Boeing Delivers Massive Ordnance Penetrator 381
Hugh Pickens writes "In an age of drones and lightweight weaponry, the U.S. Air Force's purchase of the first batch of 30,000-pound bombs designed to pulverize underground enemy hide-outs highlights the military's need to go after hard and deeply buried targets. The weapon's explosive power is 10 times greater than its bunker-buster predecessor, the BLU-109 and it is nearly five tons heavier than the 22,600-pound GBU-43 MOAB surface bomb, sometimes called the 'mother of all bombs.' 'Our past test experience has shown that 2,000-pound penetrators carrying 500 pounds of high explosive are relatively ineffective against tunnels, even when skipped directly into the tunnel entrance,' says a 2004 Pentagon report on the Future Strategic Strike Force. 'Instead, several thousand pounds of high explosives coupled to the tunnel are needed to blow down blast doors and propagate a lethal air blast throughout a typical tunnel complex' (PDF). Experts note that the military disclosed delivery of the new bunker-busting bomb less than a week after a United Nations agency warned that Iran was secretly working to develop a nuclear weapon and is known to have hidden nuclear complexes that are fortified with steel and concrete, and buried under mountains. 'Heck of a coincidence, isn't it?' says John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org."
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Usually the target lowers its defenses if they know you have a big missile :D
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Gee I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Agreed. The primary function of weapons is to discourage the opponents, not to harm.
But in order to be scary enough to discourage the other guys, it actually has to be able to cause harm. And lots of it.
And in fact, it works even better if your message to the leaders of the bad guys is that you can get a bomb into their supposedly safe bunkers, and get personal on them. That's a pretty good deterrent, and will probably ensure that you never have to use that bomb.
And secondly, this bomb will make you Yankees look less of an a** when some Afghan guys are hiding in a mountain. Mountains turned out to be pretty awesome bunkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Good points but I think you got whooshed XD
Re: (Score:3)
Giggety, giggety.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Dummy entrances, angled blast-by down-tunnel subdoors leading to hidden pressure vents, location misdirection, laminated corbeled superstructure, etc.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you have no intention of actually using them.
The point here is not to be ready for a war with Iran, the point is to justify defense contractor jobs, keep the budgetary money flowing, and give Iran an excuse to do the same and give us more excuses later.
Seriously, have you been sleeping?
Re: (Score:2)
I figured it was going to be more of the same sort of proxy war BS with them. I mean, anything could happen if the Neocons rise again, but now that we have a moderate republican president, I doubt that will happen for at least another 5 years, and who knows what could happen in that time, could even have a new mole step up to be whacked.... you know... a softer looking target.
Re: (Score:3)
Lord knows I've never trusted the Canadians.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like protection of the President - you can see all the showy stuff with the Secret Service guys in black suits and sunglasses, holding their finger to their ear to listen to an earpiece... those are the guys they want you to see.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
the more expensive and dangerous we make their nuclear program, the more likely they are to give it up.
That would be true if you were dealing with a straightforward external cost-benefit analysis scenario. When speaking of Iran, that's not the case. Iran has enormous internal pressure to keep up the appearance of being a threat to Israel. In order to make that cost-benefit scenario work from a political standpoint, you'd have to make the expense and danger greater than the existing implied threat of being nuked by Israel.
You're absolutely right about the other part, however. If our intel suggests that they've already constructed tunnels of depth X, it may cause their development process to slow down while they re-engineer existing infrastructure, and it will certainly cause them to import more concrete and other building supplies. Various governmental and past-governmental monied interests are well invested in the "international" firms that don't have to abide by the embargoes, and can therefore supply these contracting services and make substantial money from it
Cheney, I'm looking at you.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why tell potential targets how big a bomb you have and how deep it will penetrate? They can just go deeper and pour more concrete. What happened to surprise?
That's part of the point of having such a weapon. The effort that a potential foe puts into negating the weapon can be more beneficial than use of the weapon in actual warfare. Nuclear bombs are the classic example.
