• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!

    Create a channel Learn more

  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

B

buds444

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
May 30, 2011
114
0
40
Utah
#1
I'm all for improving weaponry and updating our arsenal. However. It seems like we only just heard about this new bunker buster and now they claim it can't reach Iran's underground fortified bunkers.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/...und-facilities/

So help me feel this out logically. If a bunker buster can go a figurative 100 ft down and Iran has a spinning facility 300ft why would you just not send 3 instead of demanding a better bomb?

Seems like if it gets to that point where bombs are the answer, we just should sang more of them rather than develop a bomb for a theoretical issue. Sure it probably could find use in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But again. Why not just use multiples.

Please no politics. Just logical discusssion.

- Brandon
 
#2
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

IMHO, and acknowledging the fact that I do not have the inside track on the politics of the matter nor the strategic thinking, I believe the argument flows something like this:

Weapons are used as a means of last resort to achieve a political solution, therefore the time element to resolve the matter via peaceful negotiations has catagorically been exhausted. Thus, when extreme measures (weapons) are used to bring about a political end, they have to work the first time, and without failure.

Moreover, the legacy effect of such weaponized negotiations is that your adversaries are more likely to pay attention and comply the next time you ask politely.

As a practical counter measure the options are limited: defeat the delivery system, or harden to withstand the impact. If you think about option #1 vs any first world MIl, that is a daunting and likely futile proposition (once a defending nation state gets behind the power curve); whereas digging deeper, and engineering a better hardened environment is likely both cheaper in the long run, and offers a greater probability of system survival than reling on option #1 - defeating the incoming delivery system.

Add to that logical argument the cozy relationship of Mil/Industrial Complex and K Street tugging at the already loose purse strings....



Then again what do I know?



Good luck

 
#3
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buds444</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So help me feel this out logically. If a bunker buster can go a figurative 100 ft down and Iran has a spinning facility 300ft why would you just not send 3 instead of demanding a better bomb?

</div></div>

I guess that would probably work if the first 100' of material were vaporized by the first buster but I don't believe that is the case. The second buster is still going to have to push through a lot of the same material the first one did.
 
#4
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buds444</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So help me feel this out logically. If a bunker buster can go a figurative 100 ft down and Iran has a spinning facility 300ft why would you just not send 3 instead of demanding a better bomb?...Just logical discusssion.</div></div>Math isn't my strong suit, but it would seem logical that if you do that you will be sending three 100-foot bombs to 100 feet.

Think about overpresure, yield, and fusing.
 
#5
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

graham said it

What ive heard from people dropping them in the first go around was

sand dirt and junk would refill the fist hole so you never really got any deeper than the first one

second and this is my opinion, if you dont have to keep sending good people into harms way to accomplish the same job your doing it right
 
#6
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

Not pretending to be a wiz in this field. However, I did stay at a holiday inn last night.

I've never seen the damage caused by one of these bombs so it very well may be 3 bombs driving down to the same 100 ft, maybe a little further than the previous, but not much. In that case, the need for a deeper penetrating weapon is as logical as it gets.

Anybody have experience with these weapons and their destruction?

- Brandon
 
#7
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buds444</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anybody have experience with these weapons and their destruction? </div></div>The US military has experience using them and destroying them. The former Iraqi military has experience with their destructive potential.
wink.gif
 
#10
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pdogsbeware</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because why settle for one bomb when you have an EXCUSE to spend hundreds of millions of more taxpayers money to develop another one!?
</div></div>

Huge truth there.
 
#11
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buds444</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/...und-facilities/

So help me feel this out logically. If a bunker buster can go a figurative 100 ft down and Iran has a spinning facility 300ft why would you just not send 3 instead of demanding a better bomb?

- Brandon</div></div>

1. debris that caved in after the first bomb (as discussed before)

2. ever try getting 3 ringers in a row in horseshoes? even with laser guided or other smart bombs, try putting 3 in the same hole.

3. 3 bombs, 3 sorties, 3 opportunities to be in harms way.

