Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
Sat Jan 28, 2012, 12:00 PM Jan 2012

US bunker-buster 'not powerful enough' against Iran

The US military has concluded that its largest conventional bomb is not capable of destroying Iran's most heavily fortified underground facilities suspected to be used for building nuclear weapons, according to The Wall Street Journal.

...

The Defense Department has spent about $330 million so far to develop about 20 of the bombs, which are built by Boeing Co., the report pointed out.

The Pentagon is seeking about $82 million more to make the bomb more effective, The Journal said


http://www.france24.com/en/20120128-us-bunker-buster-not-powerful-enough-against-iran

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

HopeHoops

(47,675 posts)
1. Just drop a few daisy cutters on the perimeter to cut off the roads.
Sat Jan 28, 2012, 12:14 PM
Jan 2012

You don't have to hit the beast to starve it.

 

think

(11,641 posts)
2. But, but last week this same 30,000 lb bomb won a prestigious award:
Sat Jan 28, 2012, 12:17 PM
Jan 2012



The 30,000-lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator Bomb Works So Well It Earned A Rare Honor

The group's recognition with the William J. Perry award was delivered by the Precision Strike Association to honor "one of the Secretary of Defense's number one weapons programs."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/this-30000-massive-ordnance-penetrator-bomb-works-so-well-its-design-team-just-won-a-rare-honor-2012-1#ixzz1klo923xh





ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
3. Classic case of tactical requirements creep
Sat Jan 28, 2012, 02:37 PM
Jan 2012

You build something that will go through X and the enemy builds it as X+10.

 

Edweird

(8,570 posts)
5. Then somebody is going to remember that we have bombs more powerful than 'conventional'....
Sat Jan 28, 2012, 02:41 PM
Jan 2012

"Hey, I know what would work"....

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
6. The issue is penetration
Sun Jan 29, 2012, 12:42 AM
Jan 2012

Nuclear weapons are air burst/surface weapons

You could argue that closing off all surface access is as good a blowing it up directly. However, while you may know where it is, locating all the access points is much harder.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
7. Nuclear weapons deliver a big enough seismic shock to destroy sensitive equipment
Sun Jan 29, 2012, 03:59 PM
Jan 2012

US underground communications bunkers built during the cold war had equipment racks mounted on springs with slack cables such that they could bounce and withstand the shockwaves from nearby surface nuclear blasts.

They also had metal sheathing to shield the electromagnetic pulse effects, and they had ventilation systems that prevented ingestion of radioactive materials following the blast.

Besides which modern missiles are much more accurate and you can dig quite a hole in the ground with a 250 megaton warhead bursting near the surface.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»US bunker-buster 'not pow...