming from the "any and all weapon are EVIL and should NEVER BE USED" angle. Well, the thing is... people are going to continue fighting each other, and the real trick is how to let one side bomb each other without killing everything else in the process. Nuclear weapons are spectacular failures in that regard, while incidenary weapons do a relatively decent job.

 

[darscot]

If I'm coming off with that angle I'm not being clear. I have no problem with things like black ops. Go in kill eeverybody you need blow the building and or bunker to kingdom come and get out. It's just when your dropping Daisy Cutters on troops that I think its wrong. Especially when half the damn troops have no choice but to fight and would desert at the first sign of an enemy. Or shooting radioactive weapons and leaving blown up radioactive vehicles all over the damn place for every poor kid to try and salvage his next meal from.

 

[darscot]

I made an error. Funny how the article shown made it clear that it was a common error. Hardly getting owned. It's not reavered but every body knows it by name? It's as famous as a sidewinder and at least that had Tom Cruise to make it famous.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

darscot: Apparently you're coming from the "any and all weapon are EVIL and should NEVER BE USED" angle. Well, the thing is... people are going to continue fighting each other, and the real trick is how to let one side bomb each other without killing everything else in the process. Nuclear weapons are spectacular failures in that regard, while incidenary weapons do a relatively decent job.

um, i wouldn't specificly say incidenary weapons, cause you can counter with tokyo:

and other major japanese cities not named nagasaki and hiroshima.

But I will concur that a giant ass bunker buster comes no where near as frigtening as a chemical, biological, or even small nuclear device. Its not a WMD. The ramifications of a misfire will not bring about the sheer number of deaths or environmental impact a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon would.

 

[HAOHMARU]

If I'm coming off with that angle I'm not being clear. I have no problem with things like black ops. Go in kill eeverybody you need blow the building and or bunker to kingdom come and get out.

Contrary to popular belief...video games are not like real life. This isn't like a game of Counter Strike. Warfare like that would drive US casualties through the fucking roof.
That is the only reason weapons like these are being designed and used. That means less of our troops will come home in body bags.

It's just when your dropping Daisy Cutters on troops that I think its wrong.

Then what else are we going to use? You want to use cluster bombs or something? They do just as much damage to the human body...I mean, is one big bomb that bad?

Especially when half the damn troops have no choice but to fight and would desert at the first sign of an enemy.

This was the case with a lot of Iraqi troops, but they are still combatants so they will be killed. That is part of war...the method a country uses to get people to fight is not our problem. Iraq had no problem getting those troops to invade Kuwait...

Or shooting radioactive weapons and leaving blown up radioactive vehicles all over the damn place for every poor kid to try and salvage his next meal from.

Ok, I'm done after this statement of yours. What fucking war are you watching?

 

[darscot]

Like I tried to say earlier. It's a fine line when it comes to a bomb between chemical, conventional and nuke. I'm not an expert on the scientific details of which weapon is what. But I do feel I have the right to question bombs of massive destructive power and there use. If you guys feel a daisy cutter is perfectly acceptable and a good thing, all the power to you.

I always love how just after the US dropped god knows how many 1000 bombs into the Afganistan mountains they had a massive earthquake killing how many civilians. No one ever questioned, not for one second if that was a direct result of all these new bombs boring into the depths of the frickin earth.

 

[darscot]

Anti tank round are radioactive. The shoot molten uranium. Do you think that's good for you? Or just goes disapates quickly?

I'm not sure but I'm going to ask a question, does the US not still use uranium in some of there hand grenades?

 

[ConfusingJazz]

No one ever questioned, not for one second if that was a direct result of all these new bombs boring into the depths of the frickin earth.

There is a reason for that, ITS BECAUSE THATS FUCKING RETARDED.

 

[HAOHMARU]

ConfusingJazz,

While I agree that the fire bombing of Japan was over excessive, it still was not as bad as dropping nuclear weapons. Nukes are a completely different game. I can only imagine what Japan would be like if nukes were dropped on all of those cities instead of the fire bombs. The radioactive fallout is the big destructor...that has years of after effects (in fact, I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki still have some residual effects...and those bombs were pretty small). Those cities got rebuilt fairly quckly after the fire bombing.