4. after (if) they make the next better bunker buster, the other side will make better bunkers as a countermeasure, then we'll have to make another better bunker suster, and so on...
 
#12
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

Question was,
Explain why we need a better bunker buster?
Because a single bullet/s to the back of the correct head/s is not within the play ground rules. Why save tax payer money, when you can print all you want?
We already have weapons that will get the job done, no matter how deep the target is. Stop an think about how you would destroy the target, or stop their production.

This is but smoke an mirrors, for the sheep, nothing more.
 
#13
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Question was,
Because a single bullet/s to the back of the correct head/s is not within the play ground rules. Why save tax payer money, when you can print all you want?
</div></div>

that would take care of most of it. imagine all the $ and american blood that would be saved if we exercised this more.

proof: Osama (should have done that 10 years ago) and Somalian pirates

next up: that guy in Iran
 
#14
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

This is a chess game.
Its about letting the other side know that we know where his toys are and how deep they are buried. Iraq thinks we can't get to them so we are letting them know we have a fix for that minor inconvenience.

It has been proven time and time again that the toys don't take care of business, but the Iraq's leadership clearly fears our toys.

Best money spent will always be on training the boys on the ground.
 
#15
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMHO, and acknowledging the fact that I do not have the inside track on the politics of the matter nor the strategic thinking, I believe the argument flows something like this:

Weapons are used as a means of last resort to achieve a political solution, therefore the time element to resolve the matter via peaceful negotiations has catagorically been exhausted. Thus, when extreme measures (weapons) are used to bring about a political end, they have to work the first time, and without failure.

Moreover, the legacy effect of such weaponized negotiations is that your adversaries are more likely to pay attention and comply the next time you ask politely.

As a practical counter measure the options are limited: defeat the delivery system, or harden to withstand the impact. If you think about option #1 vs any first world MIl, that is a daunting and likely futile proposition (once a defending nation state gets behind the power curve); whereas digging deeper, and engineering a better hardened environment is likely both cheaper in the long run, and offers a greater probability of system survival than reling on option #1 - defeating the incoming delivery system.

Add to that logical argument the cozy relationship of Mil/Industrial Complex and K Street tugging at the already loose purse strings....



Then again what do I know?



Good luck

</div></div>

What this guy said.
 
#17
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

I like how in previous discussions about rifles, scopes and whatnot for our snipers, pretty much everyone is on board for sending our guys out with the best that money can buy.

Now that we're talking about aircraft delivered weaponry, (specifically B-1B and B-2 aircraft)we have different attitudes.

Someone above said it real well, 3 sorties, 3 chances to get it right or get a crew killed. We can and do hit the same exact spot on bomb delivery. However, the best way to use multiple "100 foot" bombs is to send them milliseconds apart from the same aircraft allowing the second and third bomb to penetrate through moving blast media and hit new and solid ground to allow for full penetration. It's all guesswork if we expect the bombs to actually make it through and for the media to seperate enough to allow proper penetration.

So what do we do? When we found out the 308 didn't have enough range to reliably kill beyoun 1000 yds, we began using 300 Win Mags. When we needed more range, the 338 Lapua and the 50 BMG came into play.

Imagine the 100 foot bunker buster to be the 308. We need more penetration to get to the 300 foot deep bunkers. Isn't it time to maybe start using something suitable instead of something that MIGHT work.

Kind of like giving the bomber crews their own 338's and 50 BMG's
 
#18
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buds444</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pdogsbeware</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because why settle for one bomb when you have an EXCUSE to spend hundreds of millions of more taxpayers money to develop another one!?
</div></div>

Huge truth there. </div></div>

War is good business. Give your son.
 
#19
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike Casselton</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> pretty much everyone is on board for sending our guys out with the best that money can buy.

Now that we're talking about aircraft delivered weaponry, (specifically B-1B and B-2 aircraft)we have different attitudes.
</div></div>
haha you got me there, I'll admit it!

I'd like to think the difference is a SUBSTANTIAL price difference. Is the juice worth the squeeze?
 