Another example is China's current efforts. They do this all the time with weapons systems meant as foils for aircraft carriers and other expensive pieces of US hardware. Make a new missile or a fancy new sub, even if you never make many of them, and then the US has to devise a counter.
Deprecated (Score:5, Insightful)
The effort that a potential foe puts into negating the weapon can be more beneficial than use of the weapon in actual warfare. Nuclear bombs are the classic example.
That M.A.D. example has been deprecated. The new canonical example is "threat of 9/11-style terrorism".
Re: (Score:2)
Now that we have de-commissioned the super big nukes (because we've established a defacto lack of willingness to use them...) we need the bigger conventional bombs that will accomplish the same kinds of things. 5000lbs of high explosive delivered in the front door is more destructive than 20 megatons shoved out the back of a B-52 from 45,000 feet with no guidance other than an altitude detonation trigger.
Re: (Score:3)
The vietnamese were not humans in the eyes of the US's generals at the time, therefore, they were not collateral damage.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why tell potential targets how big a bomb you have and how deep it will penetrate? They can just go deeper and pour more concrete. What happened to surprise?
I have a friend who served in the Gulf War (the first one) and drove one of the missile systems. He often said, "The range *that we were allowed to know about* was 50km". I forget the exact numbers, the point is that frequently what the published capabilities and what the real capabilities of a weapons system is are often significantly different.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why tell potential targets how big a bomb you have and how deep it will penetrate? They can just go deeper and pour more concrete. What happened to surprise?
Because moving a nuclear weapons development facility 20 feet deeper into the ground is a hell of a lot harder than getting off of your lazyboy to get another bag of Doritos.
Secondly, you assume the advertised capabilities of the bomb are correct?
A: The bomb will penetrate X feet of hardening.
B: We will build our new complex X+15 feet deep.
Millions of dollars and years of construction later
A: Oh yeah, that bomb will actually penetrate X+30 feet of hardening.
B: Oh shit.
Re:hardening doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
it's a simple matter to pour 20 feet of wrapped rebar and concrete on top.
Only if you designed the structure to bear the load of an additional 20 feet of rebar and concrete. Otherwise you will cause more destruction than the bomb you fear.
additional blast doors can easily protect against it.
That would seem to depend on your assumption of how much "additional" means and how you define easily. It isn't quite as simple as throwing up another door and a few baffles. You also seem to be under the impression that there is only one bomb instead of a successive strike of these things.
Either way, the facility is disrupted and funds/resources are being diverted when playing defense.
Re: (Score:3)
You tell them you have a bomb that will go five miles deep. This forces your opponent to spend a lot of money digging themselves in 6 miles deep. You don't even have to have said bomb for this strategy to work.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to watch Dr. Strangelove.
Re: (Score:3)
First point I would like to make is that most statistical data about active weapon system is classified, and any publicly available numerical descriptions of said data is pure misinformation. For example, the speed of US aircraft carriers is top secret. Nimitz class carriers are stated as having a speed of over 30 knots but few people know exactly how fast they can really
Re: (Score:3)
I guess this redefines the word vaporware...
Re: (Score:2)
>> What happened to surprise?
The bomb doesn't really exist, and the administration want to hamper the Iranian program while the US actually *builds* the bomb.
What a happy coincidence that those nasty hackers infected Iran's facility with stuxnet then!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Couldn't they have named it something else. (Score:3)
Like Deep Impact, perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
"Boeing Jr." would be traditional.
Hrmm... (Score:2)
Re:Hrmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're referring to Israel, they aren't our friend. Israel is a bit like a therapist, they care about us as long as we're giving them money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're referring to Israel, they aren't our friend. Israel is a bit like a therapist, they care about us as long as we're giving them money.
And they're crazier than the patient.
Nice Analogy!
Re:Hrmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
The US doesn't have friends. It has interests.
UNderground (Score:2)
All underground complexes have entrances on the surface.
Won't bombing those entrances achieve much of the objective by essentially burying the underground target?
How long it will take the enemy to reconstruct the entrance to the target?
