|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:18 pm Post subject: U.S. eyes 12 giant "bunker buster" bombs |
 |
|
| Quote: |
U.S. eyes 12 giant "bunker buster" bombs
By Jim Wolf Jim Wolf Thu Aug 27, 12:38 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) � The U.S. military wants to speed production of 10 to 12 huge "bunker buster" bombs, the Air Force said on Thursday, amid concerns over suspected underground nuclear sites in Iran and North Korea.
"These are purchases beyond just those needed to test the capability," said Lieutenant General Mark Shackelford, the top uniformed officer dealing with Air Force weapons-buying. "In other words, (the military is seeking to) build a small inventory ... of, I believe, 10 to 12."
The Defense Department asked Congress last month to shift $68 million in the fiscal 2009 budget to speed output of the non-nuclear, 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator and its integration aboard a long-range bomber.
The precision-guided MOP, built by Boeing Co, is designed to destroy deeply-buried targets beyond the reach of existing bombs.
Packing more than 5,300 pounds of explosives. it would deliver more than 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor, the 2,000-pound (907-kilo) BLU-109, according to the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has funded and managed the weapon's development program.
Assuming Congress approves the accelerated funding as expected, the Northrop Grumman Corp-built radar-evading B-2 bomber, "would be capable of carrying the bomb by July 2010," Andy Bourland, an Air Force spokesman, said this month.
Shackelford, at an Air Force briefing on acquisition issues, said the next phase of work would start within the next few months provided Congress approves.
In its July 8 request to Congress, the Defense Department said the MOP was the "weapon of choice" to meet an urgent operational need cited by the U.S. Pacific Command, which takes the lead in U.S. military planning for North Korea, the Central Command, which handles Iran, as well as the Strategic Command, which deals with the long-range U.S. arsenal.
In that request, the Pentagon said it needed four of the bombs. The Air Force did not immediately respond to a question about the discrepancy between those four and the 10 to 12 mentioned by Shackelford,
The United States is leading international efforts to persuade Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear programs, declining to rule out possible military action.
The MOP would be about one-third heavier than the 21,000-pound (9,500 kg) GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb -- dubbed the "mother of all bombs" -- that was dropped twice in tests at a Florida range in 2003.
The 20-foot-long MOP is built to be dropped from either the B-52 or the B-2 "stealth" bomber. It is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding, according to an article published by the U.S. Air Force.
The suspected nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea are believed to be largely buried underground to escape detection and boost their chances of surviving attack.
During a visit to Jerusalem in July, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates sought to reassure Israel that President Barack Obama's effort to use diplomacy to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear work was not "open-ended."
Iran says its uranium enrichment -- a process with bomb-making potential -- is for energy only and has rejected U.S.-led demands to curb the program.
North Korea responded to new United Nations sanctions, imposed after it detonated a second nuclear device, by vowing in June to press ahead with the production of nuclear weapons and act against international efforts to isolate it.
(Editing by Alan Elsner) |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090827/us_nm/us_usa_bomb/print
Change |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Everyone together now, in tune to The Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann," sing "Bomb, bomb, bomb,--bomb, bomb, Iran."
But first let's let the melodrama of the fascist martinet Ahmadine-jihad run its course as there is still a glimmer of hope that putting the opposition leaders on trial could spark widespread unrest. I said "glimmer." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adds a new meaning to "MOPping up".
I hope we build like 50 of these. Stick a tactical nuke in them. Irradiate the bunkers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
Adds a new meaning to "MOPping up".
I hope we build like 50 of these. Stick a tactical nuke in them. Irradiate the bunkers. |
Umm...I thought their whole purpose was to avoid using nuclear warheads, no? If they had nuclear potential, they would be nukes and we couldn't call them bunker busters anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| djsmnc wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
Adds a new meaning to "MOPping up".
I hope we build like 50 of these. Stick a tactical nuke in them. Irradiate the bunkers. |
Umm...I thought their whole purpose was to avoid using nuclear warheads, no? If they had nuclear potential, they would be nukes and we couldn't call them bunker busters anymore. |
Exactly. The whole reason this is a welcome weapon is that it avoids nuclear exchange and the MAD mentality that goes with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros expressed concern:
| Quote: |
| Exactly. The whole reason this is a welcome weapon is that it avoids nuclear exchange and the MAD mentality that goes with it. |
What a specious argument. You know very well this issue has nothing at all to do with popular magazines. Stop dragging Alfred E. Neuman into this debate. He's retired now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gakduki
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Location: Passed out on line 2 going in circles
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| An excellent idea! Bigger bombs cause more damage, who'd a thought of that. (I know they have some rock pushing design). One day maybe they will have conventional bombs as powerful as nukes...will those be okay? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