#20
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buds444</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pdogsbeware</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because why settle for one bomb when you have an EXCUSE to spend hundreds of millions of more taxpayers money to develop another one!?
</div></div>

Huge truth there. </div></div>

War is good business. Give your son. </div></div>

War is not good business - it is amazing business. I honestly hope that those of us that have served have done so in order that our children will never have to.
 
#21
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

Everyone needs to relax a little. If you read many of my posts you'll realize I am not afraid to criticize the government or even the military when it is warranted. However in this case, the Iranians have had a 20+ year lesson in our capabilities from their neighbor's experience with us and have designed their facilities accordingly.

We already have the means to take out those targets: tactical nukes.

The problem is that while a nuke may be tactical in size they are always strategic in their effect. There are huge pressures to avoid using them in a situation like this, even though their effects could be very local. Politically, they are most certainly out.

Improving the bunker buster, which is just a big dumb bomb with a strong case, is chump change compared to other programs and would actually give us more capability, which is more than I can say for a lot of other military programs.

As an aside, it is harder to "dig" with bombs than some of you think. Without getting into opsec know that we have a lot of capability against hard targets, but a single weapon that penetrates to the level you need would be a far better solution than digging.
 
#23
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jasonk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't these bunkers have entrances that are at ground level? Can't we just find those and bunker bust the hole and seal them up? </div></div>

+1
That's why we have drones that can fly around and find those things. Too bad Iran got a hold of one of ours not too long ago, oops.
As for the bunker buster, it would be pretty hard to send 3 of them down the same hole.
 
#24
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

The British deployed deep pentrating "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam" bombs as far back as WW II. We copied them here.The T-10 comes to mind. Rememebr the "Daisy Cutters" thrown out the back of C-130s with a parachute to blow clear LZs in Vietnam? That was a bunker buster from inventory that had the reinforced nose and aerodynamic extended tail and fins removed. They were very expensive to manufacture. When used to penetrate Sub Pen roofs they succeeded, but the blast didn't do the damage you would think. Some old 8 inch barrels from navy and 8 inch SP guns that were obsolete were used to make some bunker busters for Iraq. But new invetory had to be manufactured and the supplies of the expedient ones was limited. Once the barrels were used, there were no more. The supply was very limited.
To make a armor or ground penetrating bomb most of the weight, like 70%,is in the casing and hard nose, leaving little room for HE trapped in a very hard case not built to frag and break. The steel is very high quality the cases and components have to be machined to very specific tolerances. The cases and noses weigh thousands of pounds and are massive and very difficult to machine.
Remember the Arizona? One bomb went in the stern and the only damage was to a laundry room or something. One hit the bow and triggered a magazine explosion. They were made from milled and modified battleship AP shells.
The effect of deep penetrating bombs is very mixed.If you see video and pictures of them going into buildings in Iraq you see small puncture holesin the roof and upper floors, and all the windows are blown out and the pictures knocked off the walls. the buildings still stand.
When penetrating the ground Saddams underground bunkers, when penetrated, demonstrated minimal if any suignificant damage outside the immediate area of the blast. And don't put too much faith in "overpressure" effects in these places. Internal blast doors, corners, zigzag hallways, and other features will mitigate it. The standard now isto excavate a cavity and build a reinforced structure freestanding inside now, and actually resting on massive springs to absorb shock.
The "Earthquake" effect is what these bombs are best at, and that is difficult to predict and with enough money much reduced by the bunker builders.
Blowing up HE in a room has far less impact on machinery and equipment than you think. That has been observed over and over again when factories,and underground facilities have been bombed since WW II. Roofs could be blown off, and walls shredded, and the manufacturing continued with little impact.
Penetrating down through rock is hard, and gravity and even rocket assist bombs can only go so far.Even then, the case will have to be so hard to not brak there will be little room for explosives, and you gotta have special delay fuzes that can withstand the impact in the first place and be smart enough to blow when they stopor sense they have penetrated into a void/cavity/room and must blow immediately.