Re: (Score:2)
Won't bombing those entrances achieve much of the objective by essentially burying the underground target?
IMHO, not even close.
How long it will take the enemy to reconstruct the entrance to the target?
I figure it won't take more than a few days. My view is that you have to break the actual hardware. A new entrance is easy to dig out. Rebuilding a reactor or uranium refining facility would take considerably longer.
Re: (Score:3)
Bunkers are not bank vaults. From what I've seen a number of underground bunkers tend to have multiple entrances, even if some are just used for ventilation. Even smaller bunkers tend to have at least two ways out, as some are designed to deal with someone trying to put car exhaust down the vent shaft.
If a bunker just had one entrance, people inside would suffocate shortly after the main door is slammed shut.
Re: (Score:2)
Some have exhaust ports [wikia.com] as well!
Use the force, anonymous Air Force pilot...
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably good to have a back door, but remember these things are designed to send a shockwave through your bunker... litterally vaporzing you with pressure. STP x Y0,000 or so.
Re:UNderground (Score:4)
Second, the reconstruction efforts would have to take place on or near the surface, which is in range of more conventional weaponry (cruise missiles, JDAM bombs, etc...).
Third, though I am not generally opposed to an army owning powerful and highly specialized weapons, I get the feeling that just having these makes a first strike option against Iran seem like a more viable option. I don't like this.
Re: (Score:2)
just having these makes a first strike option against Iran seem like a more viable option. I don't like this.
Negotiations without this option have not gone particularly well, maybe this will move negotiations along a little?
Re: (Score:2)
Even the summary says they weren't able to kill everyone in the bunkers by skipping smaller bombs into the entrances. Like dropping them IN the bunker. This new bomb says "If it hits the bunker, everything inside dies".
Re: (Score:2)
All underground complexes have entrances on the surface.
Won't bombing those entrances achieve much of the objective by essentially burying the underground target?
How long it will take the enemy to reconstruct the entrance to the target?
The problem is ensuring that you have hit all entrances.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the earlier reports (about 6-8 months ago or so) on this weapon had a quote from one of the test engineers saying that the detonation was not unlike a tsunami. A very high pressure wave followed by an ignition that 'flowed around corners like water'. This thing was designed to kill everything in an underground complex with one hit, regardless of number of entrances.
Re: (Score:2)
All underground complexes have entrances on the surface.
Won't bombing those entrances achieve much of the objective by essentially burying the underground target?
How long it will take the enemy to reconstruct the entrance to the target?
So by this logic we should just put crazy glue in the door locks of car bombers?
Denial of service attack (Score:3)
I always wondered if it was possible to just deny access to the underground complexes, or make it very difficult.
These facilities are usually located in hard to get to locations, either because they want to bore into the side of a mountain, or they want them to be hard to find.
First wave would be to hit the roads and infrastructure delivery systems (power, water, etc) with whatever weapon does the most damage. Second wave, closer to the entrances, air deliver anti-tank barriers booby-trapped with mines to
Killsteak ... (Score:5, Funny)
Does this one still require a 25 point killstreak to deploy?
George Carlin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:George Carlin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh hell no. Male anger is nothing compared to female cattiness :-P
if women were in power (Score:5, Interesting)
you would see worse conflicts, lasting longer periods of time
the lie is that women are less violent. the male mode of conflict is physical sudden severe and swift, and then over, and everybody moves on. the female mode of conflict is longer term social violence: sabotage, character assassination, propaganda campaigns, name calling. of course it isn't physical violence, but it is still violence
if you compare physical violence amongst boys in elementary school, the boys are off the charts compared to the girls. but if you compare social violence amongst girls in elementary school, the girls are off the charts, to a greater degree than the physical violence the boys exhibit
the lie is that women are less violent than men. men are more physically violent, but their violence is short, strong, stupid, and over quickly, and then everyone is friends again. the female mode of violence is longstanding, complicated, highly vicious, and scorched earth: permanently psychologically scarring
women are off the charts when it comes to social violence. if women were in power you would see psychological warfare like you've never seen, and it would last a long, long time, and teh game would be played for serious detrimental effects. it would be soft power, economic and cultural, but played out to such a vicious extreme that the other country would be bereft of all confidence, culture, economy, or any other sort of ability to function as a normal society
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not going to dispute that women can be truly horrible. Hell hath no fury, as they say. But in recent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is precisely my own observation, speaking as a professional dog trainer -- it's just the same with dogs. If you have a fight between males, they beat each other up, settle their differences, then go have a beer together. But females fight to kill, and they never forget who it was they decided had to die... and they will go to great lengths to achieve that.