Nukes just go over the line...I hope to god we never use them again. The 2 dropped in Japan were not even warranted in my eyes.

 

[darscot]

It very well could be utter nonsense, but I don't think it's that out of this world? Like I said I'm just posing the question, I'm not trying to say I have all the answers.

 

[HAOHMARU]

Anti tank round are radioactive. The shoot molten uranium. Do you think that's good for you? Or just goes disapates quickly?

I'm not sure but I'm going to ask a question, does the US not still use uranium in some of there hand grenades?

I'm pretty sure the military did away with uranium "depleted" rounds. I think they are using tungsten (sp?) these days.

I put the word "depleted" in it because you are not. The uranium depleted rounds have a low level amount of radioactivity. I think if you actually ate a bunch of the stuff it might make you sick (besides having a buch of metal in your stomach)...but other that that it will do no harm on its own. None of the troops that have handled the rounds are dead from radioactivity.

Part of the reason the military moved away from those is because people like you think the rounds are truly radioactive...like a nuclear bomb or something.

 

[sc0la]

Anti tank round are radioactive. The shoot molten uranium. Do you think that's good for you? Or just goes disapates quickly?

Some armor piercing rounds use depleted uranium (or spent) in the shells, not "molten" uranium.

Look I think that is one of the worst battlefield practices around, but please get a grasp on what you are arguing about before you go on tirades.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

ConfusingJazz,

While I agree that the fire bombing of Japan was over excessive, it still was not as bad as dropping nuclear weapons. Nukes are a completely different game. I can only imagine what Japan would be like if nukes were dropped on all of those cities instead of the fire bombs. The radioactive fallout is the big destructor...that has years of after effects (in fact, I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki still have some residual effects...and those bombs were pretty small). Those cities got rebuilt fairly quckly after the fire bombing.

Nukes just go over the line...I hope to god we never use them again. The 2 dropped in Japan were not even warranted in my eyes.

I wasn't saying that nuking is a good thing compared to incendary bombs, I was just countering that incendary devices aren't very good at being descrimanat. The thing that is sometimes over looked is that 100,000 civilians were burned to death in one night. I just thought Hitokage should say a smart bomb is good at killing certain things without destroying anything else, not just incendary bombs.

I don't want to go back and spell check this sucker, so please excuse spelling mistakes.

 

[darscot]

My point was The uranium gets dispersed all over what ever it hits. Then you get a bunch of kids trying salvage things like copper wire out of the tank or vehicle. Two years latter they get cancer and die. Soldiers are safe as the uranium is still in it's protective case.

Like I said I'm not an expert. I was under the impression that the uranium is molten by the time it hits the target. Molten, depleted you guys make it sould like it so much better for you when its depleted.

 

[sprsk]

next target: the earths core!

 

[darscot]

So if a company dumped a bunch of depleted uranium in the US it wouldn't be a big deal? Or it would be a law suit in the 100's of millions?

 

[HAOHMARU]

I wasn't saying that nuking is a good thing compared to incendary bombs

Sorry if you thought I was lecturing...I tend to go off on nuclear weapons. I wasn't trying to say that you thought nukes were a good thing in comparison.

I was just countering that incendary devices aren't very good at being descrimanat. The thing that is sometimes over looked is that 100,000 civilians were burned to death in one night. I just thought Hitokage should say a smart bomb is good at killing certain things without destroying anything else, not just incendary bombs

I think you are 100% correct in your statement, but I'm just considering the fact that the radioactive fallout after a nuke is a lot worse than after the fires are put out. (and I think that is what Hito was getting at too)

On a side note, the fire bombing in Japan killed way more people than both nukes combined. I have a hard time seeing how all of that was justified. I know at some point in the war we were at least informing the cities a few days in advance that they were about to be bombed, but initially that wasn't the case.