the only real way to get these deep structures is to use subsurface bursts of nuclear weapons, proboably several in series in the exact same spot,to dig down and move the dirt out of the way for the next bomb. The amounts off radioactive fallout from such detonations is massive with all the dirt, rock,and material highly radiated and thrown up into the atmosphere. and all that fallout will come down in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and China. That's the way the winds blow.
Iran has worked very hard, and long, to go underground.And spent massive amunts of money to hire Russians and Chinese to design and build these facilities. Building underground structures for crazy rich despots is big business. And it is Ruusia and China selling them the tech and equipment for the nuclear facilities.
is it any wonder that China and Russia are determined to prevent the UN Security Council from any effective action? Both have threatened to go to war with us or anybody else if we do, especially with nuclear weapons.
But to tell you the truth, that war between Islam, and the Communists,is inevitable. None are going to back down. We will.
 
#25
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

You mean we don't need one? Why would that be the case?

When the generals tell us our capabilities are inadequate to support our intentions, I think it pays to take them seriously; maybe even doubly so where Iran is concerned.

Greg
 
#26
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You mean we don't need one? Why would that be the case?

When the generals tell us our capabilities are inadequate to support our intentions, I think it pays to take them seriously; maybe even doubly so where Iran is concerned.

Greg </div></div>

This is all about continually expanding military budgets, Iran is hardly the threat you fear, but it makes for great rhetoric.

Forget about the fact that Adm. Mullins correctly stated that the single GREATEST threat to US security isn't the Iranian Bogeyman, but our own DEFICIT SPENDING.

These are the same clowns that would have us believe that ANY reduction in military spending would leave our troops fighting with rocks and stones.

Panetta's boilerplate on "slashing the military" was clearly well crafted to illicit the proper amount of fear.

When folks are finally able to recognize the difference between Defense and Military spending, we might one day have honest discourse.

The irony of so many self-professed "conservatives" who bitch about fiscal restraint, while simultaneously burying this country in debt to wage endless wars is truly amusing.
 
#29
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JWV</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmm...Tungsten penetrator with a very large rocket engine sending it at hyper-sonic speeds straight down? That would work I bet. </div></div>
A Special steel nosecap, with the assist of a rocket, may be what it actually takes to get that far down.
We ourselves built places like the Cheyenne Mountain facility. But even that is vulnerable if you are willing to use a few dozen megatons to vaporize a granite mountain. Iran is attempting create the same situation, knowing we are loath to accept the consequences (massive fallout).
 
#30
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike Casselton</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Someone above said it real well, 3 sorties, 3 chances to get it right or get a crew killed. We can and do hit the same exact spot on bomb delivery. However, the best way to use multiple "100 foot" bombs is to send them milliseconds apart from the same aircraft allowing the second and third bomb to penetrate through moving blast media and hit new and solid ground to allow for full penetration. It's all guesswork if we expect the bombs to actually make it through and for the media to seperate enough to allow proper penetration.

</div></div>
Which would require at least three aircraft in tight formation in a extrordinarly well coordinated and timed drop.
I wonder if even we have thatcapability. I doubt it even under perfect conditions. That idea works fine in a quarry, but not under combat conditions.
 
#31
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

Guy MontagThis is all about continually expanding military budgets said:
Channeling Ron paul again, obviously.
Cut defecit spending. Easy. Cut out half the Medicade budget. Slash the SSDI and eliminate the fraudulant recipients. Make SS means tested. make communities, especially cities, responsible for their own teacher and police and fire budgets, as well as all the dead weight Civil Servants.
Provide for the common defense is the responsibility of the Federal Government, not giving money for diapers and formula to anybody who claims it, without any proof, and cashes the largess in for 50 cents on the dollar.
But eliminating another Regiment of marines, as well as their support network, isn't the way to do it. They are stretched enough, and always were, even when there were 9 active Regiments. Now there will be 7. That is less than we sent to Saipan, or Iwo Jima.
Click to expand...
 
#32
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

You want to know what happens when you lose the capability to project power? Argentina is saber rattling about fighting another falklands War now that England has no carriers, no harriers, and has slashed it's military capability to the degree that it would at best stalemate in a war with the isle of Wight.
 