Not to sound like a sexist pig, but IMO a lot of the social problems we see today are because of female-style solutions (precisely as you describe, d
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
My experience is that women fight less often but far more ferociously when they do fight. I would expect a world run by women to have fewer wars, but no "rules of war". In particular mothers get real dangerous when they are protecting their children.
It probably would not be a safer world over-all. While things like the invasion of Iraq probably would not have hapened, a woman's solution to things like the post 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan would probably have been less "send american troops into danger to o
Re:George Carlin (Score:5, Informative)
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it might help to have more women in positions of power?
Hmmm, I really [wikipedia.org] don't [wikipedia.org] think [wikipedia.org] so [wikipedia.org].
There's absolutely no evidence that female leaders are less willing to go to war than male leaders. It is of course less common, but that has more to do with women being much less likely to be political and military leaders than men.
Re:George Carlin (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it might help to have more women in positions of power?
Wow, you don't understand women at all! They are easily offended. They hold grudges forever. They never "attack from the front". Instead, they work to subtly undermine and destroy their enemies often using innocent third parties (who get fucked in the process) to do the dirty work.
Surprise! Women are just as shitty as men, in different and more concealed ways.
So now we're believing the U.N.? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm confused. Wasn't the U.N. that organization which was lying when it said Iraq had no wmds?
The one we called liars but when we sent not one, not two, but three teams of our own investigators after we had invaded Iraq to find the wmds which we knew were there, found that the multiple reports that had come out were correct?
It would be nice if people would make up their minds. Either the reports generated by the same organization are false or they're not. Pick one.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, it could be that DIA is learning its lesson and trusting a source that's proved to be credible in the past... you decide which you think is the more likely explanation.
"Difficult and complicated"? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Massive Ordnance Penetrator is a weapon system designed to accomplish a difficult, complicated mission of reaching and destroying our adversaries' weapons of mass destruction located in well-protected facilities," Lt. Col. Melinda F. Morgan, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Despite the difficult and complicated mission, Boeing opted for a fairly simple solution: pack in more weight and explosives to blow the shit out of the target.
Could the next Slashdot Poll be to rename this new weapon system? Please, pretty please?
No shortage of cash for weapons. But. (Score:4, Insightful)
Priorities. (Score:3, Insightful)
But "Obama care" would cost too much?
Thank God!!! (Score:3)
With all of the satellite surveillance (Score:3)
How can they hide the construction of underground bunkers?
This is not an easy task and requires many trucks and people and there will be a tailings pile as big as the complex.
At night infrared would show hot trucks disappearing into a mountain.
Are they that smart to fool the watchers?
MOP is very little money very well spent! (Score:3)
The MOP is dirt cheap so far, and unlike nuclear weapons, conventional bombs have very wide application.
MOP raise the cost of ALL conventional shelters intended to be survivable, such as dug-in North Korean artillery emplacements.
MOPs would have been nice to have over Afghanistan (Tora Bora) and over Libya to gut Qaddafist bunkers.If the enemy is buried deep enough, he can be sealed in for good if he isn't killed outright. Recovery efforts on a military installation are military action and can be lawfully attacked.
If Jihadist nuclear installations are "dead and buried" they pose much less contamination threat to civilization.
Re: (Score:3)
Recovery efforts on a military installation are military action and can be lawfully attacked.
Only if the war is lawful. It is a war crime to begin an unlawful war, and/or to prosecute it in any fashion whatsoever.
