lets assume that what you say is correct that granite is alot softer than concrete ( sounds ok to me) and the GBU-28 has a 25ft ced? (forget the term) wonder how big the crater is left behind from the blast?
you wouldnt use a GBU-28 for the vernable parts you would use a Thermobaric type weapon on them likly loaded on a camera guided/gps type platform
Mr saddam has a 16ft thick concrete cap...the GBU-28 can get through 100ft of soil or about 20-30ft of bunker cap ( i see 20-30ft depending on where i look)
dont see where his bunker is a problem
with other better protected bunkers..pondering how many of them that exist that are problematic enough to require the nuke....they do however exist so...
i submit that conventional existing weapons can do the job maybe not in one hit perhaps it might take 10 but they can still do it...and in a practical manner...cheaper..and with less enviromental impact.
is there a bunker that exists today in some rogue state that has to be eliminated in one strike? or do we have the luxury of sending a steath bomber and taking care of the problem with one payload over a few minutes?
_______________________________
totaly OT but if thats your rl pic I love your hair [ 11-30-2003: Message edited by: Somthor ]
far as i can tell so far... he says we need new nuke weapons to eliminate hardened targets. somwhere along the line i jumped in on the topic of can current conventional weaponry do the job. taking the side that it can. I eventualy went and supported my postion with some cut and paste of weapon platforms i felt could do the job of destroying command bunkers (which i think is the target we are discussing.) I posted that if im wrong plse prove me so as he apparently is the expert and can do so in a short fashion having access to all sorts of info i dont etc etc. all that got me was i'm a idiot responses from others.
I think he has some sencerio in mind that I dont or some target. I posted about two known bunkers and what i thought about them.
I'm sure when he gets back he will in short order make all clear as to why im wrong and we can all move on. best I can tell he hasnt been very efficent in explaining why he is right and why im wrong other than he says so.... but i might of missed it.
you would think that if he is some kind of officer or consultant he would be used to dumbing it down to the uneducated so they can "Get it"
about now all i can say is i feel stupid about the whole thing becuse I'll take your word on his expertise and your collective amusement makes me feel I'm so very wrong
quote:
Somthor impressed everyone with:
you might love it, however since i havent the foggiest idea who the hell he is i'm nonplussed.
He's a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force.
explains the I dont need to explain it to you attitude i got from him.
is it too late to salute?
Basic Airman (E-1)
Airman (E-2)
Airman 1st Class (E-3)
Senior Airman (E-4)
Staff Sergeant (E-5)
Technical Sergeant (E-6)
Master Sergeant (E-7)
Senior Master Sergeant (E-8)
Chief Master Sergeant (E-9)
Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force (E-10)
2nd Lieutenant (O-1)
1st Lieutenant (O-2)
Captain (O-3)
Major (O-4)
Lieutenant Colonel (O-5) <----Mr. Blood Sage
Colonel (O-6)
Brigadier General (O-7)
Major General (O-8)
Lieutenant General (O-9)
General (O-10)
He knows a little more about the capabilities of aircraft launched munitions than the average person. 
No fair posting when I post, asshole. Do it again and I'll rip your teeth out through your anal cavity. AND I'M LEAVING MY LIST BECAUSE IT TOOK SO LONG TO WRITE AND REMEMBER [ 11-30-2003: Message edited by: Snoota ]
leasts thats the way I rember my MCPN telling me about it.
like I said when he gets back maybe he will clearly state excatly why im wrong instead of just saying so.
that whole belief and faith thing didnt really clear the topic up. people make judgements and form opions bases on the facts they have availible to them. his apparently are more up todate and better informed than mine.
My disdain for you has nothing to do with my current rank. . .or your former one. It stems entirely from the fact that you are gibbering unadulterated nonsense.
Think of a scenario: a point of law comes up. Gydyon steps in authoritatively and tells us the current interpretation and practice. At that point, the discussion is over. Smart people don't argue with experts in their field, and especially not by simply contradicting them and cobbling together random pieces of data.
You keep saying you have some knowledge of this subject: exactly what did you do in the Navy? Were you a targeteer? Did you work intel for an air wing? Were you somehow involved in planning air strikes?
I'm not just talking from a generic "I'm in the Air Force, so I know about bombs" perspective. I literally do this for a living. The people who work for me are the ones who match weapons to targets and who plan air strategy. I'm not just making this up.
Please quit assuming that simply because a weapon has "penetrator" in the title it is magic. None of the weapons you mention are any use at all against hard and deeply buried targets, which are what the new weapon is designed against.
