40 percent more powerful than a MOAB....what are they planning?

[UpsideDownFlag]

http://www.local6.com/news/3899902/detail.html

Eglin Studying Massive 30,000-Pound Bomb
Bomb Would Be 40 Percent Bigger Than MOAB

POSTED: 1:01 pm EST November 8, 2004
UPDATED: 1:13 pm EST November 8, 2004

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -- The Air Force built a weapon so big it was nicknamed "Mother of All Bombs" on the eve of the war with Iraq, but MOAB would be dwarfed by a much larger munition now under study.

The proposed Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, would weigh 30,000 pounds, nearly 40 percent more than the 21,000 pound MOAB -- officially Massive Ordnance Air Blast -- that never saw combat.

"The reason it's heavier than MOAB is that it has to penetrate a target," said Fred Davis, technical director for assessment and demonstrations at the Air Force Research Laboratory's Munitions Directorate.

[davepc]

1. trying to find something with most of the effect of tactical yield nukes

but none of the political fallout.

[UpsideDownFlag]

2. yeah....can you say "fallujah"? nt

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

37. Does this "Moab" have a picture of Jesus on it???

Just wondering:puke:

[ret5hd]

3. just a point on your topic...

40 percent bigger, not 40 times bigger.

just a note, not a criticism.

[UpsideDownFlag]

5. wow, that's a good edit. my bad. nt

[BrewerJohn]

4. 40 percent more != 40 times more

This news still sucks, but it's not as bad as your subject line indicates.

[Spinzonner]

6. And of course we'll need a new intelligence capability

to identify things worthy of dropping it on.

I'd be tempted to say 'Stop the Insanity' but I no longer have any hope of even slowing it down.

[Ready4Change]

7. Question to all?

I know this is potential flame bait. I don't mean it to be so. I'm wondering what the logic is here.

Why is the development of a bigger bomb such a horric concept? Sure it's horribly destructive. But to do the same job with smaller bombs you'd have to use a LOT more of them, with a higher risk of off target drops and even more innocent lives lost.

Is the reaction here due to this being a larger bomb, or that money is being spent to develop ANY new weapons? Or is it something else I'm missing?

Thanks.

[UpsideDownFlag]

8. because it has the same effect as carpet bombing, but its legal. nt

[Ready4Change]

15. Smaller zone of effect than carpet bombing, I'd think.

Thanks for the response.

In my imagination, comparing 2 B-52s, one dropping one of these 30,000 bombs, the other dropping 30,000 lbs worth of smaller bombs. (30 1,000 pounders, for example.)

The single big bomb hits in one spot and creates a huge crater, big shock wave. (Or, in the case of this new weapon, penetrates and explodes far underground, creating a far smaller crater on the surface.)

OTOH, the 30 1,000 pound bombs, since they drop sequentially out of the B-52's bay while it travels somwhere between 200 and 600 mph, spread along a line maybe a half mile long. Some hit the factory or whatever they are targetted for, some hit short of the target, some hit long. All explode on the surface, and thus are a threat to innocents.

Finally, regarding the potential legality, I'd guess the single large weapon might be considered more legal because it's less of a risk to surrounding civilians? Or is there more to that than I know.

[da_chimperor]

21. To my knowledge dumb bombs are rarely used by the air force any more

mainly because they're inaccurate. The JDAM system that the air force orgasms over is cheap because it's just a guidance system and some movable fins fitted onto a regular dumb bomb. The only recent use of dumb bombs that I can recall of have been strikes by fighter-bomber aircraft in iraq. I don't think they drop unguided munitions from bombers anymore.

[sweetheart]

9. The reaction is the thin veil to using WMD's and nukes

If Nukes are WMD's then this giant monstrosity is one as well.

It is a terrorist's weapon, and to give it any legitimacy as a
"conventional" explosive is playing semantic games. For that matter,
a 2000 pound bomb, were it dropped in your neighborhood, would surely
be seen as a WMD terrorist attack, not a use of conventional arms.

The military mass murderers are attempting to trojan horse in a new
WMD, and that is reason to be concerned.

As well, there IS a difference from this weapon to smaller bombs, as
the air crew is much more vulnerable with such an explosive. It
will be rolled off a ramp, likely with a parachute the whole while
the aircraft taking anti-air.... whereas smaller ordinance (2000lb)
can be dropped from B52's B1's B2's or whatever that are at high
altitude and less exposed.