Bullshit in headline... (Score:4, Informative)
"... less than a week after a United Nations agency warned that Iran was secretly working to develop a nuclear weapon..."
That is not what the UN warned or reported. The headline is repeating western propaganda. Read this [guardian.co.uk], this [straight.com], this [counterpunch.org], or this [rt.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Spoilsport :-(
Re: (Score:2)
Nice job. Have a photo of the burger as a reward...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not nuclear.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cool! (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe it should be ... except ...
If it's going to be used to collapse underground complexes, the radiation will be contained. The problem is that you still need a penetrator - and that's going to be really heavy, and there's a good chance that the nuke won't survive intact, so conventional explosives are the solution.
The ideal solution would be a "drop flaming chunk of rock from outer space at 70,000 mph". Look at it this way - it would give an impetus to develop asteroid mining.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Funny)
The bomb itself isn't nuclear. The nuclear targets are speculative. Your original post is hyperbole.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the larger question is...."When can we try them out?"
Re: (Score:2)
Just for reference, these bombs aren't nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that doesn't mean the explosion will go nuclear. It makes it more like a "dirty bomb", but the fact that it's underground would hopefully stop too many contaminants from getting out.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Informative)
Underground nuclear bases don't turn into fission bombs just because you drop a bomb on them.
It should also be noted that if you set off a bomb next to a nuclear weapon, all that happens is that you either shove the nuclear weapon to one side, or you destroy it. In neither case does it undergo fission.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" chance explosions might form a critical configuration of material"
no there isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cool! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Radiation contamination isn't as simple or cheap as vaccuuming up some uranium dust. The first problem is how wide the area is. Wind and rain will also carry the particles. Some surfaces may become contaminated and need to be removed themselves. It is theoretically possible to clean up a site. But the effort and cost required would be astronomically higher than abandoning the area. That's why Chernobyl has a 30km radius today.
The human death toll would not be immediate. If there was an instant decontam
Dual-use weapons (Score:4, Insightful)
During the Cold War, our troops in Europe had instructions on how to blow up their tactical nuclear weapons with a shaped charge if they were in danger of being overrun by the advancing Soviet army.
Not only did this prevent a nuke from falling into enemy hands, the charge would obliterate the nuclear core, blowing the pieces out in the direction of the blast. The whole area would be rendered quite dangerous to advancing troops.
And unlike Clooney and Kidman, they were ordered to get the hell out of there as soon as the fuse was lit.
Re: (Score:3)
I definitely know very little about atomic devices.
Would a meltdown of the underground nuclear research facility possibly lead to radioactive material melting down and contaminating the water table there?
I don't know how far down a water table is either, or the distance a reactor could melt down to.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I see you read the table of contents, but did you actually read what they said?
Cause they aren't saying what you are saying.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a seven year old report asking for an updated nuclear arsenal. This bomb isn't a nuclear bomb. The US already has nuclear bombs with that payload:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb [wikipedia.org]
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Informative)
A nuclear payload doesn't take anywhere near the 5,300lbs of slow burning high explosive that these things are packed with. It's true that one of them should produce a bang bigger than the bomb at Hiroshima, and that the delivery mechanism could be used to deliver a nuclear payload, but these are non-nuclear weapons. The whole reason the MOAB and other bombs like it (including this one) were developed was because the US is bound by international treaty and law not to use nuclear weapons in war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty [wikipedia.org]
These are weapons designed to be used, not designed to sit in a warehouse somewhere as a deterrent in case somebody else uses a nuke.
Re: (Score:3)
The US is not encumbered by the the need to observe international treaties.
1) Yes, they most certainly are, in every practical sense.
2) Judging from this and other posts, you're just short of being a moron.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And if your country is attacked, who would you look to to save your collective assess?
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
The US, but rest assure while we try to clean it up, they would bitch about us.
anyway, ignore X.25, he's a US bashing troll. There are plenty of things to discuss about the US but he isn't even smart enough to talk about those.