For example, do you have the faintest clue what "thermobaric" means, or how that weapon works? If you do some actual research, you'll notice that it was designed for use against cave complexes because penetrator weapons were useless. It's not the least bit of use against even an average underground bunker.
And the underground bunkers we're talking about--the term "hard and deeply buried target" has a specific meaning well outside ordinary bunkers--are not average. They are buried under hundreds of feet of dirt and concrete and are specifically designed to withstand shock.
Normal weapons don't do the trick.
That's why, you see, the experts are asking for a new weapon.
Additionally, please explain WTF strip mining has to do with anything? 
Are you honestly so clueless you think we need to bomb something where we control the ground so thoroughly? I hope you weren't ever in charge of anything sharp.
Further, did you even read my previous posts? I specificially told you that destroying hard and deeply buried targets is about more than just consecutive impacts. Honest. It just doesn't work that way.
None of the weapons you've mention, and none of the bizarre tactical applications you've imagined, will put a dent in a hardened, deeply buried facility. Again, that's why the experts say they need a new weapon.
Honestly, there's no point arguing if you're not going to listen. I've told you over and over: the weapons you keep looking up don't work for the purpose. Continually turning up with, "Look, this one says "penetrator" in the name!" doesn't change the fact.
When a rocket scientist tells you, counterintuitively, that a satellite must slow down to achieve a higher orbit, just believe him. That's why he's a rocket scientist.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Quoth Snoota:
What is the Lt. Colonel insignia, anyway? I just remember it's some sort of leaf or something to do with a tree and made no sense to me.
It's a silver oakleaf. 
You know the story behind our rank?
It goes back to Roman times. Back then, silver was more valuable than gold, because you had to mine silver, and gold could be found lying about in streams.
So a 2nd Lieutenant's pay was one small bar of gold, as was his insignia. A 1st Lieutenant got a small bar of silver, and a Captain got two; their insignia matched.
On the other end of the rank chart, it was well known that generals were godlike in their power and scope of responsibility, so they were given stars to wear. Colonels, being the messengers of the gods, were given fierce eagles.
Finally, since everyone knows Majors and Lieutenant Colonels are dicks, they were given leaves to cover themselves with.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
You keep saying you have some knowledge of this subject: exactly what did you do in the Navy? Were you a targeteer? Did you work intel for an air wing? Were you somehow involved in planning air strikes?
I was a Fire control tech 2nd class....and before you ask I did exactly what i was told to do, when i was told to do it.
"I'm not just talking from a generic "I'm in the Air Force, so I know about bombs" perspective. I literally do this for a living. The people who work for me are the ones who match weapons to targets and who plan air strategy. I'm not just making this up."
Understand please up til 3 posts ago I had no clue who you were or why exacly you were a expert for all I knew you were some teenager
Please quit assuming that simply because a weapon has "penetrator" in the title it is magic.
I dont think they are magic I mearly have limited knowledge in their function.. if it says it can pene trate 20- 30 ft of concrete or 100 ft of soil, I assume that they can chain borruw down to a target eventualy.
you say they cant given your postition, I'll belive you
For example, do you have the faintest clue what "thermobaric" means, or how that weapon works?
yes I know how these platforms are intended to work it seemed to me that they could be persicion guided to a known entrance/exit ventilation shaft and be of some effect. if you say they cant be again I'll defer to your judgement.
And the underground bunkers we're talking about--the term "hard and deeply buried target" has a specific meaning well outside ordinary bunkers--are not average. They are buried under hundreds of feet of dirt and concrete and are specifically designed to withstand shock.
my only question about this is who other than the US and some command bunkers in the former USSR has these type bunkers that take a great time and even greater expense to build? hopefuly any activity in creating such a center would be monitored by our intellegence services.
Normal weapons don't do the trick. again I'll defer to you on this as your credentials know that they are known are impressive
That's why, you see, the experts are asking for a new weapon.
Additionally, please explain WTF strip mining has to do with anything? no the strip mining bit was to show that over a given amount of time and enough you can literaly move a mountain. at the time it seemed that the person i was talking to didnt seem to follow my example that a chain of BB's potentialy could burrow down deeper than jsut 20ft or 100ft (soil)
Further, did you even read my previous posts? I specificially told you that destroying hard and deeply buried targets is about more than just consecutive impacts. Honest. It just doesn't work that way.
honestly i must of missed that post..i noticed where you mentioned conventional weapons woulnt work and the MOAB wount work.. although i was thinking it might collapse poorly built bunkers that were not to deep or if at a entrance create pressure wave that would kill/disrupt personel inside
None of the weapons you've mention, and none of the bizarre tactical applications you've imagined, will put a dent in a hardened, deeply buried facility. Again, that's why the experts say they need a new weapon.