Bottom line, this is just legitimizing the use of WMD's by any army
against the USA, as we use them freely without conscience. Perhaps
when someone blows up such a weapon in washington DC, they'll come
to reflect on their precedent... perhaps not.

[kvining]

10. OK, I'll tell you

They will be used against Iranian nuclear facilities. Bombs of this type are used to destroy concrete, the people inside are merely incidental. When it comes to massacring people, we have plenty of stuff available to kill them by the thousands without using WMDs or MOABS. The A-130 gunships, which is essentially the same plane as your average airliner except is filled with Gatling guns and cannons that are computer controlled, can lay a bullet or cannon shell on the ground on computer grids measured in square inches, controlled by satellite to adjust for terrain. The computer flies the plane so it puts down a pattern of bullets and shells where nothing it flies over will be alive. It is loaded with tons of bullets and shells, and the reloading is computer controlled as well. It is an automated death angel. As such if simple mass murder was the goal, than this is a much more efficient weapon than a MOAB. Incidentally, they have been using AC-130 gun platforms in Fallujah, a civilian population center filled with hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children, for the past three days. If you want atrocity, you don't have to wait for this MOAB.

[DrWeird]

11. Really?

I thought bombs of this type was meant to defoliate jungle and give erections to republicans.

[kvining]

14. The plane or the bomb?

Bombs of this type are actually just larger and larger versions of the Oklahoma City terrorist bombs. They kncok down buildings and give Repugs erections. The planes defoliate and provide Newt with his Viagra boost.

[DrWeird]

24. I was under the impression...

That a MOAB was an upjumped daisycutter. Which was designed to defoliate Vietnamese jungle and got a second life as pornography for freepers.

[Ready4Change]

28. Daisycutters were used for that, and other things as well.

They could collapse a hills worth of tunnels, and the compression could take out harder bunkers. I think I read somewhere that the foliage clearing use wasn't their original intended use, and it hasn't been the intended use of any of their more recent developments.

[Stephanie]

17. oh good lord that is a terrifying post

But I fear you are right about Iran. I think they will bomb the nuclear sites in Iran. Iran is next on their list anyway.

[theboss]

19. I think we will bomb Iran without an "invasion"

Similar to what Israel did to Iraq in the 80s.

[kvining]

27. Exactly

The Israelis pioneered the technique. First plane drops a bomb to put a big hole in the reactor. Then smaller fighter planes put precision weapons in the hole. Exactly how they did Saddam in the 80s, and he never got over it. The Iranians are a harder target, so they are just building a bigger bomb to make the hole in the reactor. Of course, the difference is that Saddam was in the middle of constucting his. We will be attacking an operating reactor. Anyone seen "The China Syndrome" ? Also, both Iran and NK may get nervous and hit us first.

[sweetheart]

30. There was a spectre video here on DU a while back

DS1 (du poster) had it, if i remember correctly. It was about 5
minutes of live camera footage of a A-130 night attack on mosque,
with the gunmen's voices (american pilots) saying things like "ooh
got him. Look at that one run take 'im down.." As what looked
like scurrying ants on the ground below ran and ran until not a
single one was left moving. It was all infrared footage, and it was
sickening to watch the bodies fly apart, fly in to the air or just
drop like limp sacks to the ground.

I would not dispute that it is a war criminals weapon, that.
Everyone in that area was simply targeted for termination, and this
big machine took them down. It did not seem to be so computer
controlled, however. The circling might have been, as it seemed
the pilots were only focused on making sure 100% of everyone in the
area were killed... like for keeping their video game scores high.

[Ready4Change]

29. Ok, I can see the thin veil argument.

While I'm not convinced if it's validness, I CAN see the logic to that thought line. Thanks.

(RE Validness. Don't think this is near nuclear in explosive power, and it definietly doens't have the radiation effects, both long and short term.)

RE Delivery methods. I think B-52s drop from on high, but B-1bs and B2s drop from lower down. Increases accuracy, lessens the amount of time they are exposed to ground fire and detection methods, respectively. But, if this new weapon had to be dropped from low and slow, then the crew would be exposed. Point.