Re:Cool! (Score:4, Informative)
Did you just post that as flamebait or have you had your head in the sand for 20 years ?
Just to refresh your memory
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/2/newsid_2526000/2526937.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Iraq invades kuwait.
https://www.google.com/search?q=north+korea+missile+test&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a [google.com]
North Korea's missile tests.
and just in case
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/05/what_kind_of_terrorism_does_north_korea_sponsor.html [slate.com]
Just some examples of No Ko's terrorist activities.
Now in case you missed it there was also this large country called China, that is forcibly occupying Tibet ? Continuously making moves to threaten Taiwan and backs the nucking futs regime in North Korea.
Also in case you missed it, there is this other large county called Russia. That views the former Soviet Socialist Republics as pieces that belong back in the puzzle that is mother Russia. They aren't above poisoning leaders of these countries, reporters that point out that they are up to no good, and anyone else that happens to be nearby.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. creates no fly zone, economic sanctions, practices attack maneuvers OVER your contry.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6030302/iran_fires_antiaircraft_missile_fails.html [associatedcontent.com]
Some examples of U.S. terrorist activities - http://www.salon.com/2011/03/11/us_arms_sales/ [salon.com]. Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... what a catalog of success.
Now in case you missed it there's this large country called the U.S. they have military bases in 100+ countries most of which have actively campaigned to get the U.S. OUT.
Also, in case YOU missed it. There is this same large country called the U.S.. They view the world as their military theatre... pieces of their imperialist empire. They have the CIA good for poisonings.... supporting drug cartels and rebels in your country, and which is also useful against reporters.
Re:Cool! (Score:4, Informative)
Just to refresh YOUR memory
U.S. Invades (well about 2-3 countries a year but let's do 1 example).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion [wikipedia.org]
U.S. creates no fly zone, economic sanctions, practices attack maneuvers OVER your contry.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6030302/iran_fires_antiaircraft_missile_fails.html [associatedcontent.com]
Some examples of U.S. terrorist activities - http://www.salon.com/2011/03/11/us_arms_sales/ [salon.com]. Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... what a catalog of success.
Now in case you missed it there's this large country called the U.S. they have military bases in 100+ countries most of which have actively campaigned to get the U.S. OUT.
Also, in case YOU missed it. There is this same large country called the U.S.. They view the world as their military theatre... pieces of their imperialist empire. They have the CIA good for poisonings.... supporting drug cartels and rebels inyyour country, and which is also useful against reporters.
You didn't bother to read anything you linked to did you ?
But lets sort out your farrago of misinformation.
The U.S. invades 2-3 countries/year since the bay of pigs ? well lets call that 2.5 countries/year * 60 years = 150 countries since 1960. Seeing as the U.S. recognizes 195 I am sure we will get the last 45 done in good speed.
"The U.S. creates no fly zones over your country". You are upset about the U.S. trying to depose Saddam Hussein ? BTW your link was about Iran which doesn't have a U.S. enforced no fly zone.
U.S. terrorism, you link to an article authorizing private arms sales to sovereign governments. I don't know what your point is maybe you feel the guy who mined the lead to make the bullet is a terrorist as well ?
Now when you say countries have active campaigned to get U.S. bases out just what constitutes the country ? Because whenever the U.S. even thinks about closing a base the areas around it have their town fathers turn white at the thought of their local economies going in the crapper. If you would like examples look at Clark Air Base and Subik Bay in the Philipines.
Re: (Score:2)
As others posted, this isn't nuclear. And even if it was, your remark is still bizarre; we've blown up more than a few nukes underground already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_nuclear_testing [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Section 6: "The payloads we considered for strategic strike included both nuclear and non-nuclear options. The major objective of the nuclear forces we describe is to maintain deterrence."
While Section 6.4 goes into detail. There's no mention of it being exclusively nuclear. Your post is still hyperbole.
Re: (Score:2)
It boggles the mind.
Not everyone's.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have prior art. At least on the massive penetrator.
I take it you've reinvented the tin opener.