#33
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

Iran could not even beat Saddam and Iraq so they do not have a chance in hell of beating the major powers even if we are in recession and there is cutbacks . Even if they do develope a Nuclear bomb , they still have to diploy it and they will need way more than ome or two . If you look at history these camel jockies are only good fighters within their own countries or region . They can not export their military power very far and they have no tradition or experience of fighting world wars . Their countries have oil and fuel but they don't have all the other raw materials and manufacturing to wage war . They buy in all the guns and ammo and when it runs out they are screwed .
Iran knows this and that's why it wants a Nuclear weapon to use as a threat because the minuet they actually do use it they are dead.
Remember all the crap about Sadams Republican Guard and how they would make " Rivers of Blood " out of US troops well all they made was " trails of sh*t " as they ran for their lives.
The British may be in recession and they may be broke but the British Army alone would wipe the floor with the Iranians in a fullon declared war with the UN told to Fu*ck off! . Camel jockies just don't have the tactical planning and stratergy experience or know how . You have to remember that you can't compare the outcomes of the wars that the UN has been involved in the decision making process of how they are fought.
If you listen to the UN in a fullon war like WW2 you will loose.
If the war is declared and the UN told to but-out then the full power of the Military can be used to anialate the enemy and screw the colateral damage . Alexander the Great did not fu*ck about with winning minds and hearts or rebuilding programs . To win you have to destroy the enemy and everything that supports them .
 
#34
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

Iran and Iraq shared a long common border, and with a few exceptions in the Shaatal arab there were no engagements in the Gulf. Because of the border that made logistics much easier for both sides. If we have a war with Iran, on the other side of the World, we have to move all the troops and equipment required a hellof a long way. Even the stuffprepositioned in Diego Garcia will have to travel. The Iranians will be fighting on their own ground, with short lines of supply. They have been preparing to do thatfor 30 years. they will mine the Gulf, and the Straights of Hormuz. that willcomplicate things tremendously. They have a lot anti-ship and anti-air missiles, which will get lucky some of the time. They have a lot of men and equipment, including tanks. They reverse enginneered our TOW2 missiles decades ago. They have a thriving domestic arms program thatmakes a lot of stuff,including upgrading tanks and aircraft.
And the delivery of a nuke is much easier when you are doing it at short range in your own country or in the coastal waters. Do you think the UN is gonna condemn them for using nukes "In Self Defense" on their own territory? It will be far different if we use them "Offensively" even in response. Hell, they could bury them in the ground and put a fanatic on top with a hammer to set it off and a promise of paradise to encourage him.
All our ships will either have to come all the way across the Pacific and I.O. which would take over a month atbest, or around Africa, which isn't much shorter, or through the Suez, which the Muslim Brotherhood Government there will close to us for sure. Who is gonna allow us overflight rights? Yemen? Egypt? Iraq? Turkey? Russia?
With adavnce notice we couldn't put much more than a couple regiments of marines over a beach using all ouravailable Amphib and stripping other commitments. The Prepositioning would equip another couple Regiments but we have to figure out how to get the Marines to the eqiupment, and the Prepositioning ships aren't troop carriers and don't have over the beach capability at all.
Fighting Iran, with what we have now and is being reduced as we speak, would be very, very hard. We won't be staging on a long land border for 6 months, like happened with Iraq. Itwill be over the beach, and amphib and carriers will be the requirement. Our airlift capability is already taxed with Afghanistan, and will possibly collapse if we had to do Iran too. Unless the gulf states join us and allow us complete and total access to their countries for staging and land based airstrikes we are fucked.
And the Gulf states are withing range of primitive nuclear tipped missiles, as well as delivery by suicide subs and fishing boats.
The casualties in the Iran/Iraq war were terrible. wewon't get off cheap if we invade and have to fight the whole length of Iran, which is like 4 times the size of Iraq.
Once we take any area, or the whole country, we will be responsible for basic needs, like food and water, for every single one of the Iranian poulation as well as prisoners of war. They are a fucking desert, and can't feed themselves now. It wil be worse during and after a war.
And the shitbag UN will say it is our fault.
In the time preceedig the invasion China and Russia will be doing everthing possible to demonize us before the world, and will pour in sophisticated arms, and if the opportunity presents itself while we are occupied in Iran China will invade taiwan, and Russia will do something, somewhere, to take advantage.
they both might even attack us too, to finally eliminate the world's superpower while it is weakest.
But Obama is cutting defense.
 