RE Legitimizing WMDs: I'm not sure the size of the bomb is the issue. Does it matter if you kill 3,000 people with a single big bomb, or 2 airliners, ir 10,000 bullets, or a single executioners sword? Not IMO, but I'm not everyone.

Thanks for the ponderables. I'll, er, be pondering. :hi:

[sweetheart]

32. Americans should get to see our own weapons

I'm pretty sure that if we were allowed on to a test range to see
a small nuclear device detonated, and one of these 15 ton Moabs
detonated side by side, i'm sure the difference would register, and
that any observer would give both weapons WMD status. I'm sure that
if we detonated a 2000 pound bomb for american civilian observers
who stand in a trench 200 yards away, that it would be given WMD
status as well. The military has been glib with this term WMD's..
and then we've been given a load of bollocks about how terrible
suicide vests are.

Because of the low and slow problem, and the fact that iran's
anti-air defenses are quite significant, i don't believe that they
will get near any reactors with that thing. The amount of
preparatory bombing it would take to soften up iran to remove the
anti air and whatnot would be a full scale war in itself, and
retaliation would already be sinking US warships and all kinds of
full scale war nightmare scenarios as well.

You left out the classic republican argument from your WMD's list..
after executioners sword, you should have said "abortion doctor's
knife" and that abortion doctors are the worst WMD's of the lot...
this is how pathetic and twisted this whole mess about WMD's has
gotten... and how sick the US fundie whacko's have taken their war
talk.

On consideration, i would call any weapon that is not carried and
fired by an individual solder, a weapon of mass murder. Artillery
barrages can kill as many as bombings. Air-fuel bombs kill also
as effectively. Even a humbee with a machine gun can kill 100's
without trouble. When such weapons are used outside the rule of law,
then we are in trouble. What concerns me is rather not the weapons,
but that they are used by criminals operating against the law.
(bush: aggressive war)

[alfredo]

20. Remember, any weapon they develop and test on foreigners

can be turned on us.

[Ready4Change]

26. Sure can. I'm still more worried about bullets.

I'm not convinced I'm worth a 30,000 bomb. (Much though my ego wants to object :) )

[alfredo]

35. US mercenaries are using exploding bullets

on Iraqis. That was one reason those mercenaries were burned and hung in Falluja.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Will this bomb have a nucular tip?

------------------------------------------------------------
Help expose the election 2004 voter fraud today!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[da_chimperor]

22. Nope, nukes don't have to be anywhere as big

If it was a nuclear bunker-buster, it would probably be similar in size and weight to current bunker-buster bombs.

[theboss]

13. They are planning attacks on Iraq and North Korea

Any targets in those areas are going to be deep underground in concrete bunkers.

[kvining]

16. ---

Which is exactly what these bombs work best against. They make a huge crater, and they also knock down any above ground buildings as well. They are not nuclear tipped, but they are tipped with depleted uranium or some type of tunneling charge to push it into the concrete before the main bomb explodes. After they make a nice hole, smart bombs will be dropped thru the hole. A nuke would work just as well. Politicaly, these are much perferable. In the end, this adds up to an attack on Iran or NK. There are no targets in Iraq or Syria suitable for this weapon.

[Stephanie]

18. this is the most terrifying post

And I know that you are right.

[AG78]

23. Good article about this issue

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3932

It's on Gaffney's to-do list.

[kvining]

25. Iran

If we do Iran, we will probably just wipe out their nuke facility. Iran is not a desired piece of property by the neo-cons. The next actual invasion will be of Syria. This gives a continous landmass that stretches from the Med to the Persian gulf. Geo-politically, it achieves the main PNAC goal, which is to prevent any other superpower from arising. We get control not of all the oil, but the pipelines - the faucet so to speak. China gets too powerful. we shut it off heading east. Europe, heading west. Its all quite simple really.

[mediaman007]

31. They have way too much money and time. Now that they have it,

they will want to use it!

Are you listening Iran?

[UpsideDownFlag]

36. i was thinking more along the lines that this would be used for fallujah's

final solution of 'phantom fury' doesnt go well.

[sangh0]

33. It's propoganda

Whenever war heats up, they start talking about new and bigger weapons. They hardly ever live up to their promise.

They are as effective as the candy and flowers those Iraqis threw at our troops because they're made of the same stuff...lies.

[Algorem]

34. What are these generals overcompensating for,impotence or

constipation?