OK i beleive you
____________
I have been shown that apparently there is need for some nuclear platform to seek out and destroy some uber bunkers. now tell me why the current Peacekeeper MX missile or a variant cant do this job if used with a nuclear warhead? with the advances in accuracy shouldnt a direct hit with one of those take care of the problem? or are these bunkers so deep and so well protected that even in a direct strike damage would be so slight that it would remain operational? [ 11-30-2003: Message edited by: Somthor ]
quote:
Somthor wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
~snip~
quote:
Tarquinn startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
Owned by UBB-code doesn't even BEGIN to describe it.
Hehe. That was painful.
~~~
Somthor,
No current nukes won't do the job. I keep saying this: that's why the experts are asking for a new weapon.
When one mentions "hard and deeply buried," that usually means relatively impervious to surface nuclear strikes, also. And a big reason for the new weapon is to minimize the effects a surface burst would have on the environment.
Current nukes are not design as deep penetrating weapons. The new weapon needs to be very small yield, and highly penetrating; nothing currently in the inventory fits that description. The current arsenal, remember, is designed as a deterrent, not to plink bunkers.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Sakkra said this:
That was worth it just for the picture of Allah.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
so they create a new platform...at least its good for the economy creates jobs etcetc...maybe some new tech that can be applied to the general market
________________________
let me ask you this what about a low orbit platform that used kinetic energy to destroy its target? by this i mean the firing of a dense projectal at hypersonic speeds (perhaps my head for instance) we dont have that now but it would be a nice non nuclear option
#1 - Supplying it with ammo. Regular shuttle missions going up to the sattelite to fill it with fuel (Since a weapon like that would have to change its orbit frequently) and more ammo.
#2 - As it is, NASA has enough troubles with weather and flight conditions for the shuttles returning to earth. Shuttles have very strict flight windows they have to make to be able to return safely. And the shuttles are given maneuvering thrusters and whatnot to compensate. Now, that rock you're lobbing from space doesn't have maneuvering thrusters. What's to stop that rock you're tossing from hitting some unexpected atmospheric turbulence and hitting the civilian center a mile away from the hardened target you're aiming at?
Now, I'm not an expert in anything. I went to space camp, though, so I'm sure that makes me just as smurt as mister PH.D in rocket science and physics~
Well, not really, but those are the problems that I, personally, can see.
EDIT - I'm not 100% sure on this point, but I'm going to include it anyways. If I'm wrong, someone should correct me here.
The amount of force that a blunt object would require to penetrate, would have to be several orders of magnitude larger than a penetrating nuclear weapon would be. Meaning it's like trying to drill a hole with a drill and a spoon. The drill would make less of a mess and be far more efficient, the spoon may get the job done but it'll be messy and require far more force. A blunt force would send tonnes and tonnes of dirt and dust into the air. Not quite as bad as a nuclear winter but it'd still do far more damage to the local vicinty, and it would probably cover a MUCH larger area with hazardous (To your lungs) particles, than a nuke would cover with radiation.
Which is worse - irradiating the area for a mile around, or covering fifty miles around with dust clouds that'll screw up everyone's lungs? [ 11-30-2003: Message edited by: Khyron ]
Not to mention that such a projectile would heat up while traveling the atmosphere and possibly split up with some nasty consequences. [ 11-30-2003: Message edited by: Shazorx / Modrakien ]
quote:
Blindy Claus had this to say about pies:
Seriously, get over the fact that it's a nuke. You probibly get more radiation from the sun every day.
Only if you live in Australia.
If your iron rod is 10 kilos and we take the inpact velocity at 10 km/s, then in SI units:
KE = .5 * 10 * (10000 ^ 2) = 500,000,000 joules
I dont think there would be as much fallout as you think.. the main problem being keeping the darn thing from burning up on reentry
quote:
Nobody really understood why Somthor wrote:
well according to someone eleses mathIf your iron rod is 10 kilos and we take the inpact velocity at 10 km/s, then in SI units:
KE = .5 * 10 * (10000 ^ 2) = 500,000,000 joules
I dont think there would be as much fallout as you think.. the main problem being keeping the darn thing from burning up on reentry
That, and making sure its trajectory isn't totally fucked by weather conditions and other shit. And making it as cost-effective as a mini-tac-nuke would be.