#37
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

Politics has all but ruined this country. Even friendships and relationships. They regulate everything. Look on your toilet and see how many GPF it is.

Our biggest threat is right here. We need to elect officials who are officially gifted with common sense and are not inclined to be thwarted with money.

We need to worry about us. Americans. Eff everyone else.
 
#38
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buds444</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not pretending to be a wiz in this field. However, I did stay at a holiday inn last night.

I've never seen the damage caused by one of these bombs so it very well may be 3 bombs driving down to the same 100 ft, maybe a little further than the previous, but not much. In that case, the need for a deeper penetrating weapon is as logical as it gets.

Anybody have experience with these weapons and their destruction?

- Brandon </div></div>

What he said, plus the fact that IMO, it would be alot better to take care of the situation with one precise hit, not 3 and hope that they get the job done. Not to mention Iran probably isn't the only country out there that could potentially be a problem in the future with similar issues.
 
#39
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?



Newsflash Don:

This is <span style="font-weight: bold">NOT</span> WWII, and we're not preparing a land invasion of over a million ground forces.

Military spending is not the same thing as Defense spending, a concept you clearly can't understand.

We've pizzed away TRILLIONS fighting these wars you love so much, throwing even more good money after bad.

It's quite amusing where your "cuts" should come from.

You target CHILDREN, the disabled, and elderly as the prime villains in this mess, feebly unaware of the actual budget numbers.

Next up is infants, God knows we don't need to protect the innocent, it's their fault to be born to idiots.

I realize you've probably never thought of it, but these children didn't pick their parents, but lets punish them for their parents irresponsibility.

One would hope you'd have some compassion for the weakest and most vulnerable in our country, but obviously that's not the case.

You've no idea what the real budget numbers truly are, otherwise you acknowledge how obscene military spending truly is.

When you're able to read a balance sheet, we might be able to have honest discourse.

Until then, keep pretending that military funding isn't out of control, and focus your ire on those despicable children and old folks who can't support themselves.
 
#40
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

Well, who I am and what I'm doing that's all wrong aside, recognizing that Iran is following a strategy of defiance and endeavoring to defeat the physical capabilities of current state of the art military countermeasures is rather suggestive.

It suggests to me that Iran's political and military aims are rather beavily invested in developing a military nuclear capability in direct detiance of world leadership consensus and lesser efforts by concerned parties to sway their intent.

In such a world, I honestly believe that the US, the West, and maybe even Iran might be better off if our military countermesures were to be upgraded to include such an additional capability.

The cost? Not small.

The cost of not following up on such an initiative? Perhaps the critics might like to step up and indemnify such a contingency.

The cost of our own nuclear deterrent has been immense over the past greater part of a century, despite never having expended even one single nuclear device for the stated purpose.

We may argue whether it was a worthwhile expenditure, but with sincere respect, I think that's rather aside from the real point. I don't think I'd like living in the world that foregoing such an expenditure would have created.

I also don't think I'd like to live in a world where we decided it was too expensive to provide a countermeasure capability to Iranian nuclear adventurism.

With the same sincere respect, in weighing the costs of developing such a countermeasure vs not doing so, I will adhere to the principle of being safer rather than sorry. It's not as if we are engaging in military bravado so much as taking prudent measures when others choose to do so.

Will the cost bankrupt us? Has it ever?

Will it force leadership to make hard choices? Maybe, but perhaps not as much as other decisions.

Is that a bad thing? I think not.

Is it my place to prioritize the values of such decisons? It is not, I'm glad it isn't; and I mistrust those who conjecture here about such without even the glimmer of an opportunity to impliment their recommendations.

There's a good reason why we elect people, and those are the folks whose opinions count where I'm concerned.

Greg
 
#41
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

One B-52, dropping a series of say, an entire bomb bay of JDAM munitions of current capabilitiy, in a timed sequence dictated by the aircraft's basic weapons release intervalometer, can probably defeat any current hardened enclosure. If not, I believe the combined capacities of several such aircraft would be sufficient, using data links to coordinate the drop timings.

Current capabilities are very effective. Personally, I don't think additional development might be as effective as might be the application of a more creative approach to using what we already have.

As a personal witness to several Arclight drops in 'Nam during 1967, I seriously doubt the ability of any enemy to utterly defy the capability of a significant bunch of effectively deployed BUFFs.

I saw what happens even when those munitions are scattered. I cringe at the thought of standing on a spot where such firepower was being concentrated in accordance with more modern guidance measures. ...Or standing at any depth of rock or concrete below that spot. Hell, even if it didn't work, I'd sure like to watch them try (from a safer distance, mind you). If they have a mind to do it, nothing will stand in defiance.

Fighter pilots make adventure stories, BUFF pilots make history.

What I don't doubt is that it's really kinda difficult to understand why the Iranian leadership is so dim as to think defying such a capability can have some sort of beneficial outcome. Those folks heads just ain't quite right.

Greg
 
#42
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Will the cost bankrupt us? Has it ever?

</div></div>


Greg, we're <span style="font-weight: bold">long</span> past bankrupt already.

Just because we continue to endlessly print new Dollars, it doesn't change that reality.

I wish folks would quit pretending like we're not already insolvent, the balance sheet doesn't lie.
 
#43
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

With the right "Pixy Dust, Bait" Americans can/will self feed on anything. Having massive amounts of Horse Power at your beckon call, only keeps the fans dressed in player uniforms content. That type never understands the true game, or how to change the final score, if required, with a simple move.
Dirt bags are good for keeping the game in play, for if the USA wanted to task out, it would be over before the public, knew it began.
 
#44
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

It's quite amusing where your "cuts" should come from.

You target CHILDREN, the disabled, and elderly as the prime villains in this mess, feebly unaware of the actual budget numbers.

Next up is infants, God knows we don't need to protect the innocent, it's their fault to be born to idiots.


I realize you've probably never thought of it, but these children didn't pick their parents, but lets punish them for their parents irresponsibility.

</div></div>
Many Schools now are obligated to make available free breakfast, lunch, and dinner to every child in the school, not just those "in need" because the kids who get a free meal would be embarressed if they were identified as "poor". And the "poor" kids are getting foodstamps for those meals at home. So every weekday 15 of 21 meals provided are in addition to the food stamps their "likely" single parent or grandmother of foster parent gets.
WIC is a scandal, with no proof required whatsoever of need, at lleast if you are minority. You walk in, say you have a hungry shittted up kid or two, with no proof required, and you get $1000 or $500 on a card in minutes. Then you walk out the door, down a couple fronts to the place that says "WE accept WIC cards", and cash them in for 50 cents on the dollar.
My Ex-wife's family was PR, and owned a Bodega in the Ghetto in Phila. They paid 50 cents on the dollar for Food stamps/cards too. Made a lot of money that way. Fucking thieves. They had a mattress full of cash and I still had to pay for the wedding and honeymoon, and the store was in my ex's name!
Medicare and Medicade and SSDI fraud is rampant, and eats up huge amounts of the money spent. There is no significant effort to validate any claims by the State or Federal Governments. They just pay any bills submitted.
Entitlement spending dwarfs any Military or Intelligence spending.
It's my job to take care of my own kids and relatives. Not the Governments. Everybody should do the same. Means testing should be a requirement for all. I knew women getting welfare under multiple names, in both PA and NJ (they took the train to Camden). Their livelyhood was Welfare fraud. And they had jobs on top of it, that they didn't pay taxes on!
Obviously you are a RonBot. That shit won't work on me, because I don't like my head in the sand, and my ass in the air, waiting (and hoping)to get buttfucked by anybody who happens by.
 