Let's say you could get a 40 meter asteroid composed mainly of nickel-iron going about 1e8 m/s, or .33c. Its relativistic KE would be about 1.4E21 J, or about 1.4 teratons (a million megatons). A properly-aimed volley of them would ruin a planet in short order.
Now let's say we dropped a 40 meter asteroid of nickel-iron from orbit. Ignoring friction, the best you could do is G for acceleration. You'd wind up with about 1.3e15 J of energy at impact, or 300 about kilotons.
Seems like an awful lot of effort for a piddly 300 kilotons as an upper limit. [ 11-30-2003: Message edited by: Karnaj ]
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj's account was hax0red to write:
Like if you were waging interstellar war without the benefit of FTL...~snip~
...A properly-aimed volley of them would ruin a planet in short order.
Without FTL it would take, uh, a while.
Disclaimer: I'm just kidding, I love all living things.
The fastest draw in the Crest.
"The Internet is MY critical thinking course." -Maradon
"Gambling for the husband, an abortion for the wife and fireworks for the kids they chose to keep? Fuck you, Disneyland. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the happiest place on Earth." -JooJooFlop
the money spent would lead to new technolgies that could have a real impact (forgive the pun)
quote:
The propaganda machine of Gunslinger Moogle's junta released this statement:
Without FTL it would take, uh, a while.
What I meant was a volley launched in rapid succession. Obviously it would take many years for the asteroids to reach the intended target. The point is that they would devastate when they impact, because their kinetic energy would be in the teraton range.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Somthor's fortune cookie read:
well according to someone eleses mathIf your iron rod is 10 kilos and we take the inpact velocity at 10 km/s, then in SI units:
KE = .5 * 10 * (10000 ^ 2) = 500,000,000 joules
I dont think there would be as much fallout as you think.. the main problem being keeping the darn thing from burning up on reentry
If we assume that we can accelerate our hypothetical iron rod to that speed (most likely PAST that speed, as I doubt that terminal velocity of an iron rod is higher than 10km/s), while maintaining structural integrity, both in flight and upon the rapid deceleration occuring on impact, and that we can not only launch this rod at a target, but can do so accurately, compensating for atmospheric conditions, then, yeah, an iron rod launching satellite sounds like a great idea!
I can plug some numbers into a physics equation to look smart, too.
KE = 1/2mv^2
KE = 1/2(.00356394005kg)(1005.84m/s)^2
KE = 1802.84 J
That doesn't necessarily mean that the numbers have anything to do with the real world. Nice try, come again soon.
quote:
The Body Snatchers version of Karnaj wrote this:
Let's say you could get a 40 meter asteroid composed mainly of nickel-iron going about 1e8 m/s, or .33c. Its relativistic KE would be about 1.4E21 J, or about 1.4 teratons (a million megatons). A properly-aimed volley of them would ruin a planet in short order.
I fucked this part up. My mass was off by a factor of 1000, so re-doing the equation, you get a relativistic KE of 1.4E24 J, or 1400 teratons. That's what you get for doing steps in your head.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Palador ChibiDragon stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Question: After we use normal bombs and such to deal with the surface stuff, what's wrong with just paving over the enterance to such a bunker?
I dunno, what if during the pavement process you get a terrorist comin out all pissed?
(an yes, I think it's dumb that he's introducing nuclear warfare again)
quote:
Gembolah had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
(an yes, I think it's dumb that he's introducing nuclear warfare again)
How is he "introducing" nuclear warfare again? Don't read the news much, do you?
quote:
Liam stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
I dunno, what if during the pavement process you get a terrorist comin out all pissed?
Umm, you shoot him?
The bunker's only a problem if they're inside it. If they try to come out and defend themselves, you just pull your men back and bomb the defenders. Only one or two come out? Shoot 'em.
We can use a mixture of Navy Seals, Rangers, and Marine Recon to sneak deep into enemy territory and gain access to the bunkers. Then when everyone is asleep, they can paint doors where there are no doors and set off the alarms, so all the bad guys wake up and run towards the doors, not knowing that those doors are actually walls with doors painted on them, and knock themselves out like they're Will E. Coyote so we can take over the bunker without hurting the bad guys!! Because God forbid we take out the bad guys without risking the lives of our own countrymen. It's okay if they kill us, we can't kill them though that's not fair.