#45
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ssatt68</div><div class="ubbcode-body">300' of earth??? the munition would be too heavy for any plane to carry would have to be at near orbital speed and would vaporize on contact with the ground. Targeting the facility is only a temporary set back = self licking icecream cone. </div></div>
More like 300 feet of rock and reinforced concrete.
The Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs built by the British were dropped frm as high as over 20,000 feet and achieved over supersonic speeds, and didn't vaporize. The Grand Slam weighed 22,000 pounds.
Rocket assisted penetrating bombs/rockets have also been built and employed.
America built them as the T-10.
But flying B-52s over a very sophisticated Air Defense network, bought from China and Russia, wouldn't be a milkrun for anybody. There is even speculation they could target Stealth Aircraft at night with the latest systems from Russia, which is why America tried to convince Russia not to go through with delivery of a hundred systems recently.
I'm sure they did anyway.
Nukes are the only way we will dig them out of the deep positions, and the associated world uproar will be loud, especially from those countries who have been trading arms for oil with Iran, like Russia and China. And India.
 
#46
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

Shit looks good on paper doesn't it? Line up some cinder blocks, send a bomb on rails at it, and when it explodes on the other side after breaking through it, then it's a bunker buster. Right?

The reality is that shit that looks good on paper, doesn't work as well in reality, and even daisy cutters can be duds too.

I wonder how much money is going into this experiment to turn sand into glass.
 
#47
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

If you want to find outabout the ineffectiveness of bombing on Reinforced underground facilities study up on the efforts of the Allies to neutralize the main Island ofHeligoland during WW II. This tiny rock was attacked repeatedly in 1943, and had no less than 13 major attacks in 44. In a single raid on 18 April of 45 no less than 4,953 tons of bombs were dropped oon the island. The following day, in another raid, 6 22,000 pound Grand Slams were dropped on the North end of the island, and 27 12,000 Tallboys were dropped on the West side.
though unreinforced surface building were destroyed, and the island very heavily cratered (superfical damage)from the repeated attacks, the underground passages, vaults, and shelters were largely intact. Almost all of the island's 128 casualties during WW Ii were Anti-Aircraft gun crews.
After the war the British used the stored ammunition on the island, including massive naval shells, torpedos, 1,200 depth charges, 455,591 boxes of TNT, hundreds of tons of ammunition shipped over after the surrender from Germany, and wired together with 120,000 yards of DetCord. In the end 7,000 tons of explosives and munitions were detonated simultaneously.
Except for a couple big craters created by the "Big Bang" demolition, the island is just fine.
The success of the Island's fortifications and tunnels was deeply studied by British and American engineers who were surprised how little damage was done despirte repeated use ofBritian's largestbombs and massive attacks.
That information was used in deesigns for Nuclear bombproofs in the age of nuclear weapons.
The island is quite lovely now, and you can google it for pictures. It is still there despite the best efforts of british engineers to obliterate it, literally.
And nothing on the island was 300 feet deep, and the rock was soft.
 
#48
Re: Explain why we need a better bunker buster?

Ronen Bergman, arguably one of the most inside military/political journalists in Israel wrote an interesting piece in the NYT saying Israel will attack Iran in 2012. He's written some pretty interesting stuff in the past, he's well informed but as he explains only 2 people really know at this stage. All the same, a good read..

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/magazine/will-israel-attack-iran.html?pagewanted=all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PatMiles
The Hard Truth: The Left Gains Power With School Shootings, And That’s Why They Don’t Want Them Stopped
Replies
19
Views
1K
deersniper
deersniper
Lowlight
  • Locked
Why we can't have nice things,
Replies
633
Views
60K
ClamHammer747
C
Blue Sky Country
Another coward soyboy tells us why we should not carry guns while in the wilderness
Replies
56
Views
3K
EddieNFL
EddieNFL
sirhrmechanic
Let's start by taking back our Language! Great read!
Replies
13
Views
2K
hankpac
hankpac
Blue Sky Country
Gun enthusiast must reads: The Cosmic Computer by H. Beam Piper
Replies
1
Views
864
lash
lash
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts